The event, we're told, was the work of 19 vengeful Muslim Arabs hijacking four commercial airplanes with box cutters and flying them into major U.S. landmarks. It spurred the U.S. government to herald a new regime - the 'endless War on Terror' - to protect Americans - and 'freedom-loving peoples everywhere' - from the terrorists who "hate us for our freedoms," freedoms that were subsequently dismantled in systematic fashion by those same legislators, not the alleged terrorists. But the effects of 9/11 extend way beyond the evisceration of civil liberties.
An 'Axis of Evil Regimes that harbor terrorists' was declared; whole countries and millions of people were wiped off the map. A global 'Big Brother' surveillance infrastructure came into being, rapidly transforming the 'free West' into an ubiquitous totalitarian regime (with the rest of the world following suit to one degree or another). Rampant plundering of economies by elite-owned banks and corporations caused a global financial crisis in which ordinary people were left holding the bill.
As shocking as 9/11 was, the underlying motif of a 'self-inflicted wound' to institute a larger, covert agenda is one that repeats in history. Hitler had his 9/11 with the Reichstag Fire. The Catilinarian Conspiracies were the product of Cicero's devious imagination in the tumultuous period that saw Rome transition from Republic to Empire...
Running Time: 02:13:00
Download: MP3
Transcript
Niall: Hello to all of our listeners. You're listening to SOTT Talk Radio. My name is Niall Bradley and with me tonight is Joe Quinn.
Joe: Hi there.
Niall: Pierre Lescaudron.
Pierre: Hello.
Niall: And Jason Martin.
Jason: Bonjour.
Niall: We are coming up on the 12th anniversary of the 911 attacks so we thought it's as good a time as any to have another discussion about it. We had a discussion about it back in May although that centered mainly on one aspect of it. And we thought today we would look at it again, what happened that day, and try and put it in some context with what's happened since and how this is a repeating syndrome in history.
Jason: Maybe the exact contrary of what Judy Wood was saying, kind of focus on the broader angle of it as well.
Niall: Yeah.
Jason: Why did it happen, things like that.
Niall: It's the why that's important.
Pierre: And the consequences.
Jason: And the consequences. What happened after. It's kind of the cui bono type of question you need to ask after those kinds of things.
Niall: Indeed. It's interesting though, to try and understand what happened, but not, I think, to get so attached to any one part. From our perspective, on the outside looking in, it's extremely difficult to try and piece together something that ...
Jason: It's impossible.
Niall: It's impossible.
Jason: It's like people who argue about the details of what someone ate 2500 years ago. Details that you can never verify because you weren't there or because they've been so well erased that you're never going to get the truth. And so even if you think that you have the truth, there is very little that you can verify scientifically in the end because all of the evidence has been carted away, dumped, things like that.
Pierre: This being said, it's not black and white, and I guess with information available we can piece together some evidence and we can have a fairly clear idea of what happened, at least partly. And we can also, which is important too, dismiss a lot of theories that obviously don't reflect objectively, what happened on 911.
Niall: Not least, the official conspiracy theory. So we have 19 Arab hijackers take over four commercial jet aircraft on the morning of 911, fly them into three sites anyway, three landmarks: the two World Trade Centre towers, the Pentagon and another one that was crashed supposedly, thanks to passengers on Flight 93, taking back control of a plane or in the mêlée of trying to take back control of the plane, the plane crashing in Pennsylvania. That's the official story in a couple of lines.
Jason: That's just part of the befuddlement of the situation because it becomes very difficult at a certain point - it becomes more complicated to attack the entire idea, especially that there were 19 Arab hijackers, once that story has gotten around and has gained some sort of credibility with people, has a currency with people, because it can always be argued and it looks as if you're trying to de-hero heroes, right? Because it becomes an emotional attachment to them. They were heroes. They did this kind of stuff and blah, blah, blah. And you're kind of like taking it away from them. And since we've already eulogized them in this way, we've already conferred onto them honours, we have presupposed the existence of the 19 hijackers, so we can no longer even argue that point, even though I think that there is plenty of at least conceptual evidence that there was probably no one alive on those planes period. That's just my personal opinion.
Niall: Well, there is another angle on it that would in fact reinstate passengers on Flight 93 as heroes, just not in the way that we've been told. Mainly that - I think it was Donald Rumsfeld who let slip ...
Jason: Oh yeah. I remember that.
Niall: ... that Flight 93 had been shot down.
Jason: Yeah, yeah.
Niall: By the U.S. military. And when you think about it, the most plausible reason for this is that the people onboard for some reason were actually trying to take control of the jet back from whatever had - officially ...
Joe: Let's listen to what Rumsfeld said.
Niall: Oh you have it.
[DONALD RUMSFELD]: ... if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania, attacked the Pentagon.
Joe: So there you go. "Shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." Of course after that statement he himself didn't retract it, I don't think anybody really challenged him on it directly, but the media picked up on it. There was a few stories at the time, when he said that, on CNN and a bunch of other mainstream media outlets who all said that he obviously misspoke. But it's a bit of a big misspeak because it's not like he kind of confused it for something else or it could be said that he confused the shooting down of Flight 93 when he really meant the shooting down of - well yeah, there's a problem.
Jason: Yeah.
Joe: No other plane was shot down officially, so there was no shoot-downs of anything on 911, so why would he have used the word shoot-down which is pretty explicit. It's a pretty explicit concept. It's very different from crashed or hijacked or whatever, flown into a building. Shot down involves a plane being shot down by some - it's unambiguous. So the fact that he said that, along with the evidence for it having been shot down, suggests it was shot down. So there you go. But as to the theory of why it was shot down, was it because there was hijackers or there were people on Flight 93 who ...
Niall: Well we need to look back a bit. The biggest problem - well, let's say the first problem with the idea that there were these 19 Arab hijackers whose images, names were released by the FBI a couple of days after, they were all over the press. First obstacle this hits is that their names were not on the flight manifest. It appears that they were not actually - there were no - these names, anyway, were not onboard.
Jason: Oh but they used assumed names.
Niall: Well everyone could be a candidate for, in terms of so-and-so is an American citizen from this. Yes that person is missing. But we don't have these extra people, period.
Jason: Right.
Niall: Not just "we don't have these guys". So I wonder if - the evidence that puts them on the plane are a couple of stills from security camera footage.
Jason: Some blurry stills.
Niall: Blurred stills, but you assume you're looking at so-and-so Mohamed Atta, okay, right, that's him. They couldn't even give us a still of him, say at Boston Logan Airport boarding his plane. They had to give us one of him taking a preceding flight from, I think it was Minnesota. I'm not sure. Anyway, it was an internal U.S. flight, before, that he was taking to get to the situation, to actually hijack the plane. So therefore there's nothing that actually places any of these names as being on the aircraft. So that's one plank of it. The second plank is that none of these guys - some of them were - there are people who said "Yes, so-and-so was at my flight training school". Remember, they're supposed to have flown four large 676 Boeing ...
Jason: Commercial.
Niall: They're commercial aircraft, expertly, into pretty narrow, small targets at high speed. These guys could not get their licence to fly ...
Jason: Cessnas.
Niall: Cessna aircraft.
Jason: Yeah, single-engine aircraft.
Niall: So that's another major doubt for them being on the plane at all.
Jason: There's the ridiculousness threshold that I think the whole thing falls down on which is that finding somebody who's willing to kill himself for a cause is not entirely outside the scope of reason, right? Finding 19 people who are willing to kill themselves for a cause, being alive at the exact same time, being able to get into the United States, attend these flight schools, acquire the skills to be a pilot, which is not - piloting an aircraft is not exactly something that just any yahoo can do. It does take some training and it does take some ability and piloting a large commercial aircraft does require - and precision flying a commercial aircraft into a building is a lot different from just flying it from one airport to the other. It's a little bit different. There's a lot of automated systems, but you have to turn those off and fly it into a building. That requires a little bit more skill than just sitting in the chair and turning the wheel. So finding all those people who are willing to die for their cause, it seems to me a little bit incredible, a little bit incredible for me to find 19 people who ...
Pierre: Well in previous radio shows we saw that mind control is going on and maybe we could hypothesize that indeed the mind control, some - one of the pilots. But one case, the sun's out and it seems very unlikely, is that Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon and when you see the trajectory followed by this plane, allegedly again, it's as if you ask a new driver who just got his driving licence, you put him in Formula 1, you put him on Monaco track and you tell him "Now you have to drive around Monaco as fast as Michael Schumacher.
Niall: Yeah. No, you've got to beat the world record.
Jason: Yeah.
Pierre: Yeah.
Jason: The flying that was done to get that airplane - supposedly ...
Pierre: Supposedly.
Jason: ... supposedly through the Pentagon was sort of - I personally don't think it's very possible. I don't even know if a professional pilot could really have done it the way they claim.
Niall: There are the pilots from 911 Truth and they say it is impossible.
Jason: Yeah.
Niall: They even say that the second plane hitting the south tower, which is - okay, so it's the second incident. You probably remember footage of it. You've got a TV camera and a helicopter overhead. The first tower - the north tower I think - is already aflame. It's been hit. And then there's this plane coming from your camera view, coming from behind. It appears to be descending and then it's making a bend as well and it's coming back up and it's doing that at, what, 400, 500 miles an hour. High speed. Pilots have said "I'm a pilot. I've flown one of those things. I could not do that". Even that manoeuvre that was more or less a direct hit in terms of flying it straight at an object is well nigh impossible.
Joe: The second tower?
Niall: Yeah.
Jason: Well, I mean, ...
Joe: Why was that impossible?
Niall: Because of the way - it descended from a height, made a bend, a correcting bend to make sure it hit the building at high speed, and part of that bend actually saw it gain some height just before it entered the tower. It needed to bend, not too much or it would lose altitude rapidly, right?
Jason: Right.
Niall: Plough into the streets below. It had to come down at high speeds, bank and come back up.
Jason: You've got to remember it's still, even though it's well constructed, it's still a heavy object that you're flying that's got fuel and people in it. It's not something that you can just fly willy-nilly, all over the place.
Niall: Yeah.
Pierre: One thing is a bit of piloting a plane is a three dimensional thing. You have a lot of geometric space parameters and you have a strong correlation between the lift and the speed. So you have to monitor all those parameters and to always find a setting that is within the acceptable range for the plane. Because if the lift is not strong enough or it's too high, you might have problems. However, if - that's an hypothesis - if you have a flight plan, pre-programmed, you can check that at every second you are within this range, those ranges, so you can be all the time at the very thermodynamic ...
Jason: Limit.
Pierre: ... aerodynamic, sorry, limits of the plane and do things that are seemingly impossible. And if it happens that you remote control of the plane with screens, you can see people from their van, they are these set of screens, and from the screen with a GPS and a camera mounted on the _____ plane, they conduct the whole mission. They take off, they do their mission, they come back. And we're talking about affordable, cheap, for citizens technology here. It's not groundbreaking technologies. So what do the military have for remote control is probably magnitudes above that.
Jason: So here's the thing that flies in peoples' faces. They do this whole thing. Now generally when you talk to people about non-911 issues about airplanes, they'll say something along the lines of "Well those planes practically fly themselves. The pilot is kind of just there to make sure nothing goes wrong and push a couple of buttons when it's necessary, but they practically operate themselves." People accept that. Every person knows and accepts that. If you talk to them about non-911 issues. The minute you get into 911, you suggest that, people go like "Oh, no, no, no, no, no". But right after 911, what is the thing that comes out? It turns out that Israel now builds remote controlled airplanes, drones as they call them, that can be flown by someone halfway across the world with a screen and a joystick. I mean, it flies in your face. It's like they're saying "Look, we have this technology. We can make these super cool flying machines that can be remote controlled". And then you have this whole story of the people with the van celebrating, you know? It smells. It reeks to high heaven. Of course that's what they did. No, they didn't get 19 hijackers. They just remote controlled the plane.
Pierre: That remote control and this is the standard procedure in some ways because for decades now pilots don't manage the path of their plane through the information they get through the windscreen. They use the ILS measurements, parameters, so they basically read the parameters on the various equipment and you can have those parameters displayed while you're in the cockpit but you can have exactly the same parameters when you are thousands of miles from the cockpit. It's exactly the same. You have exactly the same amount of information.
Jason: Exactly. So the whole idea of 19 hijackers to me, it just is an easier solution. You could even go so far as to say "Well this Osama bin Laden with his big money, he hired some hackers to hack together some remote control thing". It would have been easier for them to do that than to do this whole 19 suicides. It's just impracticable the way they did it. It would probably have been easier for them to have a guy sneak in, working in the baggage area, sneak in and attach some remote control device and wire it up in five minutes and for them to take over it that way.
Niall: It's even easier than that because remote control craft is built into all commercial jets. The pilot goes into cruise, the computer takes over, the onboard computer. You don't even have to actually make sure it's fitted properly beforehand. It can be done to a regular jet that has flown the day before. It's flown exactly the same route as at least two of them had. They were the same craft used.
Jason: It's Occam's razor.
Niall: Yeah, it is Occam's razor and when you apply it, the official conspiracy theory just is far too complex. How were they explaining that you've got religious fundamentalists who are doing this because they are seriously, seriously obsessed with a fundamentalist version of Islam.
Jason: The problem is ...
Niall: The only real paper trail we have for these guys is that they were spending a lot of money on strippers and booze and cocaine and partying in Las Vegas in the weeks running up to the event.
Jason: What would a good Muslim do when in America? It's ridiculous.
Pierre: You mentioned the official conspiracy theory and there's something that has always fascinated me, that there's such a reluctance from the medias to acknowledge a very important part of politics, i.e., conspiracies. But when it's about 911 there's a kind of sudden change in mentality. And all medias somehow acknowledge that Osama bin Laden orchestrated a conspiracy and from a remote cave lost in the mountains of Afghanistan, planned all the minor details of a very complex, elaborate operation that doesn't fit or benefit him in any way because the end result was allegedly that he was killed and war in Afghanistan and a lot of destruction. However at the same time you have those intelligence organizations that have the means to organize conspiracies that have been doing that, it's documented, for decades and decades. They have the technology, they have the human resources, they have the money and they did benefit directly from this operation. And where the most obvious is right there in our faces, you still the medias and officials, politicians, that it's bin Laden from his cave who did the whole 911 thing.
Jason: Well it's ridiculous. Bin Laden was the ultimate one-hit wonder. He was able to organize this one attack but he seems absolutely incapable before and after to do anything else of significance. But here's - on the top of the conspiracy, here's what Richard Dolan says. This is from the book 911 The Ultimate Truth by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Joe Quinn. You should get it on Amazon. He says:
"The very label conspiracy serves as an automatic dismissal as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue. The United States comprises large organizations, corporations, bureaucracies, interest groups and the like, which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical. Their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers. They are not above lying about their activities, such as the nature of their organizational behaviour. Conspiracy in this senses is a way of life around the globe."Jason: And he's kind of right. Nobody does things in secret. You have conspiracies all the time. "Hey, Bill doesn't want to see such and such a movie. We've got to change his mind." The conspiracy is just the normal human mode of doing things, not always to murder people but evil people obviously have those types of conspiracies.
Niall: Well Hank Albarelli, who we had on a few weeks ago, in his book about Frank Olson, he goes back a bit to - well, I think it's later on, the CIA has released a number of papers and supposedly about this affair and about mind control programs and whatnot. And among them was a memo from the CIA discussing the term "conspiracy theory" which was dated to around 1969, shortly after the investigator in New Orleans - what was his name? He's in the JFK movie played by Kevin Costner. He'd opened an investigation and he was prosecuting people for involvement in a conspiracy to murder JFK. And they had actually had a discussion and came to a decision that they would use this term "conspiracy theory" to portray any of this kind of thinking or criticism.
Joe: Jim Garrison.
Niall: Jim Garrison, that's it.
Jason: Yeah, that's it.
Niall: So it is (skip in recording) born in people thinking about and trying to piece together what happened with JFK.
Joe: Right. Well there's no point in trying to analyze conspiracy theory, or take the media to task over them dismissing conspiracy theorists or ridiculing conspiracy theory when it's obvious that conspiracies happen all the time and people conspire all the time. Because that's not the context, that's not the way they're using it and that's not what it means anymore.
Jason: Right.
Joe: When the media calls you a conspiracy theorist, if you agree that you are, there's an agreement there of understanding of what that term means. It means that I don't believe my government. I believe that my government generally speaking, and my politicians, are a bunch of corrupt liars. That's what it means. That's just a euphemism for "I don't believe that my government tells the truth ever. I think it lies all the time". So that's what they may as well say to you. "So you're one of those people who doesn't believe the government ever tells the truth, always lies and is involved in all sorts of corruption?" "Uh-huh."
Jason: Yeah, pretty much.
Joe: Actually we were being honest that's what they would say. Of course they will admit that conspiracies exist and people conspire all the time, etc., but they will not admit, or not agree certainly, most people as well won't agree that the government is populated by a bunch of corrupt liars who are out to deceive people as often and as regularly as possible.
Jason: Well the SOTT page has a little video of this guy taking John McCain to task about that kind of stuff. So I think that more and more people, because there was quite a bit of clapping going on in that situation, so there's quite a bit of people, they actually do ...
Joe: Yeah, in recent years.
Jason: ... in recent years have started to basically - because when I was growing up, I always thought it was a little bit strange because when I was talking with my friends or anybody I knew it was always "Politicians are a bunch of liars". And then suddenly they became not liars when there's an emergency and you have a really vested emotional interest in what they're saying, like your safety depends on it, they're not lying. But ...
Joe: A conspiracy theorist also today means a historical revisionist, that you essentially believe that most of the major events in history have been fabricated or falsified or did not happen the way they happened. So the problem is for most people, while they'd admit that government officials and politicians, etc. are corrupt and liars, etc., they may not prescribe to the idea that major events of history are lies. Like, for example, deep conspiracies or deep falsifications, in the sense of "the government would kill its own people" or essentially historical events where the narrative has already been established and you're going back and saying "That narrative is completely false. In a lot of cases it wasn't this enemy that attacked us, it was our government that attacked us", you know. It's a big lie that people don't really want to - they don't want to go there in terms of the big lie, or they can't because, understandably, it tends to turn your world a bit upside down.
An example is the whole Jesus/Caesar thing that we've been talking about recently. It's very difficult for people. They've been brought up on it, it's a part of their official reality. So it's not just a belief or some little point that people aren't really attached to or are somewhat largely indifferent to. Very often it's a major part of peoples' identity, of who they are, and their history and where they came from and what makes them who they are. And you're asking them to turn that upside down and that's why a lot of people are ...
Jason: It's even worse though in the modern day because not only is it that, it sort of attacks who they identify themselves as, as the good guys, the good Americans, but as you see with what's going on with Syria like "Oh my god, Assad's killing children. We have to do something about it", right? But the problem is, if they for a second, the way they feel, morally about the world that they live in, if they were to accept that the government of America does that, then they would have to do something. And they are terrified of ever having to do something about the current state of affairs. So that's an added dimension to it, that prevents them from believing it because, if there's a child being killed in the next room and you're sitting there twiddling your thumbs, you can't escape being judged morally as an evil person. But if you say "Oh, there's no child there. They're just having fun. That's not happening." And then later on you say "Well I didn't know it was happening. I didn't know it was happening", you try to escape the moral judgment because you're afraid or whatever.
Pierre: And here we're touching one of the fundamental aspects of 911, I think, that is the psychological operation. 911 radically transformed the psyches of Americans and people in general. It led to literal hysterization of the masses who became so blinded by emotions, in particular fear, that they became ripe to accept the unacceptable. And to close their eyes in front of things that were so contrary to their most valued interests.
Jason: Well Martha Stout talks about that in The Paranoia Switch with what she calls limbic warfare. And she says that there are basically six stages of it, the first stage being sort of group or national trauma, usually a human caused one. It can't be just a hurricane or something like that. It has to be kind of like an enemy strikes you, something like that, some group of people gets killed or bombed or something like that.
And the second stage is a fear broker comes up and this person is someone who has private interests that are not necessarily connected with the event. But in order to pursue them they capitalize on it by causing fear and stirring up panic. She uses the example of McCarthy. He had private interests involved in what he was doing and he used the whole "red" scare and un-American activities as a platform for that.
And the third stage is scapegoatism, which is the fear broker then takes and chooses some sort of group of individuals, or some organization, or some country, and holds them up as the scapegoat for it. In the case of McCarthy he used homosexuals and the "reds". They were the group of individuals that we needed to target.
And then the fourth stage is cultural regression. People become very angry at this object and they want to have revenge. They want a vendetta against them. And that's kind of what happened in 911 with Afghanistan and Iraq. And we killed so many ...
Pierre: Muslims.
Jason: What?
Pierre: And Muslims in general.
Jason: And Muslims in general. Muslims of course were the scapegoat chosen and then we went and we killed hundreds of thousands, millions of them over the last 12 years and they apparently only managed to kill 3,000. So we have many times over, taken our revenge.
And the fifth stage is the recognition and backlash because suddenly people realize that they've gone too far, that they've been hoodwinked into doing something that they know is immoral, from their passions. And then you start seeing small little protests here and there and the people get bolder and bolder. And usually they come at the various individuals from a tangential problem they have. For instance with McCarthy, it was the fact that he was drinking. He was a drunkard. So they couldn't attack him on his whole anti-communism thing. They instead attacked him on his morality. He was a drunkard. Then later they made accusations of homosexuality.
And finally there's the stage of regret and forgiving. Once people realize how bad things actually got and how far they had gone, they have trouble understanding how they were made to go that far, and it's so painful. And there's so much guilt, and they have so much to pay for, they have so much to expunge, that they find that they can't really find a real way for them to do it, and so they start forgetting. They suppress it and repress it and that allows the situation to start all over again.
Pierre: Yeah, and history is therefore repeating. And you can see the pattern of 911 having occurred previously in the U.S. history as you mentioned. There are other examples. Suring World War I you have these almost spontaneous mob movements, people movements, against German people.
Jason: And Japanese.
Pierre: Lynching. It would be during World War II.
Jason: Oh yeah, sorry. You said World War I.
Pierre: World War I, you have the Germans. McCarthyism, you have the communists, the "reds". During the World War II, you have the Japanese with the relocation of more than 100,000 U.S. citizens ...
Jason: To concentration camps.
Pierre: ... having U.S. citizens in California. So the problem is that this step six enables the elites to conduct the same trauma, hysterization, the manipulation through fear again and again and again. It _____ apart.
Jason: Yeah, until people learn to expunge their guilt and really mourn the things that they've done and really make an apology because in a certain sense, the United States has never really apologized for any bad thing that it's ever done. And the American people will never really - they don't think about what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fact that even after they had surrendered, we still sent 1,000 planes to carpet bomb them, at the same time dropping flyers saying that "Oh by the way, you've surrendered and here's our last hurrah. We're going to fire bomb the entire area." And so there's all these different types of acts and things that we participate in, things that we've been complicit in, that we don't own and acknowledge. And that is the door through which these people kind of act. It's that suppression, that ignoring the reality, is a window for us to ignore some other reality with these sort of fear brokers that keep popping up every once in a while.
Pierre: Yeah. What is really sad is during those hysterization events, World War I, McCarthyism, World War II, 911, the real culprit, which is always the same, the elites that manipulate, that conspire, that create fears from nowhere and that takes advantage of this hysterization, is never identified. And in a sense, ultimately, the real fight is within each of us.
Jason: Right.
Pierre: It's a fight between blind fear, hate, accepting the unacceptable, being willing to sacrifice the most important things, i.e. the freedom of our neighbours, of the others, of ourselves, preserving life, versus this fear state where you follow blindly and accept the worst things, where you end up - I read some surveys about the percentage of Americans who agreed with torture, with this law allowing torture, with those interventions in Iraq that led to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. And that may be the most frightening part of all this conspiracy, is where it led people, to this terrible moral state where you accept the worst things ever humans can commit.
Jason: Right.
Pierre: And even worse, sometimes who even encourage and support it.
Jason: But, you have to, at a certain point, begin to realize that there are people who are just a little bit not right, in I guess you could say the head, but maybe even in their soul, because to enjoy another person's suffering is sadism, you know? And if you want cruel things to happen to another person and that gives you enjoyment, then you are kind of, by definition of human custom, an evil person. And there is no situation that says it's okay to enjoy someone's suffering. And that's never an okay thing. So those people, you really have to wonder about what it is in their makeup. Because there's no situation in which you could say "I am receiving pleasurable sensations from seeing someone suffer". That's quite disturbing.
Pierre: Yeah, if you take as a definition of the soul, the conscience, the capacity we have to feel suffering, to suffer when someone else is suffering, then the fact that a vast proportion of human beings have been pushed to accept, or in some cases, to support, torture and massive killing of civilians, it means we have been cornered in a trap where we are forced or induced to negate, to deny, the most noble part of ourselves, i.e., our humanity, our soul or conscience, our empathy.
Jason: Well throughout history torture has come up and gone down as this sort of idea, and this whole idea of revenge and punishment. A lot of the people who argue for capital punishment say "Well it deters crime". I said "Well look how many people are on death row. Obviously it doesn't work". And so a person who believes in torture or punishing people as some sort of deterrent is completely deluding themselves. It's never worked as a deterrent. In fact all it does is as Martin Luther King said, just makes more enemies and causes more suffering. Suffering only multiplies suffering. All you do is add to it. You don't solve anything. You don't correct anything.
Niall: I've been trying to think about the goal of somebody doing this. We've obviously seen the results. Now is suffering a goal? Is it to make money? Is it to start the war that happened? Because the neo-conservatives who were pushing the Iraq war, the invasion of Afghanistan, Libya, Syria today, and Iran, had already named those targets (inaudible). They're already on the record in public as saying "This is what we would like to do to make America the number one superpower, make sure nobody else takes (inaudible). And here's a shopping list of all the things we want."
Of course there's also that infamous comment - it's in the PNAC document, the Project for a New American Century, where they state in a report September 2000, one year before, they basically list "Here's what we want to do. We need to massively increase military spending. We need to transform the entire Pentagon system into a leaner, meaner war machine, but it won't happen absent some catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbour". One year later, that happens. Are they the people we need to look to? The people that we can actually name? They're fairly public figures.
Pierre: To answer your first question, I don't have the definite answer, but I think the factors you listed are not mutually exclusive and actually they fit quite well with the psychopathic psyche: more power, more wealth, suffering of the others, more control. All those factors are part of the fundamental motivations of psychopathic minds. And wars conveniently serve all those purposes. So it's a kind of ideal activity for psychopaths.
Niall: Yeah, it's hard to forget some of the statements from, I think of - what's his name? Was he Prime Minister then? I think he's the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, supposedly when he first heard about what had happened: "Oh this is very good. This is very good for Israel". "Oh, but wait, I'll backtrack" and he clarifies his comment. But he could not hide his glee at what had happened.
Pierre: Also, when I think about the motives of 911 and the orchestrator, sometimes I have the feeling it's a bit like Russian dolls, you know?
Jason: Yeah. Exactly.
Pierre: So each higher level, the perpetrators had more information and instrumentalized the level below. At the military industrial complex you have a clear motivation of selling more weapons, making more profits, so that's good for a war with a false flag operation. At an intelligence level you might have some extra motivation. Yes, there is money but it means also more power, more control over the population and more central role. At some other level, Israeli intelligence for example, there are also to add to those factors ________, but you also have the strong geopolitical factor and increased control over near neighbouring Muslim countries and Muslims in general. And on an even higher level, there is this struggle I mentioned previously for - I don't know how to depict it - for the souls of human beings and inducing them to deny this normal part of them. So you have this kind of pyramid of agents, manipulators, operators and the higher you go, the darker the motive and the broader the picture and the scope of reasons for conducting this dark operation.
Jason: Yeah, the whole 911 thing has that air of probably maybe started as a simple plan. Somebody with this Project for a New American Century said "We need a false flag operation". They started planning it. And somebody at a higher level said "Hm, that's interesting". And then someone at a higher level says "Hm, that's really interesting." And someone at a very, very high level, we're talking about blurring the borders between the shadow government and even something maybe a little bit higher, they probably said "This is going to serve our long-term goals" in line with sort of like the corrupting of humanity.
Because it's kind of like that fight between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi. A lot of people wonder about it and talk about it in the Star Wars community, where Emperor Palpatine is saying "Give in to your anger. Strike me down and then you will be converted to the dark side". And this whole idea of giving in to your rage and punishing somebody and wanting to hurt somebody kind of converts you to the dark side. And in a certain sense, there is a level of people who kind of know that the most important this is to put people into positions where they're given a choice between self-sacrifice, accepting a slight, accepting a pain or to suffer consciously, or to re-direct it at someone else, to pass the emotional and the suffering and the pain buck to somebody else. And doing that, causing innocent people to suffer to avoid suffering yourself is kind of an evil act. And they want to encourage situations where people get sucked into that kind of Emperor Palpatine "Give in to your hate. Strike me down. Only then will you be converted to the dark side".
And there's a certain element it seems, at a very high level of that, of wanting to convert humanity into a giant bunch of vengeful, sadistic people who laugh at the death and suffering of other people, like this Hilary Clinton when she watched the video of Gadaffi and she's sort of giggling with glee and people looking at that as an acceptable response to seeing someone being horribly treated. I think he was raped and shot and mistreated in all manner of ways. A person sitting there laughing and giggling with glee with that is truly sick and evil.
Pierre: Yeah. And one of the issues of Judy Wood's book is that it shows that the technology used was at best, at the upper limit of human technology which by the way, allows us to dismiss the official fairy, bin Laden orchestrating everything from his cave. It shows as well that some quite high offices and individuals were involved in this operation because that's the only way to account for the literal dustification of the World Trade Centres.
Jason: Yeah, I think originally at the low levels, they just planned to fly some planes in. And I think at the high level people said "Well watch this".
Pierre: Exactly. You can have this secret office at the very top that has dustification, a weapon that manipulates maybe, say, the Mossad to conduct a geopolitical coup to further their dominating position in the Middle East and the Mossad that infiltrate maybe the Pentagon or the CIA, that conducts the more basic and operational part of the operation. And you have this pyramid of control with actually everybody at the top is screwing the people at the lower level.
Niall: I think there is a lot to this. On the one hand, part of the problem people won't go there is that they go "Well, wait a minute. You're talking about thousands of people being in on this. I can't. I can't."
Jason: No they're not.
Niall: And that's a complete understandable point of view because in a conspiracy like this, in what we saw happen that day, there were so many things that it seems in retrospect, went completely pear-shaped. For example, a fire broke out in the White House itself. And it was reported and then it was put out. And it just disappeared. People have forgotten all about it. And it's hard not to wonder "Well wait a minute, if a fire started there, perhaps the White House was a target, an original target". It's not like the event was carried off smoothly. There were lots of different things happening that somebody who was maybe handling one aspect of it, had no idea something else was going to happen over here in this city.
Jason: The idea that thousands of people had to be involved in it is because people have an analog conception of a conspiracy. They imagine that people have to walk from one building to another to give an order. They think that "Oh, you had to organize this". No, you just had to have - what, was it four planes? You had to have four people to install remote devices, if that was even necessary. Maybe they just hacked the computer and then it's even fewer people, to fly the planes in. So you had to have probably four people behind a desk somewhere with a joy stick doing that, a couple of - one or two commanders at the best, to call up some other commander on the phone and say "Oh, we're doing this. It's a routine thing" or something like that or "Don't scramble any jets".
Niall: Well the way they covered that was they had war game exercises going on that day, where most of the eastern seaboard's fleet of jets were way over the other side of the country.
Jason: And you only need one person to sign that order.
Niall: Yeah.
Jason: That's all. So, so few people were needed actually, to pull this off, that it's actually amazing because we live in a digital era where you can have a couple of people in a room in Langley or some other place in NORAD, jockeying the joy sticks for flying the planes in, one or two commanders sending orders to the military signing off on it, and one super evil scientist guy with a dustification weapon to push a button. Seriously, this conspiracy does not require thousands of people.
Niall: No. Among the many weird things that happened that day, the one that I saw recently again, was the infamous BBC reporter, she's sort of on the scene and the anchor back in the studio in London says "Okay, we're going to go now to Jane so-and-so. We just heard that World Trade Center 7 has collapsed." And so they go to her and she's sort of reading off her notes "Yeah, yeah, this 47-storey tall building has just collapsed. We've been told it fell at 5:00 p.m., blah, blah, blah". In the background over her shoulder is the skyline of the World Trade Center and you see World Trade Center 7 is still standing there. And they just carry on talking because they don't know that the building they're talking about is still behind them.
Jason: It's like those things getting set up. And I wonder at some points because, it does sometimes remind you of that NASA era where they were flying some sort of rocket to Mars and they forgot to convert - they said they forgot to convert ...
Pierre: Miles and kilometres.
Jason: ... miles in kilometres, so then they crashed it into the planet. And you do wonder sometimes if that is like that, or if maybe they're just taking the piss with people, like that there is some sort of malevolent jokester in charge of these things who makes that choice because he just wants to mess with peoples' minds. Because can they be that incompetent? To not get the time scales right? I mean really! It's kind of incredible that they could be that incompetent. They made this whole big plan and yet they forget a little detail like the building hasn't fallen yet and it's in the picture in the background.
Niall: Yeah.
Jason: I think that they do it.
Niall: They succeeded largely on the fear, on the success of the terror. Because if you think about what happened later, all the different reports that came out, the official 911 report doesn't even deal with World Trade Center 7, which collapsed in its own footprint. As far as the official U.S. government investigation is concerned, only two towers fell that day. So they obviously felt "Well, we don't need to even talk. We'll just ignore it".
Jason: I think that's part of the recipe.
Pierre: And those mistakes don't really matter because I think they have an accurate knowledge of the human psyche.
Jason: Exactly.
Pierre: And they know in those situations the emotions are so strong that the rational mind is almost not working anymore. So you can have World Trade Centre 7 in the background, it doesn't matter. The switch has already occurred and humans are ripe for any kind of manipulation. They are blinded.
Jason: I think it's more about training people to not use their reason and to learn to ignore inconsistencies.
Niall: Yeah. That's an important thing, that people were ready or they were ripe for this kind of thing. There have been some notorious ideas down through the years. In the 1960's there was Operation North Woods, part of which was a very similar plot in which commercial aircraft would be hijacked and flown into U.S. targets, into U.S. cities. And it was shot down, so to speak, rather quickly. So in a way it's not just that the technology wasn't there yet to pull off a 911, it's that the psychological state of, particularly the U.S., they had to sort of prime that right. How did they do that? I think it's probably more an instinctive thing than anything else, but it comes back to I think them having a very good idea of at least outwardly, how people behave and how they will respond to some stimulus.
Pierre: Yeah, when you think about the events, you see that it resonate with a lot of primal, fundamental fears that are imprinted in human beings. The fear of heights. The fear of fire. The fear of planes, elevators, of all the things that are nursed unconsciously. When it's unconscious it's all the stronger. And they manage to - and the symbolism as well. World Trade Centre, New York, in the heart of the city, a very symbolic city. You know they got all those factors related to the unconscious mind that were packed together in one single event in order to maximize its emotional impact.
Jason: Yeah. It was a well-chosen target. It was more well chosen than if it had been the Statute of Liberty. It was really ...
Niall: And of course the Pentagon.
Jason: Yeah.
Niall: There's the symbol of the military industrial complex, the centre of the military power of empire. And of course it must be hit.
Jason: I think it was ...
Niall: That's a classic sort of self-inflicted wound. The last place people will look.
Jason: Yeah, I think that was a self-inflicted wound. That was a "Don't look at us. We wouldn't shoot ourselves".
Pierre: One solution is a self-inflicted wound because it was a part of the Pentagon that was under renovation and there was _______ at the time and finally the damages were minimal.
Niall: Well there were ...
Joe: There were a lot of employees there at the time.
Pierre: But not a lot of people died, right?
Joe: At the Pentagon? No, but it was hit for a very specific reason.
Jason: Wasn't it the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence)?
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: The alleged flight path came from the opposite end, came towards the opposite end of the building. If it had just kept on going, it would have ploughed straight into Rumsfeld and all the top brass. But no, it's supposed to have made this turn around and hit a part that had just been renovated. The ONI.
Jason: Which is the ONI, but people should know that there's a little bit of a history between the ONI, the CIA and other intelligence agencies. This goes back all the way to before World War I.
Joe: No, the more important thing in that area of the Pentagon was hit, was that there was a financial task force that was involved in figuring out where the $2.2 trillion that Rumsfeld couldn't account for.
Niall: $2.3.
Joe: $2.3, yeah, that he couldn't account for the day before 911 when he stated that the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion in expenses and there was a group in that specific area that was hit the day after, that had been involved but obviously by the time Rumsfeld announced this, it had already been known internally to the Pentagon for a considerable amount of time before that. So there was basically an audit going on. And there was an office there where a lot of people were actually working on that. And I think all of them died in that attack, and all of the office was destroyed.
Pierre: So they could have ...
Jason: It's kind of a bit of a convenient ...
Niall: It was a good time to bury bad news, to quote a British staffer of, I think it was a government minister, at the time of the 7/7 attacks in London. She got raked over the coals for it. But she gave away the mindset. "Oh, excellent. Right. If we say this now, everyone will forget about it. No problemo." So yeah, the missing $2.3 trillion, well we have some idea where it might have gone. It might have gone into planning 911, or who knows what other black ops.
Jason: I think it went into their private pockets. I think that they were doing what everyone's been doing since the Roman times, which, of course there's plenty of evidence during the entire Cicero/Caesar thing, that there was just a constant stream of indictments for basically just - and Cicero himself basically with his brother was elected - not Procurator - whatever, he was given charge of his brother's finances and he basically just embezzled all the money that he wanted from the Roman treasury. That's what they do. They embezzle. And eventually it does get figured out because of course they're greedy and they want more and more money. And he's probably funnelling it off to black projects and to some offices and private estates here and there and some to his cronies and friends and this, that and the other thing. And eventually he just didn't realize that he had embezzled so much and somebody caught on.
Pierre: Going back to the Pentagon, what Joe said is interesting. It shows that maybe it was at the same time a self-inflicting wound in order to show that the Pentagon was not involved if any suspicion would be later raised. And at the same time it was a kind of more than a warning, huh? It was a direct message delivered to ONI and this audit team. Because what you had looting before, maybe you didn't develop so much. Apparently CIA and ONI have not shared the same vision concerning intelligence.
Jason: No.
Pierre: And geopolitics and ONI might not have been strong supporters of this operation.
Jason: And ONI of course is a much older organization than even the CIA and most - it's a very old intelligence organization and it probably comes back from the days of the East India Trading Company type of people, back in the days when they were selling in wooden ships. And these people are very old world intelligence guys, gentlemen intelligence officers, this type. And so they've always had a battle I think, with the new breed, the CIA and NSA types.
Pierre: Yeah, it shows actually that we should not have a monolithic vision of this organization. This organization constituted of several factions that are sometimes co-linear, that are sometimes opposing each other. And the way I see it is a bit like a pack of wolves.
Jason: Yeah.
Pierre: The level of ponerization is high. Like wolves, they can cooperate if they see that their collective action brings more than its benefits and costs. However at any time they can betray each other.
Jason: Yeah. Sure.
Pierre: And they can eat each other.
Niall: But they have a lot more in common with each other than not. So for example, in the 1960's and even before the 1950's with mind control experiments, drugs and so on, they were all basically doing their own thing. And sometimes there's some crossover. "Okay, if we fund you, then you can put your name to this project" and so on and so forth. But they basically had duplicate and triplicate of the same kinds of things going on, each within a different organization. And you can see how it's sort of set up like that, where there's a kind of internal competition. And then something in the middle or above, off to the side, can take the best results, as far as they're concerned the best results, from any one of these projects that are going on in parallel. So it is set up that way.
Jason: It looks to me, most of the time, as if the government is actually kind of filled a bit with private interests and factionalism, but it does seem that there is some sort of shadowy, controlling aspect that kind of has their fingers in everybody's pie, that is kind of connected with everybody and is sort of like grooming different people into their organization and looking at who's doing what and taking the best result, as you were saying, from each different organization. So there does seem to be that there's a little bit of a brain and a whole lot of hands in the government, you know?
Pierre: And sometimes when you look at the level of organization displayed by some of those operations, you're left to wonder if it's only the creation of psychopaths. Some operations show a very accurate and long-term planning and maybe psychopaths are very useful operators, at the operational level, but higher level you have people who have the skill and intelligence and very dark motives and can plan ahead, have sound strategic reasoning, high level of intelligence, but for the worst, for the darkest motives.
Jason: There has to be kind of like an evil Gandhi and an evil ...
Pierre: Balance.
Jason: Yeah, there's an evil JFK, somewhere. In the government, there's a person who is a charismatic and forward-thinking as JFK, who just happens to be of the evil variety. And the same thing with like a Gandhi. Is there sort of somebody like for the evil people? And I think that there certainly is and they're not psychopathic and they're not short-sighted at all. They're in it for the evil. They think that evil is the correct way to do things.
Pierre: It's a conscious choice, unlike psychopaths who are not equipped with that, with conscious organs. Those people might make a conscious choice to serve the dark side of the force.
Jason: And we should sort of like qualify evil as being the self-interest, self-service, the choosing to serve your own interests instead of the collective interests of the people. It's kind of what we mean by evil. We don't mean like some sort of dark Satanist, like something out of Rosemary's Baby or something. We're talking about real self-interest.
Niall: Let's take this back now, try and, at least in the broad strokes, try and see what happened that day. So obviously we've got the two towers that are hit in New York. We've got something exploding at the Pentagon. The official story that the towers came down because the plane caused so much damage and it weakened the structure that collapsed. The problem is that has never happened before and that has never happened since. An office fire does not take down a skyscraper, especially one that's designed to withstand impacts from jet airliners. So you're still left with the so-called collapse. We had Judy Wood on a few months ago and she had some very interesting evidence collected that clearly points to something unusual happening to those towers to bring them down the way they did.
Pierre: There are several anomalies. You mentioned the alleged structural weakness within the steel beams because of the heat generated by the burning fuels. And that doesn't work. The steel doesn't melt at this temperature. It doesn't lose enough mechanical resistance at the kerosene burning temperature. So you have this first point that you emphasizes.
And there is a second point as well. Even if it was true, just imagine okay the steel suddenly transforming into chewing gum and collapsing the towers, went down. But the problem is, when you look down, the towers are not there. When you evaluate the quantity of rubbles, it doesn't account for the 500 - I don't remember the quantity - 500,000 tonnes maybe, or whatever. The volume of rubbles is about 20% of what should be found. So most of the towers transformed into dust. And to transform the cohesion forces of concrete, of steel, is very high. And when you try to break a piece of concrete with a hammer you realize the quantity of energy you have to provide to transform this chunk of concrete into powder. In this case, the whole World Trade Centre, those millions of tonnes, were transformed into dust. So we're talking here about a device, let's call it a weapon, that has the capability to deliver huge quantities of - let's call it energy, we don't even know what it is - a huge quantity of energy or information in almost, in a fraction of a second.
Jason: Well there's the two pieces of just visual, there's the one piece of visual evidence that calls everything into question and kind of puts a stop to any kind of theory that you had, and that was the dustification situation. When you see them falling, and you see the amount of dust coming off, you have a really hard time with coming up with a situation where a giant block of concrete, as it's falling through the air, would produce that much dust. It is a bit problematic. It's something - it's an experiment that you can't recreate. So it's just a piece of visual evidence that everyone's seen, but everyone just stop and think "Wait a minute. Take a piece of concrete, throw it in the air. How much dust comes off? None. Okay, so we have a little bit of a problem here. How did they get dustified?"
And the second thing is that the seismic events that were measured at the time, not enough building hit the ground.
Niall: Yeah.
Jason: That's a bit of a problem.
Niall: Even before that, the actual planes hitting the buildings is bracketed by strange events on both sides, before and after. What few people are aware of is explosions going off, reported to have gone off, inside the towers, in the basement of the towers I believe, before any of the planes actually impacted.
Jason: But I think that that's a red herring. That's to get people to think that there was explosives wrapped around all the columns and that that could somehow do it. And first of all it's not reasonable that the explosions would do that.
Niall: Yeah, I did think that but it turns out that fire brigades had been sent to the World Trade Centre before any of the planes had impacted, responding to a call of explosions going off. Have I got that right Joe?
Joe: Um.
Niall: And that the complex was actually cordoned off.
Joe: Well it seems to be that way because - well first of all, first of all there's a problem with the planes, the idea that they're actually commercial airliners because there's a lot of eyewitnesses. Very few, if any eyewitness reports identified the planes that hit the World Trade Centre. Most of them saw the second one obviously because they weren't expecting the first one. But a lot of people saw, a lot of video cameras saw the second hitting. The two planes that hit were either American Airlines or United Airlines and both of them have fairly distinctive markings, particularly American Airlines. Half of the fuselage in the plane is silver and it's also got blue and red stripes on it. So that would be fairly recognizable, at least or if only in the context of it for compared to, for example, a matte grey or a matte black plane, you would be able to recognize the difference. And most eyewitness reports are people who saw the second plane hitting and also video evidence of the first plane hitting don't seem to point to them really being recognizable commercial airlines, either United Airlines or American Airlines planes. There's also some anomalous kind of shapes or configurations to the actual planes as they fly into the World Trade Centre towers.
So for me anyway, the question as to whether the planes that hit the World Trade Centre 1 and 2 were actually United Airlines 175 and American Airlines 11 is a bit debatable. It's hard to know. It's quite possible. That doesn't dismiss the idea of them being remote controlled. I think remote control is most likely, but those planes obviously did take off from their respective airports that morning. They were scheduled to take off. They were regular flights. They did take off but both of the planes, in fact all of the planes on that day, all four planes, flew out over areas that were essentially - flew through areas, quite relatively small areas of the country, that were outside of kind of radar or transponder signal reception. So there was a blind area for all of the planes, that they flew through, where they simply went off the radar. And in those cases when planes fly through those areas, they expect them to appear again on the radar very quickly after they pass through that area. But there's obviously the possibility that in that moment where the plane is essentially missing or it's not viewable or not trackable, that something could be substituted, something could take that plane's place. Because the air traffic controller simply see it go off the radar and then a plane that appears on the flight path, coming out the other side of this radar dead zone, well that's, it's meant to be signalling the same transponder code as the plane that went in.
Jason: Yeah.
Joe: So there's a possibility therefore, for a switcheroo.
Jason: Right.
Joe: And two planes come flying then into the New York area and hit the World Trade Centre towers that were not those actual flights. And of course then there is the question of what happened to those flights and where are the people on it.
Jason: You can use your imagination there.
Joe: You can use your imagination. They were fed to - what's that pit in Star Wars called?
Jason: Sarlacc I think.
Joe: Sarlacc. They were fed to Sarlacc. But there's the other bit of evidence of both planes, just before they hit the World Trade Centre towers, there was a flash of light or of something, before the nose actually hits the façade of the World Trade Centre towers, there is a flash of something and it's kind of anomalous. It shouldn't be there, but it's right in front of the nose cone and it's before it hits the building. And this is archive footage. If you get into the idea of "Well that's been manipulated, the video has been edited to just confuse people" well then you can apply that to absolutely everything and all physical evidence is essentially useless. You can't rely on it.
So you have to make a decision at some point as to whether or not, how deep into the conspiracy hole are you going to go and whether it's all made up or not. But for me, this is kind of like archive footage. I don't see any reason to believe that it has been manipulated. And it would maybe make sense that something was used, some kind of a - there's been suggestion that there's a laser, it's called a tactical, high-energy laser that's been developed by DARPA and the U.S. military for quite a long time. It's been operational since 2000 for shooting down missiles. Apparently it has the power of a million suns or something like that. But it basically it's a laser that's used to shoot down missiles. Some people suggested that there was something like that, that these planes were equipped with something like that for some reason. I don't know, to maybe break open or to destroy the façade to facilitate the entry of the plane because otherwise it - I don't know. Who knows, but that's all speculation. But there is this evidence of something weird having gone on there on that day.
But the thing about on the ground, there is lots of eyewitness reports of bombs going off in World Trade Centre 1 and 2 and in Building 7 before the planes actually hit. So there were people saying that bombs were going off before planes hit. And if you look, I think it's the only video available, of the first plane hitting the World Trade Centre tower, and it's by two French guys who were in New York at the time and they were making a documentary on the New York Fire Department. So they were kind of embedded with the New York Fire Department and had been for a time previous to 911. And on that morning they filmed the only video of the first plane hitting the first tower. And the reason no one - I don't think anybody has actually questioned this or I haven't read it or seen anyone question it, as to how they got that footage, why they were pointing the camera up at the first World Trade Centre tower when there was no evidence, or no reason for anyone to expect that anything was going on.
But they happened to be there and in the video where you see the plane hitting the first tower, you see that the streets adjacent to and around the World Trade Centre have been kind of cordoned off. There are several fire trucks and several emergency personnel all standing around. And that seems to support the idea or the claim of eyewitnesses that bombs had been going off in buildings around the World Trade Centre complex. And that would be why the fire department was there already, responding to reports of bombs going off and that would be why the Naudet brothers were there, because they were out there on location with the New York Fire Department. And that's why they got the first video of the plane hitting the World Trade Centre.
Niall: So the other bomb, that may or may not have gone off at the World Trade Centre 7, is very interesting because we looked at some video footage today, some original news footage of a reporter who was in the lobby of a building beyond even the World Trade Centre. So you've got the two towers, World Trade Centre 7 and then this guy is another street over in the next building, so he's a whole block away and he's like "I'm reporting from the lobby of this building on Barkey Street?
Joe: Barclay Street, yeah.
Niall: Barclay Street, and it's totally obliterated.
Joe: Yeah, in that video he's walking through the lobby of a building and it seems to be from the position that you see outside when he walks outside, is that he's in a place called 30 West Broadway. It's called the Fiterman Building or something along those lines. But inside that building - and this building, just to give you an idea, imagine the World Trade Centre complex with the two main towers as a square and on say the north side of that square, there's a road called Versey Street. And then you have a row of buildings. You have the Verizon building, looking onto that street. Looking across at the World Trade Centre complex you have the Verizon building, you have WTC 7 and the U.S. Post Office. So he's another street back from that in another old building. He's coming out of the lobby of one of those buildings and looking at Building 7. And behind Building 7 is the World Trade Centre complex.
So he's in the lobby of a building and he points a camera around at all of the windows in that building are blown out and outside. And again, this is one street back from the World Trade Centre complex after the towers have fallen. And that street and those buildings are shielded by a row of tall buildings including Building 7 which is 47 storeys high. Yet the building that he's in, which is shielded by this row of building and two streets back from the World Trade Centre complex, has all of its windows blown out. And in the street there are burnt out cars and buses, like dozens of them, all burnt down to bare metal. It's like a war zone basically and he says it's like a war zone. But he's 200 or 300 metres or yards away from the World Trade Centre complex after the buildings have fallen, and shielded from that by a row of quite tall skyscrapers. But as he works out World Trade Centre 7 has about 2 or 3 floors, maybe floor 2 and 3 and floor 6 and 8 or something like that, the whole row of windows are all more or less - or most of them are on fire.
And this is the claim that this is why Building 7 fell, because it had been burning all day and eventually it - but the problem is that there were bombs going off - there were reports of bombs having gone off that morning in those buildings before the World Trade Centre towers were hit by planes.
Niall: Yeah. The scale of the destruction on that street suggests a massive bomb.
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: In or around or right next to World Trade Centre 7.
Jason: I thought the burning of those cars though was suspicious, wasn't it?
Niall: Well this is where it overlaps with another aspect that's weird. Well, it's weird, the idea of a bomb going off is not so strange because there are reports of bombs going off. Toasted cars up to nearly a mile away, so many blocks away from the World Trade Centre complex. That's something else that is weird, where you've got a whole row of cars on FDR Drive that are burnt. Some are partially burnt and they're just sitting there. Then you've got other reports of people who are running away from the scene, so they're not in direct contact with anything that might be falling debris or flames shooting out or anything. And they are themselves witnessing cars next to them spontaneously catching fire. Some of their own clothes catch on fire.
Joe: Yeah, there were lots of reports of - they put them down to cars exploding, their fuel tanks exploding because of the heat, but this was going on in a wide area around the World Trade Centre complex. You have to remember here, okay, there were fires that had been raging for an hour, an hour-and-a-half, in the upper storeys of the World Trade Centre, but those buildings collapsed into supposedly a pile of dust and pretty much into their own footprint, as everybody has seen. They dustified. A lot of the material was turned to dust. But they fell directly down and plumes of smoke, you saw the billowing plumes of dust and ash and smoke or whatever, blowing out down different streets. But why would cars 2 or 3 streets away be burned? I mean dozens and dozens of cars. Why would they all be burned down to the bare metal?
It collapsed in its own footprint and you're talking about cars several streets away somehow miraculously being burnt to a crisp. All the cars in the street. But no one questions that. No one wonders how that could have happened. Go with the official story. You know the buildings collapsed, right? They collapsed because of planes. Planes flew into them and the fires weakened the steel and the buildings collapsed and they collapsed directly down. They didn't fall over. And forget about the dustification, whatever, they just collapsed into their footprint. Okay, well four streets away, 500 yards away, every car in the street is burnt to a crisp. Explain it.
Pierre: And the way they were burned was peculiar as well. You have in some cases, the engine is literally liquefied and the rest of the body is almost pristine. In some cases some parts are totally burned and some other parts, like plastic parts, that should melt first, are still intact. It's difficult to account for this whole phenomenon with the technologies that we know.
Joe: Yeah. There's also ...
Jason: Maybe people heard bomb sounds.
Niall: Well they heard popping sounds.
Joe: Well let's just listen to some here.
[RECORDING #1] We were in the lobby, gathering to go up and start doing a search on the upper floors. As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion and everybody just started running for the door. Everybody was trapped.
[RECORDING #2] Doctors treating the injured here say most of the 100 patients treated so far are suffering not just smoke inhalation and eye damage but fractures. Many of them have told the doctors that they were responding to the attack on the south tower when they were suddenly trapped by the second explosion and many of the fractures they're suffering come not from fallen debris but from the concussive force of the explosion which slammed them against walls, knocked them to the ground or slammed them up against their own ambulances.
[RECORDING #3] He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. He says that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands of people in those two towers when the explosions took place.
[RECORDING #4] There was a lot of talk there in New York of another explosion prior to the collapse of the first building.Joe: An explosion prior to the collapse of the first building. So there are loads and loads of eyewitness reports and it's a cross-section. It's from firefighters, ordinary people and it's hard to put it all down to kind of plants or anything like that. There does seem to have been bombs - a lot of bombs, going off in the basements, in the basement areas, in the subsections and in the lobbies and even in the few floors up from the ground, in both World Trade Centre towers. And the only reason I can think of as to why they would do that would be to plausibly be able to say that damage was to the entire structure. The plane hit 97, 90-some floors up. Somehow that transferred explosive material, or an explosive force down to the lobby and down to the basement.
It's amazing that the official report ignores all of this. They're simply ignoring peoples' testimony, people who were there, people are on camera from that day, coming out and speaking to several different news agencies and telling them "Bombs went off". Firefighters. Who's going to not believe a firefighter? Why would he - these are kind of hardened New Yorkers who have been firefighters for most of their lives basically and they have no reason to lie, but they're saying that they were in the buildings, in the lobby, in the basements and the place blew up, down below. The elevators blew out. Not just the elevators, but the sub-basements just were destroyed. Some of them went down to the basement and it was destroyed. They said it was like a bomb had gone off, a bomb must have gone off in the basement level. So explain that one. Explain it. How does that happen? How does a bomb or how does the basement of a building suffer the effects of what looks like a large bomb as a result of a plane hitting a thousand feet above it?
Pierre: There were also testimonies of five firefighters reporting oxygen tanks exploding very close to them. The firefighters said it was not this hot. If they were still here to testify, then obviously it was not this hot. And despite this moderate temperature, oxygen tanks were exploding. It's as if the technology used was somehow material-specific.
Niall: Well I think we can say that there was a mix of technologies used.
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: So you had conventional weaponry, bombs, then you had - there is evidence for having found this thermite?
Pierre: Nanothermite.
Niall: Nanothermite in dust samples taken from the area. And so that's getting exotic. And then there seems to be another layer of technology over and above that.
Joe: That's the problem. People argue between thermite, nanothermite and Judy Wood's kind of dustification exotic energy, directed energy weapons and stuff when all they have to do is go "Well okay, if there's evidence for all three, then all three were used".
Niall: Yeah, they're not mutually exclusive but people are getting into blame wars over which part.
Jason: Because there could have been different ideas about how to do it and like we were talking about these different levels, at a certain level it's "Ah, the building's not going to fall down, let's help it out". Because maybe that's what they intended. They intended to blow up the base and have it tip over or something like that.
Niall: Well yeah, if you go back to 1993 two massive bombs - two or one? Two I think, one in each tower went off in the basement. Of course the building might have jarred a little, but it didn't do anymore damage than ...
Joe: But I think those bombs obviously tied quite well into the idea that it was a terrorist attack, into the official story. Even if they can't explain it. Even if the official story only says that the 911 attacks involved planes being flown into the buildings and they say nothing about ...
Jason: Why wouldn't they capitalize on it?
Joe: ... any other team. Well because maybe there's no evidence for it or they didn't prepare the evidence for it or ...
Niall: Well that's the thing. People can fill in the gaps and fall back on "Oh, bomb. Well bomb. Terrorists. Okay, that makes sense." But when you throw in all the other evidence and you're talking about technology that's way beyond that, that's a whole other place to go.
Joe: Yeah. I think it's at that level where the cross-communication or miscommunication or a lack of a cohesive kind of group of conspirators, where some of them were involved in doing something and maybe didn't know that the dustification, for example, was going to happen. And ultimately they were just left with a problem of "Well we didn't actually plan for this". They were planning for or maybe they didn't even know that planes were going to be flown into the towers. There seems to be so much going on that day that a lot of stuff didn't actually come off. Like you mentioned that fire in the White House. There was also a fire - or a bomb alert at the - I think a fire at the capital building.
Niall: Yeah, they evacuated everyone.
Joe: And the mall. There was stuff going on all over the place that - they just decided not to answer.
Jason: Here's my question. And I'm suspicious. I'm still suspicious. I don't know, but I'm very suspicious about the whole thing because it would have served their purposes, for their official explanation, in every way, if they would have acknowledged the existence of bombs. Because every person who said "Well they couldn't have brought the towers down", all they had to say was "Well, they also planted very big bombs". And there's no reason for them not to have capitalized on the existence of bombs. Not only that, but it would have increased the security concern because not only did they take over the airplanes but also "they managed to plant bombs. They planted these big bombs". And they could have said they were any kind of super-bombs and they had access to super-therma. Why didn't they capitalize on it? It just sounds a little bit strange that they wouldn't have said "Oh, and there were bombs".
Niall: They might have decided that would take the investigation places they didn't want to go.
Jason: How?
Niall: For example, the person in charge of security at the World Trade Centre complex was the brother of then-President George Bush. So where was he? What was going on? How come he didn't see this coming? You can imagine the questions.
Joe: It's one thing, the idea of planes. Nobody can buzz you for that. Nobody can say "You should have taken care of that", even though it's claimed since that Bush was warned, the Bush government was warned about a plot to attack with planes, hijacked planes, etc.. But it's one thing to fly planes into a building, just comes out of the blue, literally. But to plant bombs in a building, in the World Trade Centre complex, in the basement of buildings? Someone kind of has to answer to that, how did that happen. CCTV footage, all that kind of stuff. I don't know, maybe that's just one possibility of why they keep say "Let's just ignore that. The buildings collapsed, that's enough. We've got the planes, we've got the hijackers, got the collapse of the buildings. We're going to war. Let's just move on, quickly". Let's just move on from the bombing thing.
Niall: They had a very sloppy explanation for World Trade Centre 7. Nothing official. But there's a statement from Silverstein, the guy who ...
Joe: Larry Silverstein.
Niall: Larry Silverstein. I think he owned or had just sold - no, he had just bought ...
Pierre: Got an insurance contract.
Niall: That's right. For the whole complex.
Pierre: Yes.
Niall: And he was interviewed, maybe months after, about what had happened, with this building in particular, number seven. And he said "Well yeah, there were fires", blah, blah, blah, "We had to make a decision so we decided to pull it and we watched the building go down". Wait a minute, you decided to pull it. Pull is a demolition term. You decided to demolish the building, but you don't decide and then it just happens five minutes later. You must have planned it in advance.
Pierre: It takes days and it's almost impossible to conduct if there's a fire going on in the World Trade Centre 7.
Joe: Of course, yeah. It takes weeks.
Pierre: A contradiction.
Joe: According to demolition experts, to do it properly. And so that alone, that's why a lot of people are focusing on the World Trade Centre 7 because ...
Niall: It stands out.
Joe: It looks to anybody with - to experts and lay person alike, it looks exactly like a controlled demolition. If you can compare it to all sorts of other collapses of buildings where it kind of pinches in the middle and just falls straight down, there's no dustification and no lathering, despite what Judy Wood claims, there's no lathering of World Trade Centre 7. To me that's smoke because the building has literally been on fire for about six, seven hours. And it's burning quite a lot. But it's interesting that it's been burning for six or seven hours and it hasn't collapsed on its own because the point being that if it collapsed from fire, it wouldn't collapse in the way that it seemed to collapse in the video which, according to demolition experts and anybody who's seen the building fall, is that the support columns ...
Niall: Are knocked out.
Joe: ... are simultaneously - were blown so that the building falls directly down and it pinches right in the middle as well. And you see that happening, you know? So that's why people are focusing on it because the evidence is that it was brought down by a controlled demolition and that takes weeks. So somebody weeks in advance set that building up to - that was a spook - spook central, that building. It was pretty much owned by all of the Intel kind of and pseudo-intel agencies of the ...
Niall: It was the New York offices of the FBI. It was the second largest after Langley, set of offices for the CIA. It was the offices for the secret services in New York. It was the office for the SEC, which is really interesting because they had a lot of files going back decades. The SEC basically investigates financial corruption and fraud in the United States. And it destroyed - it supposedly - I don't buy this, but they used that then as cover because "Oh, we lost a lot of files on open cases. We're just going to and given the national tragedy that's just happened, we're just going to give a pass on all these companies". I don't have any names. McLean-something? Anyway, there's a whole bunch of these crooks who were actually involved in the clean up operation, the physical clean up operation of 911, of the World Trade Centre complex who got a free pass on "case closed".
Joe: On fraud.
Niall: So it seemed to be Silverstein was saying "We're going to pull this building" it means "we're going to close the file as well", on a whole lot of leads.
Joe: And in terms of keeping that thing secret, especially for intel agency types, say it employs a lot of people, the FBI employs a lot of people and there were a lot of CIA and FBI and NSA and secret service employees in that building and World Trade Centre 7. So we're suggesting that it was prepped weeks and weeks, maybe months in advance, at a leisurely pace. So the question is but how could they have kept that secret? When you prepare a building for demolition, how are you going to keep it secret? But then you remember that well, it's populated by a bunch of spooks, so how hard is it to convince an FBI or CIA guy that "Listen, we're doing something kind of top secret here. Can you take the day off or can you go home early tonight?" And he's going to go "Mmm, that's suspicious."
Jason: No, tell everybody.
Joe: No, he's going to go "Yeah, business as usual. That's what we do". It's surprising for a bunch of FBI agents to be told "Listen, make yourself scarce, we're doing something private, kind of secret, secret service type stuff? You know the stuff you do? Well we're doing it and so just go away," And they're going to go "Okay. No problem". It's not like they're an ordinary member of the public that might kind of think "Something's going on here. I'm going to report this to the police". No, they've signed an oath of secrecy and they expect the world that they live in to be - the more secret and spooky and top secret it appears to be, the happier they are because that's what they signed on for. They all signed on to be James Bond, right?
Pierre: Just going back to the possible use of the various technologies, that would be an interesting way to divide the truth movements because I guess when you plan such an operation you know that there will be inquiries. There will be questions raised. And having maybe thermite, nanothermites, bombs, planes, exotic technologies, is one of the best ways to drive a wedge between the truthers and to create fights amongst the only ones who could get close to the truth.
Jason: Yeah. It's like an orgy of evidence. There's all of this conflicting evidence everywhere. It's like they tried to do everything. They just threw everything at it, just for the specific purpose of each person would pick something out and say "Oh, that was the cause".
Niall: I think it was Albarelli saying that "Investigating the JFK assassination is like going down a black hole" and I think 911's already at that. But we also know that, looking back at trying to understand what happened to JFK, that that's part of the operation.
Jason: Exactly.
Niall: False leads, false trails.
Joe: Yeah, you set it up in advance, sheep dip people and ...
Niall: And they don't even have to do that much of it because they know that people will - it'll will run organically.
Joe: Yeah. We have a call here, so let's see who we've got on the line. Hi caller. What's your name and where are you calling from?
Gary: Hi, I'm Gary. I'm calling from Tucson, Arizona.
Joe: Hi Gary.
Gary: Hi. I know you guys kind of moved on, on the topic and everything, but I was thinking about how you were talking before about sort of the choice between - or people choosing to be evil or their choosing to be good and all that kind of stuff. But it seems to me like your average person who's come across the inconsistencies with 911 and then choosing to just go back to sleep, it's probably not so much a choice between "Oh I want to choose to be good" or "I want to choose to be evil". I think it's more along the lines of helplessness, that they feel helpless against it. It's like the JFK thing or it's like "Hey, if they can do this to the President of the United States, what can they do to me?"
Joe: Absolutely.
Jason: In a lot of circumstances, yeah.
Joe: There's an implicit understanding from people that this is very dangerous. You're talking about people being murdered. You're talking about, like in JFK or 911, you're talking about - the implication there is if they follow the theory or follow the logic, the end result is that "My government just killed a bunch of civilians to get to do what they wanted to do. So am I really going to stick my neck out too far in trying to investigate this or do something about it? Because it's a no-brainer. If I do that too much, I'm going to end up the same way."
Jason: In all fairness, that person recognizes the problem. To feel helpless, they have to realize that there is a force against which they are impotent.
Gary: Mm-hm.
Jason: And we're talking about more like the people who delighted and are really proactive in pursuing "those damn conspiracy theories, those anti-American, those blah-blah-blah-blah-blah". If we're talking about those type of people we're talking about those who make a choice for evil.
Gary: Yeah.
Jason: But the person just doesn't say anything and puts their head down because they recognize that this is a dangerous situation, that's a person who at least recognizes that there's something bad going on and that they're in danger, and therefore they must be in danger from something and that something is very important.
Pierre: And I think it's done by design to some extent, when you look at the Patriot Act about those laws allowing the authorities to detain, arrest and torture basically any individual. It's a not-so-subtle message sent to the whole population "If you cross the line, you might be one of the inmates".
Jason: Well that's what the Abu Ghraib revelations were all about. It was less about them being afraid of prosecution and more about "This is how far we're willing to go. You don't want to mess with us". It's the whole Guantanamo Bay thing.
Gary: Well I think it's also beyond just personal safety too in the sense that it sure seems like they've cornered the market on just the things in life that your average person appreciates, like their family and their children. So like how you can almost have your kids taken away for practically anything that you do. So, they may not just only be thinking about themselves in terms of their helplessness, but their family too.
Joe: Yeah, absolutely.
Jason: Exactly.
Joe: They've done a real number on people and it's by design, or I can't help but think it's by design, whether it's designed as a part of the particular type of nature these people have, so they themselves don't plan it long-term in advance, but it's simply an outplaying of their own inner nature that leads to these kind of situations. But they really have put people in a position where it's very difficult for them to manoeuvre or to do anything other than kind of keep their head down and keep their mouth shut. The average person, you can't blame too many people for wanting to just do that and get on with their lives.
And also the implications. I think people tend to feel, or intuit the implications of the kind of things that we're talking about here. Like for example 911 being an inside job or whatever. When you say that, I think a lot of people who are half intelligent intuit where that leads, without even going through the process bit-by-bit and following what it would involve or what it implies. They kind of just feel it viscerally that "This is really bad. What we're suggesting, 911 is an inside job, really just destroys my whole world, my whole life. It destroys my society. It destroys everything I believe in. It destroys my sense of security because you're saying that the people who I kind of pretty much accept as being the people who take care of me or who run society, as the structure that I fit into and I'm quite comfortable in that, having somebody look after the important decisions and stuff, you're suggesting that that all needs to be taken away, or that these people aren't working for the benefit of us all. Or at least they're not doing too much harm. Sure, they might be corrupt and liars but they're not going to go and kill us all." But for people to have to contemplate that, I can understand why people see it as almost the end of their cosy comfortable life and like you said, for their families and friends.
Jason: It's the end of the world they know.
Pierre: Yeah, maybe we should emphasize that safety is much more important to us than we intellectually think as adults. The emotional part of us, the children's body that's in us, consider safety as the most, by far, as the most important feature. And our whole society, our whole psyche, is based on the illusory belief that, that is the state, the authorities, that provide this safety. So analyzing 911 as an inside job, first destroys the illusion that the authorities are here to destroy us and two, it destroys our illusion of safety, which as I said previously, the most important thing. So as Joe mentioned, we're touching here to very fundamental psychological, unconscious processes.
Jason: Safety is of course the one thing that can never be guaranteed. It's the one thing that you never have. You're purchasing something you can never possess from a group of individuals who could never provide it anyway. So it's the ultimate sort of scam job.
Pierre: It's worse than that, I think. The very same authority that we think provides safety are the ones who threaten our safety. You see how twisted it is.
Jason: So I mean, government is in a certain sense a great big con game.
Pierre: Yeah.
Gary: Mm-hm.
Joe: Those same fears, that same understanding of peoples' need for security and playing on those fears that people have of their family and society and just basically a comfortable life, and it all falling apart, that understanding of human psychology was at play in planning out the 911 attacks, because of the psychological or emotional effect it had on people. And then the same kind of psychological and emotional mechanisms are at work in anybody who tries to question the official story. So it's essentially a mind job on most people. It's psychological and emotional manipulation on a grand scale. And it's quite masterful.
Pierre: Gary, I have a question.
Gary: Sure.
Pierre: Were you in Tucson, Arizona when 911 occurred?
Gary: Actually no I wasn't. I was in Wheaton, Illinois. I was actually working for the Theosophical Society in America at the time. So I was actually at work when it happened. But they had a communal TV so we all sat around and watched it happen.
Pierre: And what happened?
Joe: What was the reaction?
Gary: Well actually my reaction was at first anger, but I think a lot of people were actually sad. They were crying. They were like "Oh my. What happened?" But my first thought was just "What on earth could cause this to happen?"
Joe: Yeah, it was very traumatic for a lot of people, especially people very close to it.
Gary: I was also going to say the second half of that sort of mind job is maybe somewhere along the lines due to like the 1980's where it was the "me" generation, where people also feel helpless to the things that they like. I'm helpless. I love this music. I can't help but love this music. I love this TV show. I can't help it. So the choices between either look at the hard reality of the facts and the inconsistencies or "I'm helpless to watch this TV show".
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: So of those two, you chose to look at the hard facts of reality?
Gary: Well I choose to sort of segment my day. So like I go out and I work on my garden in the morning when it's cool and then I come in and I do whatever computer work I can get done during the hot part of the day. And sometime in the evening I start looking at other, alternative media sources. And then sometimes just before sunset I go back out into the garden. So I just kind of segment my life. I give just enough time to do a little bit of everything in any given day.
Niall: Well that sounds like a very healthy way to approach it, because you cannot just be sitting there and staring it in the face all the time. In a way, it is more than enough to at least be aware of it and to at least help others, if they come to you in that same state of helplessness, to talk them through it, because this is ultimately, as we've been saying, it's a traumatic event that people need to heal from, at least those who choose to. And the daily life does not change. We still have our things to do. We have to, to survive.
Jason: I still watch TV.
Niall: Of course.
Jason: Have various projects and stuff like that. You can't do it all the time, but it's kind of like, it takes a lot of little termites to eat away the structure of a house and each one takes a couple of bites and does his little duty. And that's kind of the way you've got to look at it.
Pierre: It takes even more nanotermites to eat the World Trade Centre.
Jason: Exactly.
Pierre: And Gary, I have another question.
Gary: Sure.
Pierre: You've been living in the U.S. since 2001. For you, in the American society, what is the most dominant change you notice between the pre-911 and post-911?
Gary: Well I think probably the most predominant change is perhaps the notion that, whereas it kind of used to be, it was like "Oh this was white America's America, and all those other people, they're not part of America." I think we've all realized it's nobody's America. Because, you don't even have to go all the way back to 911. You can just look at the difference between now and 2008, at how like in 2008 you had that Joe the plumber guy, neither Joe nor a plumber, and he was broke, but he identified with - he was going to be a millionaire someday. And I don't even think anybody thinks that anymore. I think we're all now self-identifying with the fact that "Gee, there really is just all of us in the underclass and there's those other guys out there running everything. And what can we do about it?"
Pierre: The death of the American dream.
Gary: Mm-hm.
Niall: It's the death of an illusion.
Gary: Mm-hm.
Niall: And no matter how hard it seems for a while, life still goes on. And it is an illusion we have to get over. The illusion was that the state is there to protect us. It's almost like if you look at it in even a bigger picture, it's an unintended consequence of this 911 event, that it is giving people the choice to grow up, to become more integrated, become more whole, to see past illusions that they've believed their whole life.
Joe: Alright Gary. Thanks.
Gary: So thanks for your time and love your show.
Joe: Thanks for your call. Okay thank you.
Pierre: Thank you Gary.
Jason: Thank you.
Gary: Bye-bye.
Joe: Yeah, the other thing about the World Trade Centre though as the missing people. There's something like 1,600 missing people. I think approximately half the number of people have never been found. And there's some statistics here of - there were fewer than 300 whole bodies found and fewer than 1,600 people were identified. So approximately half of the people who were killed were not identified. Eight hundred of those victims that were identified were only identified by DNA. That means that the pieces that they found of them were too small to be identifiable. There were 20,000 pieces of bodies found. Six thousand of those pieces were small enough to fit into test tubes. And there were 10,000 unidentified pieces, frozen for future analysis.
So as much as the towers were dustified, the people were dustified. You put a bunch of people in a building and collapse it, you're going to find mainly large parts of bodies, if not whole bodies, crushed, etc. But a human body doesn't get shredded unless you put it into a wood chipper or something like that. You don't get these types of bone fragments that were found. Not just on the ground, but on the tops of other buildings. Hundreds of them found on the tops of other buildings. So how do you explain that? How do you explain the disintegration almost, of human bodies in front of a building collapse?
Jason: I vaguely remember a quote from an expert who worked in that kind of field of reassembling bodies after explosions and stuff and he said that it was actually rather strange that they didn't find more. He said that he had never worked on a project where they didn't recover enough material to account for everybody at least. I think that he said it was a very high amount of recovery, don't remember the exact quote.
Joe: There's no mechanical reason for, or physical reason for that to have happened.
Pierre: Not traditional ones. Another strange thing that was mentioned is the behaviour of the jumpers and the fact that several people working at the World Trade Centre this day were hanging out of the windows and taking off their clothes.
Joe: Mm-hm.
Pierre: Although heat was present and clothes protect from the heat. So usually when you're subjected to high temperatures, you tend to keep your cloths.
Joe: As a protection, yeah.
Pierre: Yeah. That was another oddity.
Joe: We have another caller here so we'll go ahead and take it. Hi caller, what's your name and where are you calling from?
Charles: Hello. My name is Charles. I'm calling from Missoula, Montana.
Joe: Hi Charles. Welcome to the show.
Pierre: Hi Charles.
Charles: Hi guys. As you were talking I just - this large subject of course that we're talking about, but it reminded me of my dad's day where the corporations were taking money, the same old games were run. Well let's go back. Let's go back to serfdom, right, where the lords took most of everything the serf created and gave him just a little bit of food to survive. And then all the things that happened after that. There was a point there, where we were all getting part of the wealth. You could conceptually say "Well we stole a lot from the Native Americans" and stuff like that, but it was all getting spread around there for a while. And then in my dad's day which was back in the '50's, '60's, the corporation, you went, you worked for the corporation, you were basically a serf, but you got more for what - you got some of what the corporation was making.
And now it just seems to be across the board cancer that they're taking everything. They're not giving anything back. They're poisoning our food of course, but just in the sheer wealth. So these psychopaths that are running these - I don't really know who the guy is that runs the whole show. Is it two families? Is it three? Is it 100 corporations? But clearly the multinational corporations and military industrial complex, they're becoming blatant. They don't give a damn about us anymore, and they're taking all the money and then they're murdering people. Anyways, that was kind the drift.
Pierre: We've talked about that a few days ago, about this "golden age" of the U.S. in the '50's and '60's.
Joe: Yeah, they are getting more blatant. They apparently don't care as much anymore about covering it up. And I think part of the reason for that is that as they've gone along, they've been testing the waters. They've been ever more flagrantly kind of pushing the boundaries, in terms of abuse of people and abuse of power ...
Charles: Right.
Joe: ... and cronyism and corruption. And when people don't respond, and the people aren't totally to blame for that in the sense that people aren't just rolling over and saying "Oh well, what can I do?" It's that people - while they're abusing the people and enriching themselves, they're also putting in place propaganda to try and convince people that that's not what's happening. So people are kind of being held in this situation. They're doing their best to try and at the same time abuse people as - while they are abusing people and abusing their privileges, they are trying to convince people that that's not what's happening. And they have a pretty sophisticated propaganda machine to do that.
Charles: Well absolutely. And there's no question. I mean, you look into - which I've been doing with the fortunate aspect of internet where you can research a lot of data - and you get back into the non-profit foundations that were investigated years ago and they found out that they had this agenda, getting into the school systems to brainwash people. And there's that. Of course there's all the MK Ultra stuff. Up in Quebec where they were shocking people, shock doctrine, Naomi Klein wrote that book about where it goes into - I mean, it's across the board. They've been working with this to actually control the people, make them even more slave-like.
And that was kind of the point I was getting at as well, is that I think even with all that stuff, even with poisoning the food and making people down the fluoride, even with the - what I see too now, this is another point I wanted to make if I may, is this politically correct is part of this brainwashing where it used to be the individual - individualism was really big in the U.S. when the western expansion and everything. Then it became this thing, this propaganda against individualism, that we're this collective and you can't have a thought that we all don't have or you're like weird.
And I think part of this political correctness has been moved from really caring about social issues, to fashion, through MTV or various TV shows, where it's all being on the group think. Are you cool? Are you hip? And not looking any deeper than that. And those are very easily manipulated.
Pierre: A diversion. Diversion from the important topics, consumerism.
Joe: On the one hand they promote, there's a very good documentary called The Century of the Self where way back as far as the '30's a nephew of Freud's, Edward Bernays, ...
Charles: Right.
Joe: ... was contracted by the government at the time to try and promote individualism or a focus on the self and consumerism essentially. It was to support corporations.
Charles: Right.
Joe: To support people - or to get people to buy and to think about themselves and what they need and that things will make them happy. So at that level, they forced people into essentially a selfishness and a me, me, me attitude. So that's at an individual level. But at a national level they're then expected to have this kind of group think where "We're all American. It's a collective." It's almost like at the upper level it's almost kind of like a communism type thing.
Niall: Yeah.
Joe: From a national ideology point of view, while at the personal level, it's a capitalistic, kind of like "feed yourself" type of thing. "Every man for himself. Dog eat dog."
Jason: The thing is, say for instance reading Roman history, it's kind of interesting that that type of rhetoric about this whole community thing and group, we're Romans, Roman citizenship, all this stuff. So it actually seems that kind of social grouping actually is natural to humanity, that we want to form extended social networks actually. It's sort of our thing. And that actually the rugged individualism is sort of like all about yourself. It kind of didn't work in a sense. And so now they seem to be trying to exploit this other thing about trying to enforce group think and go along to get along. The individualism didn't work. So throughout history, if you look throughout history, you see these type of movements and eventually what happens is the people start collecting together and there's a giant mass of looking at themselves as "We're the 99 percent". That's a natural sort of thing. "We're the 99 percent. They're the one percent." And they did the same type of things in Rome.
Pierre: I suppose there are several ways of crystallizing collective dynamics. There are positive ways when it's spontaneous, bottom up, when people materialize this need, this fundamental need to share and be together, learn together, help each other. But there is also a more nefarious way of materializing collective dynamics. That's what we are seeing currently, when actually you base the collective dynamics on fear or exclusion, on exclusivity. The Patriot Act, between the lines the message is "If you don't agree with our politics, you're against us. If you're not with us, you're against us." That's totally different.
Niall: And if you're against us, you're against your country.
Pierre: Yeah, unpatriotic.
Joe: You can see how it's been subverted. As Jason was saying, it's a natural tendency in human beings to want to be part of a group and to work together and to collaborate and to see themselves as a community. But that desire, that natural human tendency has been subverted and projected onto states to that everybody's seen as a group under the state, under one nation, under god and under the government.
Jason: Indivisible.
Joe: Yeah, indivisible under god and under the government and therefore all of that kind of like - that enthusiasm for that community-minded stuff, which should be directed at people helping each other and their local communities, is projected, or subverted and projected up onto the state to glorify the elite essentially and to make people serve the elite. And then at the same time, in another way they are subverting that community-mindedness by forcing people, they have been forcing people for many years, to be consumeristic and the Century of the Self type of thing. Be for yourself. So in two ways they have been working to prevent that from ever coming to fruition or manifesting itself in American society because ultimately the result would be that people would see as it really is, "us against them" because we are the people who don't have a lot of money and don't have a lot of power and these few people do, and they're abusing us. We're not happy, we're not well off in any sense, in any real sense.
Jason: I wanted to make a point about the other thing that he said. Have you read a book called Political Ponerology? You can get it online at Amazon. It kind of talks about psychopaths and how they work. And you kind of have to see those types of people as like a disease in the body. When you first contract the disease, it starts to infect and infect and infect different systems. And at a certain point of course you become diseased and you collapse and then you die. And the disease of course is going to kill itself. It destroys the body. Psychopaths are kind of like that. And you were saying back in the '50's it wasn't quite so bad and it's just because they hadn't infected the structures to the level that they have today. And they just keep adjusting people like themselves up into positions of power. They find and sift through all of the people to find those who have - either who are like-minded as them, they put them up into a position here. He's the director, the minister, the secretary, all this different stuff. And they keep doing that, and they keep just infecting and infecting the system until eventually they cause it to collapse. And this is kind of like what happens throughout history. And every kind of big empire, it runs for probably a couple of hundred years and then these psychopaths, they finally get into power and then they cause the system to collapse and then it all starts all over again. And that's kind of what I think you're seeing when you say "Well back in the day it wasn't quite to bad but now today it's different".
Pierre: Yeah, just about Charles you mentioning the U.S. of your father during the '50's and the '60's, it was probably less worse than now, but we have to keep in mind that I think the relative wealth exhibited by the U.S. middle class in the '50's and the '60's was just a consequence of the emergence of the modern empire that the U.S. is now, collecting a lot of resources from foreign countries, that were mostly going in the U.S. elite's pockets and a few leftovers that was "enriching" the U.S. workers.
Joe: It's been brewing basically. In the '50's and '60's it was brewing in the background and it hadn't quite come to the boil, let's say, but it has kind of done today. Today we're seeing the result of that process that has been ongoing for the past 40 or 50 years. And it's not pretty.
Jason: The thing is that people believe the history of America as it's written. And you have to understand that you are not living in the same America that was founded on supposedly 1776. That America died during the Civil War and a new one came about. It was a regime change and there was a change in a lot of different things. And then that one again died with the depression. And then after the depression, another one was kind of born. And then there was this major world war, which eliminated a lot of people and also specifically in Europe and its committee countries and suddenly America was basically the big dog in the world. And so there was a lot more access and control of resources because there was so much decimation in Europe, that America who hadn't suffered all of that death and destruction and bombing, was suddenly well positioned. And so it seems like in the 50's things were very good, but they were very good kind of on accident. It was simply because everywhere else was so bad.
Pierre: Yeah.
Jason: That America couldn't help but have its fingers in all these pies. It was needed. It was getting all this money and had access to all this different wealth. And everybody needed to pump up America because they were now afraid of Russia and all these different things.
Pierre: One thing that is true in Charles' analysis is this downward spiral dynamics. And I think one specific of the psychopathic mind is that it is never enough. There's never enough money, never enough power, greed is limitless. So the only way to stop this endless run is in the hands of human beings. Psychopaths are not equipped to have any kind of boundaries in this field.
Joe: Yeah. I think that since we started this show talking about conspiracy theories, we should end it with a few words on that topic from everyone's favourite dead comedian, George Carlin.
[GEORGE CARLIN] Like slaves and say "I voted". The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins. And everyone else is marginalized and made to seem to be communist or some sort of disloyal person, a kook, there's a word. And now it's conspiracy, see. They've made that something that should not be even entertained for a minute, that powerful people might get together and have a plan. Doesn't happen. You're a kook. You're a conspiracy buff.
[BILL HICKS] I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. Hey wait a minute. There's one guy holding up both puppets. Shut up. Go back to bed America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer you fucking morons. No fucking way. I can't even see the road. Shit, they're lying to us. Fuck. Where are they? There's no fucking way. We have figured it out. Go back to bed America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed.Joe: Well you get the gist of that. That's actually Bill Hicks as opposed to George Carlin. I don't know where George Carlin ...
Jason: The first one was George Carlin.
Joe: Okay, George and then ...
Jason: And then Bill Hicks. Both of them conspiracy guys.
Joe: Yeah, they had some hard-hitting truths to convey to the American people.
Jason: My favourite quote from George Carlin is "That's why it's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it".
Joe: Well, you know we did this show because it's 911 time. It's that time of the year. It's the 8th of September but next weekend will be the 15th of September and we would have missed it so if we were going to do a night on the show, it was going to be this week. 911 has been done to death, really, over the past 12 years and you can go into all the details. It may be interesting for some people, but the overall truth of what 911 was and what it has done, should be pretty clear to anybody who even just has a cursory look at the evidence. Even just look at the evidence of what has been done as a result of 911. You don't even have to investigate 911, just look at what has been done in its name and you get the idea that it certainly was a manipulation, at least to some degree. It may have been the event that signals, that history will show signalled the ultimate demise of this stage in human civilization or evolution.
Jason: I would say at the very best, in the very best case, that there's probably about another eight more years of the illusion, the absolutely best edge case, before it all comes tumbling down. Because that's kind of like the way it is. There's one of these big kind of events. And the fear broker guys come in. They do this whole thing. They rape liberty left, right and centre, oppress the people, do this stuff, start up a whole bunch of wars, make a whole ungodly amount of money, eventually people start saying "Wait a minute" and they just fall. Eventually they eat the government from within. It becomes so corrupt that all of the beams rot and it collapses within, inside and kills everybody, even the innocent people around. And then we all sit there and we look and say "Ahhhhhhh, that really sucked. Let's create another government." Then they do and it starts all over again, takes maybe 100 years.
Joe: And around and around and round it goes.
Jason: And around and around it goes.
Niall: Next week we're going to have, hopefully - Ellen Brown has agreed to come on. Ellen Brown's the author of Web of Debt and we'll be asking her all about ...
Joe: The monetary system.
Niall: ... the monetary system and ...
Joe: How it enslaves us.
Niall: Yeah. She's the one to ask because she's decoded their language into simple speak and yeah, looking forward to that.
Joe: Okay, we're going to leave it there guys. So thanks for listening. Thanks to our callers. We will be back next week as Niall has just said, hopefully with Ellen Brown. Until then, have a good one.
Pierre: Bye-bye.
Jason: Bye-bye. Au revoir.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter