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

02:12:02

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 in liberation of any hierarchy of the patriarch, correct?
	Well, uh, 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 Lucy O'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, Lucy O'Ball from Hell, who's praying on the children.
	And this is all the way in Perth, Australia.
	In the theme of diversity, I mean, I'm gonna do my own story time now.
	I'm gonna do my own story time.
	I figured if the ugliest Lucy O'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.
	Uh, just in case you were wondering, and it here it is.
	Uh you're the first to see it.
	It's now called Drag Queen Pinata, Tolerance for the Mexican Tradition by Dean Ryan.
	And that's Drag Queen Pinata, Tolerance for the Mexican tradition by Dean Ryan.
	And I'm telling you, um, I think it's gonna be a big hit.
	And I'm talking about the uh hit that little Timmy's gonna be doing, but uh, I think it's gonna be a just marvelous success.
	In fact, I even uh hired Lucy O'Ball to be the first hit and be the actual pinata.
	I think that's a lot fun.
	So that's gonna 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?
	The Living Show.
	In the two decades since one of the most frightful days in American history, and darkest days in world affairs, courage and the amount of it comes from a place of solitude, 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 proficient issues happenings that took place on September 11th.
	And now, we get to the bottom of it.
	Real Deal Media presents Real Deal The Bates Between Joe Benzer And Sir Richard Cage The
	Bates No second flight, it was a bomb.
	Bombing another building, not like a plane.
	That was a bomb.
	That was a bomb.
	That 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 one an exciting night to be alive.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Uh This is a one and done kind of deal, a one and only uh rare occasion here at Real Deal Media, as it is the 9-11 debate.
	I am Dean Ryan, your debate host, moderator to some, as uh tonight is uh quite the uh spectacle.
	Uh, we're gonna be seeing two legends take the stage here in Duke and Out, like we've never seen before, and a real real uh 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.
	Uh, you may know him uh from uh the shows that I do with him uh each and every week.
	Uh he hosts his own show, and he does a lot of shows and many, many books.
	He's authored.
	Uh is a gentleman who was the original founder of uh 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 average he's done to create public interests and concern over 9-11, especially by focusing on building seven, which uh 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 uh 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.
	Uh, one of the founders and of the architects and engineers from 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 to the hello, Jim.
	Great to be here with you guys.
	This is gonna be awesome tonight.
	And yeah, I agree that uh building seven is the uh the the thing the the the piece of evidence that knocks everything over.
	And since we agree on building seven tonight, we're not gonna discuss that.
	I'm gonna miss it personally.
	Yes, that is true.
	That is true.
	Good point there.
	Okay, let's uh this is how it's gonna work here.
	As uh we have both gentlemen that are ready to go here.
	Is uh we're we're gonna see um just who's gonna be the winner here tonight.
	Uh towards the end of the debate, uh, we're gonna be asking the live chats as we are broadcasting live on the real Dean 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 gonna be asking everybody to vote uh towards the end of the event here.
	And the winner wins a prize from the real deal media store.
	Isn't that something special?
	And a uh 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 uh I'm going to uh set it all.
	Is everybody okay with that?
	We got the rules here.
	Uh Jim, uh, are we good with that?
	Richard, we're all good.
	I'm good with the cruise.
	Vote for me.
	Go for it.
	Yes.
	Uh, no cheating, too, no uh no hitting, no biting, all that stuff.
	Um, but uh we're we're gonna tackle uh two major differences, right?
	Would you say there's at least two major differences between the the both of you?
	At least.
	Yes, if at least okay.
	Uh, you know, one of the big ones that comes to mind, I think uh is uh we're gonna talk about first here is uh nukes versus no nukes and thermite.
	Am I correct on that?
	I hope I'm soon the right turn on me.
	Okay, so uh because I don't have uh any bias at all, no favorites.
	I can have gotta be your favorite, Dean.
	I can't be well, I can't be bribed of uh that's for sure.
	Sure, Richard, I can't be bribed as uh you mentioned earlier.
	Uh, we're gonna flip a coin here, as you can uh plainly see here.
	Uh, we're gonna flip a coin here.
	I have a quarter that is well, it um was left in my pocket during laundry night.
	Uh, but anyways, I'm gonna ask the guys uh to tell me uh 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.
	Uh okay.
	Um, I uh this is a little too hard.
	He lost the coin, Jim.
	Um you know what?
	From this angle, it looks like heads to me.
	Uh I deferred to Richard to proceed.
	I'm glad okay.
	Yes.
	Um, it's live television.
	Anything uh in everything will happen.
	Go ahead.
	Um, 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 wonder I wanted to toss Dean and I elected for Richard to go first.
	That's what I thought.
	Yeah, okay.
	So uh Jim wants me to go first, I'll go first.
	Richard will go first, and then we'll get to Jim's uh 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.
	Uh, we're each gonna give a 15-minute presentation.
	Is that right?
	Uh Dean.
	That's right.
	And uh then we're gonna have five minutes to rebut that 15-minute presentation alternatively.
	Then we're gonna do that for no planes as well.
	So stand by, it's gonna be quite an easy that's right.
	That's right.
	Well, I don't want to show all my cards, but uh, go ahead and I will be awaiting.
	Uh go ahead.
	Richard Gage, everybody, here he goes.
	All right, thanks so much.
	Great to see you guys.
	Um 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 let's get going.
	Uh, by the way, most of this evidence that you're gonna see today, well, much of it, uh, is going to be uh in Washington, DC, uh, at our conference, turning the tide.
	So I want to invite everybody to it.
	If you can't make it to Washington, DC, which will Tucker is addressed, Tucker Carlson's addressing the conference, uh, and Ron Johnson is Senator Ron Johnson's addressing the conference, and uh so many other family members, firefighters.
	Uh live conference in person, 300 people in Washington, DC.
	If you can't be there, watch it on redacted.
	Well, you can get there by visiting our website, Richard Gage911.org.
	You can watch the live stream for free.
	Clayton Morris will be streaming all three days.
	So we're gonna begin uh today with the evidence of extreme heat.
	Now, this is not uh disputed uh between Jim and I. Uh we both talk about extreme heat.
	It's the source of that extreme heat.
	Well, the FEMA uh uh 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.
	Um not with sulfur on nuclear weapons.
	Um sulfur's 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 2500 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 so this is not lead, this is not aluminum.
	Uh, those don't glow bright orange yellow in daylight conditions.
	So we're finding the evidence and Of thermite.
	And in the 90-minute presentation that I gave on night one of this uh 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 uh if they are not in there, then it's not World Trade Center dust.
	So we have uh lots of uh 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.
	And for throughout 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 Harrit and Copenhagen find in all these seven independently collected chips that were sent to them the same thing.
	Uh they find uh aluminum and iron and anyway, right?
	Aluminum and iron.
	Uh so that's the ingredients of thermite.
	These particles are at the nano scale.
	They're found at that size, a thousand times smaller in the diameter of human hair throughout all the World Trade Center dust.
	And every all of these chips uh all seven samples that they collected, found have these.
	So this is not made by nuclear weapons either.
	These are unignited chips of nano thermite.
	And this is developed by Lawrence Livermore lab early on.
	They call it super thermite.
	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 upper section, it's 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 uh 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 uh which then traveled 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 uh explosions flash, flash, flash, they're seeing at the lower level of the building.
	Uh with popping sounds.
	Initially, an orange and a rig 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.
	Uh flash, flash, flash.
	Then it looked like the building came down.
	You ever see professional demolition charges?
	They say, uh, there's 156 of these first responders talking like this.
	One heard that friggin' noise, a figure.
	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 figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized, deliberate kind of thing, several that explosions that are synchronized, not one.
	Uh, 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 uh 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, uh, the South Tower.
	Uh, we 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 and dozens of others, are witnesses of explosions in the basement before the plane impact.
	No, there's no nuclear bomb going off before the plane impacts.
	I don't think Jim will uh suggest that.
	But we also have explosions before the building collapses.
	How far in advance?
	Uh, five seconds.
	The seismic signals occurring five seconds before the building even collapses.
	And that's important.
	And the same thing occurs over in uh the corruption by the way, this is corroborating the results of the 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 the bomb going off.
	Uh, 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 uh at the uh at the point of plane impacts and then works its way back down somehow.
	Uh we have explosions going off uh in the South Tower, just like the firefighters described, second uh 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 uh independent, relatively small explosions all together, 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.
	Uh, what's pulverizing the concrete?
	This is where Jim and I disagree.
	Um, we found that concrete is not is pulverized By temperatures, high temperatures, 1500 degree Fahrenheit temperatures, which is not high for thermite.
	We have three, four, and five thousand 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.
	That's a that it's fire safety journal says same thing at 2200 degrees Fahrenheit.
	Concrete specimens subjected to a temperature of 1200 degrees, uh 2200 degrees Fahrenheit were completely decomposed.
	Concrete decomposes.
	That's what's decomposing the concrete, thermite, three and four thousand 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 a fire 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 nano thermite.
	They also had access through the core columns and beams, uh core columns in the building, which had immediate access to the excuse me.
	They had access to the elevators in the bit 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 um 100 uh or 90 uh in the north tower.
	And uh 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, uh, and I'm gonna suggest that there's no evidence.
	This is from AE911 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.
	Um, we have quite uh a lot of radiation that would be uh produced, uh, an extremely loud bang, which was not heard, uh, and one bang, and uh brightness levels that are 10,000 times brighter than the sun, they say.
	Uh so we also don't have uh this is a long FAQ, and I refer you to FAQ number 15 and AE911 truths.
	If nuclear blasts had occurred at the World Trade Center, we'd have many secure acute uh radiation syndromes cases, and um we don't have this.
	Uh not nothing uh uh from those conditions.
	We can't assume that the WTC cancer cases are related to uh radiation.
	Uh, there's uh a host of problems associated with uh that theory.
	Uh the tritium that's found uh is is way below the levels that would be expected in any nuclear event.
	The U.S. geological survey does not uh prove radioactive fallout in the that's it.
	Richard, yeah, Richards.
	Sadly, we have to end it there, but you did a great job.
	Um, you know, I I'm sure Jim's gonna have a lot to uh dissect uh when uh we get to that point.
	But uh all right, so let's get Jim on the floor here.
	You did very well, very well.
	Thank you very much.
	Uh Richard, we'll come back to you.
	Okay, here let's go here.
	Uh Jim, are you ready?
	Are you ready to follow that act right there?
	Go right ahead.
	Okay, so you're gonna hear uh Jim's take on uh the potential, if not uh more than possibility of nukes.
	Here we go.
	Just on a word or two about Richard's early slides.
	I think when you had the uh 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 uh molten iron, but the Fiji Bank building had a whole series of batteries there, and they appear to have been melting from the from the its lead.
	It's not molten steel.
	Good point.
	Uh, should we allow Richard to respond?
	You want Richard to respond to that real quick?
	He's gonna 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 contrast, and I'm not only going to talk about uh you know Richard's views, but the others as well.
	Uh here we go.
	It was a tube within a tube designed 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.
	Yeah, what we witnessed was this blowing apart in every direction from the top down, not the kind of crunching uh uh uh uh jam pack that the government insists occurred, which wasn't even physically possible, as uh Chuck Baldwin has observed for every unit of downward force from those top floors.
	There were 118 units of upward.
	Sean 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.
	Uh, nanothermite is uh you know, incendiary.
	It's you it does achieve high temperatures, but it has very limited explosive force, only one-thirteenth 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 would 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, uh, that bombs had to have been used.
	And I submit he was on the right track.
	Yes, it's correct that hence 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 an additional effects taking place.
	Uh, 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 uh, 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 ferritic 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 nano using uh 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 got the buildings as 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 6100 meters per second to explode cement, a detonation velocity of 3200 meters per second, kerosene, a 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 Herrett, in an associate professor of chemistry from Copenhagen is 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 quite enormous quantity of high quality evidence that functions as a partial foundation for evaluating alternative explanation.
	What she has done is classically been referred to as a prolonged prologue of a prelude to fuel fruit or research.
	The word indirect believes in her sun title, since indirect evidence of direct 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 micronutes 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 a 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 tritium that were obtained, which was scientifically irresponsible.
	The idea that directed energy weapons were used is seriously undeveloped.
	Or 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 many are micronukes, not to mention a new positron antimatter technology, satisfy both conditions.
	For the latter, and best how it was done, serious students that check out the Vancouver hearings, or invited Judy and John Hutches and to speak.
	John had already agreed when Judy cut him off.
	The U.S. Geological Survey does 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 are 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, can pancreatic, esophageal cancel, 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 hot spots that endured until mid-December.
	I dare say there's no way in which nanothermite or conventional explosive or duke 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 tree 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.
	And Jim, uh, did you get everything down there?
	Is that uh that's good.
	That's good.
	That's good.
	Okay, okay.
	Just want to make sure actually, you're right.
	I think there was one more uh that's another slide I had.
	Let me let me pull it up since I have the time.
	Uh you're you're right.
	Here, here it is.
	Can you see it?
	he points about the heat.
	I'll just say them.
	Uh they're significant indeed.
	Uh the endurance of the heat, the intensity of the heat till mid-December.
	Here you guys beneath Manhattan was 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 2800 degrees Fahrenheit due to the ongoing underground fires.
	Impact on rescue and recovery, the intense heat of the cycles challenges for workers melting the soles of their shoes and requiring careful consideration for the safety of search and rescue dogs, thermal hot spots.
	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 on all these dump trops right off the bat the day after 115.
	Imagine how hard it would be in New York to lie up one dump top.
	He had 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, it's great.
	And we saw that in Lahana too.
	They got rid of all those uh structures and what have you.
	Okay, let's bring uh let's bring Richard Gage.
	Okay, Richard.
	Um, since Jim uh elected to have you go first.
	Um we're gonna have uh Jim pick up we have a response to Jim's right.
	You want to pick apart Jim's uh structure or his little presentation that we'll have Jim uh rebuttal yours go for it.
	Yeah, yeah, we each have five minutes to do that.
	Um thank you.
	Uh Jim, uh thank you for that uh great uh presentation.
	I I want to make some comments if you'll show my slide.
	Um dean.
	Uh we've got Jim mentioned that um we don't have uh we don't have uh molten iron or steel here, but uh lead well both lead and aluminum are not glowing in daylight conditions, so we're not talking about melted batteries or uh melted airplane.
	Uh A. B. Uh the there are several photos online that show the hot material uh being picked up by crab claw excavators, uh many of them.
	Uh it's three or four feet from the hydraulic uh lines, and they don't burn up.
	So that's a statement that's that's just not backed up.
	Um is it a good idea?
	No.
	Uh the spire, uh, Jim mentioned is not um, he says it's uh it's the it's the few remaining columns that stand 900 feet in the air for five seconds after the towers 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 uh lateral ejection by thermite uh or high energy explosives to suggest that it can't do that is simply uh a suggestion.
	It's not backed by evidence either.
	Uh, 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 um he he mentioned um that these uh diseases uh Chernobyl parallel the ones at the World Trade Center uh the 40 page paper produced by the AE 911 truth team in FAQ 14 is
	or 15, I think it is, 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.
	It can burn even underwater.
	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 led by Niels Herrod in 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 nanoscale.
	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 decision?
	Oh, sure.
	Go ahead, Jim.
	I like Richard's 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 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 one-thirteenth of TNT, why would you use only a tiny one-thirteenth as much TNT to equal the amount of explosive force of nanothermite?
	And as a point I made, when Neil Herod himself, whom Richard frequently signs, declares it would have taken 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.
	Okay.
	Yes, go ahead.
	Again, these chips that they thought were paint look like primer paint, but they're not.
	There's more than a ton of these throughout all the World Trade Center dust in the unignited forms.
	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 it was um for whatever reason uh unignited portions regarding the lateral ejection of these,
	we've got to have uh high energy explosives or propellants, such as thermite and nanothermite that have higher uh uh degrees of uh propulsion capabilities that you this is how you get a jet off the ground with prep propellants,
	and they 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 organizes American Scholars Conference and invited me to be the you know speaker.
	I met with Steve in the hallway the day before Saturday and said, Steve, do you still believe nanothermite to do everything you claim?
	Blow up Martha 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 another mite only has a detonation velocity 895 meters per second, or is it requires 3200 meters per second in order to destroy concrete 6100 meters per second to destroy steel?
	I knew we were off in fantasy land.
	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 nano thermite, and there was a revolution in scholars.
	Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others conducted a uh 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 uh really sensational while they were dismembering scholars sad to say, and I think it's because they wanted to predict uh 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.
	A nanothermite is a feeble explosive.
	One thirteenth the power of TNT, you'd be better off with TNT.
	Well, it's more devastating.
	But Jim, they couldn't you afford to use TNT, obviously, because that produces extremely loud bangs and very bright flashes, dead giveaways for control demolition.
	So this is the reason, presumably, that they went to uh thermite, and thermite can produce four, does produce four and five thousand degree temperatures, which we have already seen in the 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.
	Uh stand by there.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Uh listen, everybody, this is uh we're getting to the good stuff here.
	Uh, when we get back, we're gonna be getting into planes versus no planes, and that should be a real doozy.
	Uh, I can't wait uh because I don't think we really touched upon that uh too much in uh either of the presentations, unlike we uh we're gonna be doing here in the second half.
	Then I'm gonna make my best effort to start representing the uh DEWs, the do's do uh I'm gonna do the do uh and get the the guy's take on the uh take on that, as well as your QA.
	Uh, because and by the way, if you've already put questions, Try to um copy and paste those uh when we get to the QA uh part because I won't remember what those are and uh you might not uh either.
	So, anyways, we'll be back over this break.
	You're watching real deal media's incredible epic real deal debate here for 9-11.
	Don't go anywhere.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	but joining me for this effort tonight uh is somebody who is also known as the Big Kahuna.
	He was in the water early this morning with me riding the tsunamis.
	He's uh 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 um yeah.
	Fascinating.
	Yeah, he seems to have petered out, petered out.
	And uh who wore him better, ladies?
	You you you tell me because 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?
	Yeah.
	You know, I out of all the years I've known you, I've never seen your legs before.
	Now I'm now I'm oddly curious.
	Yeah, I was on a cruise ship.
	It was on a cruise ship, one of those things that you wow.
	Wow.
	Did you know?
	Did you know?
	Jim Fetzer is a award-winning leg body builder.
	He won first place.
	I never knew that.
	Uh well.
	See, Richard, you learn something new every time.
	Okay, we're gonna get back to it here.
	Uh, but before we do, uh tonight's show is brought to you by you, the members out there who make this possible.
	It's uh well, I'm still Dean Ryan who's cruising with you to uh slightly midnight and beyond here.
	I'm still him.
	But uh yes, you make it possible by going to uh give sengo.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.
	Uh, we also want to thank the nine owls, the visionaries with debonaires, the players from the Himalayas, the iconics, not ironics, for making this possible.
	And you can be a night owl too.
	All you gotta do is go to real dealmedia.tv and sign up tonight, 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 uh kind of content that you need, you want, and you could share with others uh the kind of uh information and intel you get from uh uh out of all of our uh 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.
	We're gonna 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 to the stage.
	Jim and Richard.
	Um, you know, uh, we're gonna get 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 uh time of uh the year around the September 11th.
	But um uh would you guys say, you know, that uh 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 of the Palestinians, And people are starting to scrutinize what in the hell is going on here.
	It was a train truck.
	Be who had umered and Benjamin Netanyahu.
	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 in 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 a fall of Syria, which is now run by a former IDF guy in Israeli students 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.
	And Richard, I'm sure you were going to say the same thing.
	So let me ask you 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 somebody in in the uh community?
	I mean, what was the the driving force uh of that?
	Uh was it years later?
	I mean, just no, it was 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 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 we I started uh this because I was angry uh because uh uh I had been lying to you on massive my world turned upside down.
	I knew I had to do something for buildings.
	I'm an architect.
	I had to get uh 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 uh they all they all agree with me, but very few of them do anything.
	Real quick too, and we're gonna uh get started with the plans versus no plans.
	Uh, September 10th and prior, uh, were both of you, any of you were you guys very politically astute, involved uh in in the the uh national discussion and discourse, or did that all change?
	I had begun uh initiated collaborative research on JFK in uh 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 and Associate Editor Centes, an international journal for epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science had to become involved.
	And I reached out to uh 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 Bradenton, telling us to turn on the TV.
	And when we did, there was the North Tower smoking, and we saw something happened with the South that wasn't entirely clear what.
	But when the buildings were destroyed, Ian 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 announcement lectures, announce some 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 nine hours.
	Wow.
	Well, we're we're gonna get started.
	And I guess when 9-11 happened, you know, I thought to myself, you know, in about 25 years, I'm gonna be hosting a debate between Jim Fencer and Richard Gantry.
	You know, that's the first thing that came to mind.
	Okay, so there we have it.
	Um, and we have the live chats are uh on fire here tonight on all three of them.
	Uh and thank you for uh that we're gonna get to your questions coming up soon, and then we'll get to the DEW.
	So right now we're gonna do planes versus no planes.
	Richard believes there's planes, Jim doesn't believe there's planes, and we're gonna make their they're gonna make their case for it.
	And uh we we're starting with Richard.
	Is that uh is that true true?
	Are we Richard or Jim?
	Would you like to go?
	I guess.
	I started last time.
	Why don't we have Jim's?
	Okay, so we're gonna have Jim go first.
	Uh there you go.
	And Jim, uh, we're gonna have uh Jim set up his um slide as he uh does that.
	Is a slide showing uh not yet.
	Go ahead and and find that out.
	And while you do that, uh we have a lot of people who are commenting.
	Um we have uh let's see here.
	We have 911 27, 247 saying gauge said himself many times flashes were seen and bangs were heard.
	Yes, the the bang that was heard around the world.
	Okay, uh, let's see on Rumble here.
	Uh 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.
	Uh okay.
	So, Jim, are we ready?
	Okay, we are I think we are yes.
	So here we have uh what's supposed to have happened with a plane that's flying at an impossible speed for a 767 at 700 to a thousand feet.
	Uh, 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 that is simply uh 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 the test of a Phantom jet fighter where it was set up on a railroad trussle and fired with a rocket into a nuclear resistant bunker, but shattered into a million little pieces would be an example.
	But 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 belief 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?
	I'll call you back.
	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 Billy 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 and Murray, which was under a steel scaffolding and uh 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 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 truth are 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 external to 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 911 Scholars.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 Masamo, 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't 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 sawed foreknowledge 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 psy-off?
	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 12.
	And what do you think about this interview?
	If you call your mother, would 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 in the passengers and cell phone calls in the video.
	They were taped in advance.
	An important update is a 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 that can 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 simulate their action was the most powerful act of deception that could ever be conceived.
	Meanwhile, update a repip of the disingenuous 9-11 truth movement started to take place in 2024, where 9-11 truth thoughting heads started talking about the planes, which they never did after this podcast with 9-11 plane research when it started go viral.
	It prompted 9-11 plane research and myself to shift through the 9-11 plane disinformation pedaled by the 11 truth movement.
	Meanwhile, Richard has been subjected to attack,
	as has I. 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 whole grands.
	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 dues 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 due 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 that 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 dues.
	Just look at that and compare it with the effect after that.
	Okay, Jim, um, that that concludes uh yeah, that's uh that's a very, very powerful picture there.
	Uh anyways, Jim.
	There you are.
	Okay, that concludes your argument uh for the case of new planes and new planes and all.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Uh, 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.
	Uh, if you can put it up on the screen.
	Yes, okay.
	Here we go.
	Uh, starting now.
	Uh right.
	I prefer to to this uh 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, uh 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 uh right away and and over the years, uh, all of which um have uh show real planes hitting towers and these fireballs uh 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 uh in such directional uh uh vector.
	So we have uh also a uh evidence that the these planes were heard, not just seen.
	Those videos show they are witnesses that show the the sound of the airplane and the sound of the impact, many of them.
	Uh Jim suggests that these planes were holograms, actually.
	Um but that wouldn't explain the the hearing of of these planes.
	Listen, you don't hear planes too often, uh especially loud ones.
	Here comes the plane.
	He hears it, he's looking up at it.
	Uh 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 and by the way, um, you can also see coming up.
	Uh 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 uh a video that is taken uh from the tunnel, and there's the plane and it goes into the tower, and there's this the explosion.
	So he catches that.
	There's two of those.
	Uh 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 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.
	Uh we uh I heard that plane come overhead again and again.
	This is Captain Uh Patterson talking about his captain, uh Mallory, uh, who said he saw the plane.
	Mallory described the thing came right over his head uh before it hit the building.
	And so many witnesses.
	I saw the plane hit the building, uh, the floor.
	The plane hit the a building above me in the stairwell.
	Shook violently.
	It shook violently.
	We smell 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 the building is 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 coworkers, Alicia, was trapped in the women's the room, the door jam had folded in on itself, and the sealed door was shut.
	There was a huge crack in 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 uh this gentleman, Michael Wright, was at, and that's the 81st floor.
	Now let's look at the the plane.
	We're told that this plane exited the building.
	So that would mean that it would be CGI, not hologram, but 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...
	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 masks 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 at the all the different videos that show this.
	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 it's a nose, as you'll see.
	This one shows it, this one shows it, 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 a an airplane nose.
	On the bottom right, you see the nose out.
	On the bottom left, you see uh the you see the plane nose in.
	I got a little stumped there for a minute.
	We also have uh 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 uh and concluded is that indeed the the the plane uh the the nose out comes after the plane.
	In other words, it's it's not the plane, the plane decelerated and stopped inside the building.
	What continued was the the nose out.
	Now watch carefully on the lower you well, you see this.
	This is another video of the plane hitting the building, and he he here 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 uh uh on the left side, right?
	Um here, right about here, you you see the plane whiz by.
	So uh no, that's not a hologram, no, it's not CGI.
	Uh, let's listen to Captain Richard Patterson who was tasked by the FBI along with his bin directed by the FBI.
	Brings me to the pieces of a jet that were strewn across Messie Street, etc.
	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.
	Uh uh smaller subassemblies, components, hydraulic actuators, electrical components, wiring, all sorts of stuff.
	Uh yeah.
	And were you picking those pieces up?
	And if so, why?
	So at one point we were instructed uh any wreckage was to be brought.
	Any of it could be moved, brought to uh there was a collection point.
	And then uh 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 uh engineer, but obviously larger parts of uh what could have been the plane at the north tower as well, for that matter, right?
	Okay, and we have Richard Bilicki climbed over human uh dead bodies and body parts as well as pieces of aircraft fuselage, uh fallen building debris uh 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 they're the evidence for control demolition.
	We uh I won't argue this plane part because I don't know the details, um, but we have pieces of uh uh of equipment uh like this uh life raft.
	We have uh on top of building five, we have uh a fuselage section, uh we have this piece.
	Uh we we see the number, it's been pieced together.
	Uh and we have an aircraft uh wheel stuck in this exterior structural steel connection landing on Cedar Street several blocks away.
	Uh there's many photographs of this.
	That's a piece of landing gear that just happened to neatly slice uh into the gap between the structural steel columns on the exterior.
	Uh we have this piece, which uh Jim refutes, um, but um I I'm 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 uh we've we've the the impact uh opening uh on the uh has been mischaracterized uh as roadrunner type thing, but look at it on the right.
	It's it's actually not that you can't hardly tell that, for instance, the South Tower, particularly is even a plane.
	Uh we have damage that is easily recognizable as the size of the airplane.
	What created this damage?
	Uh thousands of gutter charges uh that that are perfectly timed that uh that not timed but placed to look exactly like an aircraft.
	And was the the wing uh cutting the this the vertical columns?
	No, it cut the cladding.
	The aluminum cladding is is fragile.
	You can see here that the cladding was pulled removed off of the vertical columns.
	Um 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 is 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.
	Uh the the energy the kinetic energy is doubled by doubling quadrupled by doubling the velocity.
	So can water penetrate steel?
	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 with can a ping pong bail ball tr 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, uh, as you see in this analysis here, computer analysis, not too different than an egg slicer, where the plane is the egg or the the uh 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 gonna hurt.
	You fill that beer can full of of liquid, and all of a sudden you got a whole different um uh uh energy.
	So uh quote the kinetic energy quotient.
	Uh and this um is accepting uh that the 70 percent uh 70 percent decrease in velocity in their analysis.
	Um we have observed deceleration of UA175 during the impact at the South Tower in this uh analysis by uh this author and our Ackham 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 analyses 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 the the in this video.
	There's the plane, and all of a sudden you can actually see if you look carefully at the upper part that it it's it's swaying back and forth up to three feet.
	Um, and you can you can tell because these columns are three feet four inches on uh apart from each other, and you can see them as the sway uh uh against the uh the 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 or out of time.
	Uh like a minute more to go.
	Do you want to finish your uh thought there?
	Yeah, uh this is the uh measured oscillation of the World Trade Center too after impact.
	Uh we we have observed the left wing going behind.
	And finally, I just wanted to show me 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 CGI, they got the bit the placement of that building wrong.
	It's just kind of an optical illusion.
	So all this evidence is coming up.
	Um, not all of it, much of it, uh, at the turning in the tide conference in Washington, DC, with Senator Ron Johnson, who's called for a new investigation.
	Encourage all of you to come.
	Tucker Carlson himself will be directing uh his uh message to uh the the members of the the Turning of the Tide Conference, the 9-11 truth movement.
	He's actually speaking at a 9-11 truth movement after denying uh early on uh anything uh the valid that they have to say.
	Yeah, for Ron Johnson to be there too.
	That's a big deal.
	Okay, let's bring uh Jim up to the uh floor here.
	We'll have uh Jim, you heard what Richard said, which flies no pun intended in the face of your argument.
	Uh well, there'd be a lot there to disentangled in.
	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, I 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 light 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 1200 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 uh Ezercani video from the side, Evan 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?
	Uh, as Jim is uh alluding to there.
	I mean, because I hate being played.
	Uh you want to rebuttal to uh Jim's rebuttal.
	Well, um uh the the sound coming from a plane 1200 feet to the side, projecting a hologram.
	I'm not saying that technology doesn't exist, but 1200 feet uh 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 1200 feet away, I mean the and and what we're they're hearing is the sound of that plane.
	Well, what 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 uh such direction.
	We heard it too.
	The audio, the audio, you're right, Richard.
	I I we I did hear an airplane in uh your footage earlier.
	Uh Jim, how do we explain the audio?
	And then we're gonna take some questions because we are running out of time, uh, guys, here tonight.
	Go ahead, Jim.
	Explain the audio, and in my presentation, Richard might want to review.
	I explained that it 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 use 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, uh, we are running out of time, everybody.
	We could go for another uh three to two days at this point.
	Uh, but let's get some questions, and I'm gonna bring up DEWs too, as promised.
	Uh, let's uh let me sort of rumble.
	Uh, here we go with well, right off the bat.
	Uh we have something girl saying, why wasn't Jim invited to uh your turning the tide conference, Richard?
	Uh that's a good point.
	You know, Jim uh he was there in the beginning, you know, with a lot of the other organizations.
	Uh why is was uh why was not Jim, who's one of our legends uh invited, uh, Richard.
	I don't know.
	It wasn't discussed.
	He he wasn't uh excluded.
	Um, but he probably would have been.
	Um if it were discussed, uh, Jim has some unusual views, as you've unusual and un in my opinion, and the opinion of most in the 9-11 truth movement, not backed up uh by science, as you've seen in this debate on both mini nukes and the World Trade Center.
	Um the planes at the World Trade Center.
	So um 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 insert the Richard.
	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, I I and none of my work comes from me.
	I bring together the best expert 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 is scholars for 9-11 truth.
	Uh, in all honesty, uh, Jim, do you think it's because you actually long ago, before even uh 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 uh 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 goobly good 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.
	Uh we have I uh we can talk about it right now if you want.
	And and who is uh peripherally responsible given the dancing Israelis, etc.
	etc.
	etc.
	of the Mossad and Israel.
	And um, so I I spent a long it's been a long time.
	We can have a part two, and um let's go further.
	Uh we're gonna take some questions, and I 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.
	Um here we go.
	Uh okay.
	So in in regards of uh direct energy weapons, uh, what are we, you know, uh just to bring back uh some um good old American cheer here?
	Uh, what are our thoughts about that?
	I asked the audience and our uh our uh patrons here at the Dais.
	Uh the direct energy weapons, as you can see right here.
	Uh they have a uh passage of rant by the government.
	Uh they're already coined over there, is the target they're used for targeted individuals, as we had Anatolina uh on the show to tell us.
	Um is it crazy to think, and because I've always often wondered, and uh either one of you can answer this too.
	Um, and I'm not the most skilled in the do's, but uh how do we explain, as Jesse Ventura once uh begged the question, how do we explain all the loose leaf paper uh going around flying everywhere if uh direct energies weren't used?
	And I kind of subscribe to the the fact that I think it was a combination of everything that could have been used because it was such an early on uh you know, kind of an event before this new technology came out, and they probably didn't know which was gonna land or didn't, but how do we explain the loose leaf uh paper?
	Uh who wants to take a stab at that?
	This is not a mystery, Dean.
	Uh a big plane hits a big building full of paper, and paper's gonna go flying everywhere.
	That is not a mystery.
	It doesn't all burn up because it's not all impacted by by inside the the flame ball, the fireball.
	Well, that that ends the show, everybody.
	Uh we want to wish you a good night.
	Uh one more point.
	I'd go I've I've you rich.
	I've issued go ahead, Richard.
	Finish your thought.
	Go right ahead.
	Well, 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 might support your conference, Richard.
	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 it.
	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 uh the no there uh in the in the 90-minute presentation that I gave on night one of this three-night series.
	I gave 30 different arguments against do.
	I I was actually more debating do like Jim tonight, uh, than um then many nukes.
	Um, so um I I encourage everybody to look at those detailed discussions uh about that.
	The paper is just uh uh an irrelevant um uh factoid.
	It's it's it's it's not indicative of anything.
	Well, okay, very good point, but uh it it means uh paper means things to me.
	Okay, let's go to a different one here.
	We have um uh a lot of people on Rumble.
	Uh we have the real General Mahadi says Jim goes pretty hard against uh Israel.
	That's probably why he's not invited.
	Yeah, well, you know, a lot of the actually uh I I support Jim and laud him for his early naming of of these uh co-perpetrators, right?
	Uh conspirators, yeah.
	And and so yeah, um okay.
	Here's another one here is uh we have OC and the Oh, sorry, I remember what I was gonna say.
	Sorry, I real quick.
	Okay, go ahead.
	The 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.
	Uh, and it's gonna create some controversy, which we're gonna just have to deal with.
	There you go.
	See, Jim.
	Jim feels better now.
	There you have it.
	You have a one vote from Richard.
	Okay, here uh let me continue here.
	Uh, we have Mr. Watlin, respect for both of you.
	Good points to ponder.
	I think so too.
	Uh, no matter which one you go with, but choose wisely.
	Okay, no, uh, here we came.
	Uh, Rebel Mama said Jim uh Jimmy came out swinging in the last round.
	Oh, that's right.
	By the way, everybody, uh, we want to uh get your votes before we get out of here because we have we gotta bust some bubbles here tonight and pick a winner and not a contender here.
	Okay, uh 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?
	Uh I thank you for me and Jim.
	Uh or cordial.
	Yeah, that's very nice of you.
	Uh, here's another one here.
	Uh we had okay, nine.
	Uh can you repeat that question from earlier, please?
	As uh I was asking if you could help me.
	Thank you very much.
	Um will Jim uh and Richard be taking questions from the chat.
	Absolutely not.
	No, not tonight.
	Uh I don't think so.
	Uh we have Susan Stevens heard along ago the Israelis were involved.
	Now, this is okay.
	So the Israeli factor is the 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 uh the the uh just over the top uh coverage of 9-11, it would be what's happening right now with the inner 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 they that's one of the ones that is blacked out, and they keep pointing towards Saudi Arabia as the Saudis that are behind it, and um but they can't hide it.
	This was an Israeli plot, it was brought about compliments of the CIA and the neocons and the barn of events and the Mossad, but it was driven by BB Nut Yahu and Hewitt Umhurt, who wanted to justify American intervention in the Middle East to benefit Israel and the greater Israel project.
	Good.
	And I'm not gonna disagree with any of that, Jim.
	In fact, I I internally agree with it.
	But I'm an architect.
	I've worked with architects and engineers.
	We have 3600 architects and engineers sign on to the petition demanding a new investigation of the destruction at the World Trade Center.
	And so that's our love.
	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.
	Uh no, here or no, you don't.
	Um here we have uh Dean Ryan 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 uh 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.
	Yes.
	Um, yeah, you should have heard them before the show, Richard.
	It was all different.
	I don't know what all different.
	I don't know who this guy is right now.
	Okay, here's another one here.
	Um, this hammer time brings up this point.
	Uh military planes painted to look like passenger planes could be.
	Great question.
	Here's another one.
	Can I address that?
	Well, are you gonna just jump to the next question?
	Yeah, go 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 uh uh uh Jim would be the first to agree that uh a civilian aircraft would have a real tough time maintaining its structure uh at 500 miles an hour, uh at virtually sea level.
	So most of us in the 9-11 truthmen believe that the the planes were swapped out, uh, and and that they could control military aircraft, like they can't control civilians.
	That's true.
	Um, but we're 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 uh 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 uh 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 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 falling 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 911 247.
	Thank you very much uh for asking a question.
	How did the molten material from the South Tower not melt the aluminum uh cladding uh we don't know about 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.
	Uh, we have Claudine says, Jim, my sunshine.
	See, Jim is a uh son of his own uh sunshine there.
	Okay, very good.
	Uh, we have her vote, Jim, not you.
	She just likes you better.
	She thinks you're better looking, but well, that's true.
	Uh here's uh flow in hustle over there on Rumble saying, and if uh the Hutchinson effect twist metal beams like pretzels, pretzel wetzels do, how could it not have been a do energy do?
	Well, that's a logical fallacy.
	Jim will point that out right away.
	Um, the uh the Hutchinson effect is real, it's small, there are small objects on a table that do really weird things.
	Yes, does that scale a hundred thousand times to the size of a uh of uh 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 given the design of the buildings, created them as Faraday Cage as the dew hypothesis would not have been applicable to those buildings.
	Okay, here's another one here.
	We have the great Seth Black asking uh the helicopter video is from five miles away before the helicopter zooms in plane miles away.
	Uh plane hits.
	Okay, well, let me ask the question too.
	That kind of goes into what I was asking her.
	Uh, 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 imma applicable, impossible.
	And there's no conceivable way to direct the energy of a hurricane.
	Uh, particularly one that was uh how many miles away, Jim?
	I think 120.
	Uh does anyone know?
	Okay, this is from uh Hammer Time over there on Rumble.
	Uh, does anyone know about Putin uh uh in possession of the the true satellite uh you know map and vision of 9-11 that day?
	Does anyone know about that?
	Okay, no, all right.
	So there's that one.
	Let me go here.
	Surprising.
	Okay, uh, yes, I believe, yeah, asbestos always asbestos everywhere.
	Uh okay, always asbestos.
	Okay, here's another one.
	We have Susan Stevens.
	What about the empty said?
	Hold on.
	It said the hoi the questioner is referring to the elevator hoistways being lined with the spestices.
	I don't think that's true.
	The fireproofing was uh from the two inches of gypsum board in the hoistways.
	The spestes was everywhere else, uh, primarily on the steel as fireproofing on the floors as vinyl tiles, uh, 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 far two it is two planes just happened to come along the job for Larry Silverstein to pocket at least four and a half billion on a hundred and fourteen million dollar 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.
	Uh, I I had a chance to interview uh and for a film I was doing uh 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 night.
	Oh, and they wouldn't give her answers about what happened.
	So uh subsequently, uh from my recollection, she said about two weeks later, she wound up going to the uh World Trade Center Plaza, ground zero as it was known back then, and uh wouldn't get answers.
	And her workmen's uh 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 near in the the plaza, and they were pointing at her.
	And the Marine uh who was in charge of that uh 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 uh I'm sad that that never got more coverage because it got coverage and it was diehard three where that whole plot uh 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 use the mini news to destroy the building, and they did.
	So it was never important.
	Any of that, she's the first witness of a gold heist.
	I don't know how that was down in the basement.
	I I don't know where she was, but um uh I I'd be real surprised if she actually saw gold heist in it and processed.
	Yeah, she saw the uh the the sniper.
	Okay, there's that one.
	Uh he let's see here.
	Um what do we do?
	Two more questions, and by the way, we're gonna count your votes here in a second.
	Uh okay, we're gonna count the votes.
	Uh, here is Flo and Hustle who is on fire tonight.
	Thank you.
	Uh, what about the possibility of the plane being a drone?
	Uh, that's a good question.
	People have said, was it a drone?
	Uh was there were there bombs on the planes or any kind of explosives uh for that fact, or or were they just box cutters on the planes?
	Well, I better answer that since Jim uh doesn't believe there was actually a plane that that was flown I was hoping Jim would answer that flown into the building, but uh I believe uh 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.
	Uh and um uh we we all want to know that.
	Do you do do we think that you know I've always often a second?
	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 gonna be able to refute them.
	I mean, it would be a vast task.
	So let me just part of the enormous enormity of the fraud.
	Let me do a just disagree with you on that publicly.
	So because I know some of the uh family members of the victims on the plane, including Ellen Mariani, uh, who who genuinely grieved for a long, long time.
	Uh so uh uh maybe maybe those victims were never allowed on the planes.
	Maybe I've heard that the real planes uh they took them to an offshoot uh military base and kind of gassed the people who were in the the real planes.
	I I heard I've heard that.
	That's more but uh well it's a morbid day.
	Uh but let's let's continue on here as um we we have I think this is a great question, and we're gonna end on the sorry they did they did have to uh make cell phone calls.
	I agree with Jim that that those were either made under duress or or video morphed.
	I'm I'm more of the former.
	The the call the the plane, the real plane landed, these people were encouraged or forced to uh under the uh pseudo uh making a drill out of it.
	Uh were asked to call their loved ones, uh but there's there was no background noise on the planes.
	Uh it was the whole many holes and okay in the cell phone.
	Let me get to this five uh final question here, and this is from uh Jerry Alitalo.
	Thank you for asking.
	Uh, we need a lot of great questions.
	There's so many great questions too.
	Um 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.
	Uh so here's the question, and let me translate is do you think there's more that we don't know and we'll learn about uh 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 uh, 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 Stone from Conference producing even new information that most of us have not previously heard before.
	And Jim, uh, 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.
	Uh Ted Walter's going to be discussing rock solid evidence.
	Uh 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 um, no matter which uh which narrative these guys, these two believe.
	Uh, you know, I I'm a for a big tent uh kind of uh person, and we need a lot of unity, and I think we achieved that here tonight.
	I mean, I right, guys.
	I mean, we achieved that tonight.
	Uh nobody uh played dirty.
	Uh, I thought Richard would at one time, but I was wrong.
	He played nice.
	Here's here's dirty playing.
	How are you gonna vote today?
	Vote for the cruise for Richard.
	So that's we're gonna count everybody's votes here.
	You can still uh vote at this time.
	Uh 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 have we have we're on three platforms right now.
	We've had uh over uh 200 people watching live today.
	It would have been a lot more if we weren't shadow banned.
	Uh we had someone who voted three, uh, VIPAF over there on Rumble.
	I'm not sure who was that for me.
	Three, I'll take that vote.
	Um, you can write in the vote.
	Uh we have Rebel Model.
	You're the tiebreaker.
	Uh Rebel Out 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 mode that said uh 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.
	Yeah, you said that Jim is far out beliefs, uh, has far out beliefs.
	And uh out.
	That's a good idea.
	What exactly does that mean?
	That's far out, man.
	I mean, Jim, I I I want to apologize, Jim.
	I didn't know he was gonna uh say that.
	Okay, um we have any treasured as that.
	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 a best on Rumble.
	Uh he said send them both on the cruise uh together.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Richard.
	Uh you go to Richard.
	Jimmy's Richard turning the tide cruise.
	Yeah, you can catch him September 10th over there in Washington, DC with uh Jim's Senator over there from Wisconsin, uh Ron Johnson, uh Dennis Kucinich, uh Anthony Shafor, Tucker Carlson, John Curiano, C A 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 stories bunk.
	Uh yeah, I think so too.
	I think so too.
	Uh, anyways, thank you, Richard, Jim.
	You can catch Jim uh eight days a week over there on Revolution Radio, and you 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.
	Uh, come backstage and have a drink with us as we wind down and you get to meet and greet uh uh these two legends right here, legends.
	So uh I want to thank both of you guys for being here.
	Richard Gage and Jim Petzer.
	And I'll tell you what, everybody, no matter how you slice it, uh now's the time to have these types of conversations, uh of intellectual uh discourse conjecture, and that's the way it should be because uh we we have to come together as uh a people here.
	This this we've had a fragmented country since 9-11, if not prior, but uh now is the time, and I can feel it.
	So uh for Richard and for Jim Fetzer, I'm Dean Ryan saying thank you for sharing a bit of your night with this real deal uh debate here.
	Till next time.
	Always remember to Stay tuned and stay away.
	Good night, everybody.
	Bombing them out of the night.

▲