Sott Talk Radio logo
This week the regular hosts were in the hot-seat as Editor Pierre Lescaudron interviewed Joe and Niall about their recently published book, Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False Flag Terror Attacks.

Manufactured Terror is an anthology of investigative reporting on some of the most heinous crimes committed on American soil in recent years. While these events invariably go down as the work of 'lone nuts', gaping holes in the official narratives invite us to look behind the dramatic headlines and officials' psycho-babble.

Context is everything. Sometimes a lone nut is just that. But given abundant historical precedent for the involvement of state actors (note: not 'actors') in terror attacks and mass shootings, those who do most to position themselves as 'protectors of the people' appear to have most to gain from terrorizing their own population.

Running Time: 02:06:00

Download: OGG, MP3

Listen live, chat, and call in to future shows on the SOTT Radio Network!

Here's the transcript:

Pierre: Hello everybody and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio, it is June 22nd and this is show number 71. Yeah, already 71. And the title of our show today is: Manufactured Terror: Busted Wide Open. Well, this is the title of the show and it is also the title of the book written by Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley, our usual suspects, so I am your host for tonight. My name is Pierre Lescaudron and I'm going to be interviewing Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley. Today, roles are reversed. And following last week's show where Joe and Niall interviewed me and co-author Laura Knight-Jadcyzk with our new book: Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection. This time I will be asking them questions about their recently published book which is actually very, very interesting and I recommend every listener to quickly purchase and read this book, if you have not done this yet. Also, if you have any questions about this riveting topic, please feel free to call and I will talk to you. We will listen to your questions. Or you can also use the chatroom and post your questions to the chatroom.

So, Joe Quinn has been writing editorials for for 10 years he's also the author of's, SOTT report videos. His articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has been interviewed on several internet radio shows. His editorials along with other blog entries can be found on his personal blog: and he is also co-author of the book: 9/11 The Ultimate Truth. And Joe, I forgot to mention, holds a master in European studies. That's his initial academic credentials. And Niall Bradley, with us tonight, he has a bachelor of art in political science; he has a background in public relations; he has been writing editorials for for 5 years already and his productions can be found on his own personal blog titled: So, welcome to SOTT Talk Radio guys (laughter).

Joe: Gee, it's good to be here.

Niall: Yeah, wow it's an honor.

Joe: It's a change.

Niall: I've heard so much about this radio show.

Joe: Yeah, I love what you've done with the place. It's great, you know.

Pierre: Do you like the lounge?

Joe: It's corporate level furnishing around here.

Pierre: The cigars?

Joe: The refreshments are fantastic! You did a great job.

Pierre: Well, we wanted to treat you well for your first interview.

Joe: Absolutely.

Pierre: So, shall we get started with a hard - how do you say - the hard ball questions?

Niall: Hard hitting questions.

Pierre: How did you come up with this title "Manufactured Terror" and especially the last part "Busted Wide Open"? A non-native might not understand this last part.

Joe: Well, "Manufactured Terror" obviously is part of the title of our book, but "Busted Wide Open" is kind of an in-joke. I'm not sure many people know except the people that use it and the people that use it most often, busted' and 'busted wide open', are people on YouTube. People that upload videos to YouTube, specifically, about false flag terror attacks and terrorism, trying to expose the government involvement in terror attacks. And, they very often use "Busted".

Niall: To signify that they have found a smoking gun.

Joe: Of course, 'busted open', 'busted', we've busted this topic or event wide open. We've exposed the evil doers you know, hands in the cookie jar and stuff. So those kinds of videos we can laugh at them. First of all we were kind of annoyed at them because they were so badly done and the evidence they presented was so tenuous and subjective. So, we were annoyed at that because we were writing on the same kind of topics that these people were taking to ridiculous extremes and really discrediting anybody who's trying seriously to look into it, by association. But since then, we kind of just got over it and we just kind of laugh at it. You know they always have funny voices as well, it's kind of like, "Hey, You Tubers! You got to check out this video I made, totally busted this one wide open!" and then they proceed to explain in rather inane terms how they haven't actually found anything. So, that's the title we used today just because we will be talking about part of it, one of the major things that people have used that busted thing on was the Boston bombing, the marathon bombing. Well, people 'busted that open'.

Niall: I think the first time I saw it widely used was the event before that, Sandy Hook, and it seemed to just snowball from there.

Joe: Oh yeah, Sandy Hook school shooting 'Busted wide open', actors basically, actors all over the place, no real people, no blood, you know, blah, blah, blah, but we'll talk about that later.

Pierre: Well, we can talk about what specific mass bombing or mass shooting are you dealing with in this book? Do you focus on a few events or the major events or all the events recorded in modern history? What is the scope?

Joe: The scope is over the past, maybe, what year are we, 2014? Probably the past 7 or 8 years, that has been the time frame which most of the major home-grown terror plots in the U.S. have occurred because that's a kind of phenomenon unto itself within the whole 'war on terror'; this idea of home-grown terrorism. Because before that, obviously, everybody knows that even before 9/11, but then especially with 9/11 it was the evil Arabs over there, in that other part of the world where it's sandy and they wear towels on their head. Somewhere over there, what's it called, the Middle East?

Niall: Arabia.

Joe: Arabia or something. The people over there were scary and attacked us and we had to go over there and bomb them and stop them from attacking us but then after a few years of that, with Afghanistan and Iraq and various other places, it kind of came home as a natural progression I suppose. And the authorities never explained why that would be happening. But of course some people, some kind of liberals and people who are lefty, that kind of thing, would say it's ultimately the U.S. government's fault that these kinds of things happen in the U.S. because they are over there bombing other countries so they're going to provoke the ire of people within the U.S. who are either Muslim or of middle eastern descent.

Niall: So called blowback.

Joe: Blowback, yes. These events in the book are examples of that kind of supposed blowback although we take a slightly different view of what the origin and the genesis of them is.

Pierre: Okay.

Niall: A thing they all share in common is that they are particularly pronounced media events. And the one thing they have in common, that made them so, is the terror factor. I mean, to what extent was it a terrorizing event. That's partly to do with how much effort was put into making it so and partly to do with how much of it was received as such, so whatever the biggest events were, according to how long it stayed in the news, what kind of mass social effect it had.

Pierre: Okay, we'll go into that in a minute. I need to ask you a question: how did you come to develop this interest in this terrorism topic?

Niall: Well, for me, I think it would've been around 9/11. Actually 9/11 had happened and I had gone and left school that year and went to University. Chose a course I wasn't really interested in, 9/11 happened right when I began and about a year later I started reading some other things. In fact, I think the very first clue I got that something was wrong with the official story, the first time I started paying attention, was when I saw this video about the Pentagon. I subsequently found out, many years later, that it was a production. I had no idea at the time but it was the first one that made me think, wait a minute, something's going on here. So I switched my courses mid-stream at the end of my first year and I started studying politics because I realized that I was interested in power and the abuse of power and what comes with that is the kind of hardcore topics we're are talking about: the use of fear to control people. So that's how and why I got interested.

Pierre: And you Joe?

Joe: I'm not sure. I've always, I suppose, just naturally kind of had a distrust of authority for some reason. I don't know why, I think I was born with it. I don't like authority in the sense that, not that I don't like it but, maybe it was, I don't know, due to childhood or something like that but basically I have a distrust of authority; a dislike of authority; a kind of reaction against authority and...

Niall: I think, also the part of Ireland you grew up in compared to the part I grew up in would've opened your eyes to...

Joe: Yeah well, it did in terms of authority and two things: a distrust of authority and a keen sense for injustice and seeing injustice and having a problem with injustice. I mean, obviously, growing up in Northern Ireland I kind of had ample evidence and cause to see a lot of injustice perpetrated by authority, by authority figures, by police forces and military forces and stuff.

Pierre: Can you describe just for our listeners, who are not in the know concerning European history, recent history; what was the situation in Northern Ireland when you were a child? Was it an Independent country; how was it going?

Joe: (laughs) Having a history lesson here. I'll try and give you a very brief history lesson: you know Ireland has been kind of occupied, and under the control in some form or other, for about 800 years by the British. Because it's quite close to Britain and for various different reasons throughout history the British, well part of the British Empire, it was an easy option to kind of, take Ireland, a small country. It was a kind of a cash cow. It was used a lot for raw materials and for food for British troops and expanding empire around the world. So that's why the British wanted to keep it for all that time. And throughout those 800 years there were a lot of rebellions and revolts and that kind of stuff. After a major kind of revolution or rebellion, type of thing, in 1916, in 1922 they got independence from the United Kingdom, Britain, whatever, and apart from 6 counties; about a fifth of that, a bit less than a fifth of the country in the north and in the north east, was kept because it was predominantly protestant. Because of the whole Protestant/Catholic divide that was associated with nationality. Most Irish were Catholics, most British were Protestants.

The British had kind of planted or put a lot of their loyal subjects in this part of Ireland. They threatened civil war at the time of independence if they weren't allowed to remain a part of the U.K. So from 1922 on, that small part of Ireland remained a part of the United Kingdom; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So then, because they were on the ascendancy, they had loyal English subjects in that part, there was discrimination against Catholics for a long time. That eventually got to the point where in the 60s, with the whole civil rights movement and all that kind of stuff, Catholics started marching for civil rights. So they were discriminated against in terms of housing and education and jobs, across the board. It was pretty bad. They didn't have very good policing representation, if you know what I mean, none at all, in fact. There were no Catholics.

It was a very sharp divide religiously and nationally from a national ideology point of view and Catholics weren't represented at all in their own country. So, in the 1960s there were a lot of civil rights movements and that was responded to by the authorities with a heavy hand. With beatings and stuff and it culminated in 1972 with Bloody Sunday, a song by U2, where 13 Catholics who were part of a civil rights protest were shot by the British Army. Deliberately really, as a way to kind of put them down and just before that there had been an armed insurrection that started against the British Military forces in Northern Ireland.

So I was born in 1973 and this continued on until the 90s or so. All through my teenage years it was going on and it has a lot of parallels with what is going on today, obviously, because the British elite are very much the ideological forefathers of the American elite today. So they use the same kind of modus operandi in dealing with little people and maintaining their interests, wherever they deem their interests to be. So I drew on that a lot for my later interest in what I'm doing today and seeing a lot of the same stuff going on around the world on a broader scale, just transposed from Northern Ireland to the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. Just seeing the kind of template of the way authorities, the powers-that-be in this world operate and how it's really through deception, by way of deception, and all sorts of scurrilous, underhanded tactics to deceive people and wanting what is worst for them really.

Pierre: Was there some terrorism in Ireland?

Joe: There was. Primarily on the part of (laughs) - I'm not being biased here. Primarily on the part of the British and the British Military and the British Intelligence who were organizing it with the power of military gangs going around shooting and trying to provoke conflict. It's very similar in fact when you look at it in terms of civil war. I've written a lot about provoking civil war in countries as a way that imperial powers, the U.S. and Britain, will provoke a kind of civil war situation in a country as a way to maintain their control over it. Certainly in the modern days, in the late 20th century, it gets harder and harder for them to justify simply being there as an imperial force of occupation. So very often they would incite ethnic strife within a country to justify their "peacekeeping" role, or their stabilizing role, so that they can justify their presence there.

So, they did that in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics. MI5 had the power of military gangs going around and even British Military Intelligence had plain clothes soldiers going around shooting innocent civilians from both communities and allowing the blame to fall on one or the other community. The British had an official policy in Northern Ireland; they called it Ulsterisation. Ulster is the name of one of the four provinces of Ireland and part of that province makes up Northern Ireland, but they called it Ulster anyway even though it's only a part of that province. And they made a policy of Ulsterisation that was making the conflict appear to be an internal sectarian civil conflict among the people there, rather than what the IRA and the political party of Sinn Féin fame were trying to do, which was to point out that the source of the problem was occupation and discrimination; occupation by a foreign power and discrimination against a section of the population.

So they had a propaganda campaign to try and convince everybody that that wasn't the cause of the problem, it wasn't the source of the problem; it was these people who 'just can't get on for some reason, they just fight, it's the age old religious divide' etc., etc. And you just transpose that on to the Middle East today, Sunni versus Shia. Even in Iraq right now saying this is always going to happen. Tony Blair said it was always going to happen, nothing to do with the fact they bombed the crap out of the country for 10 years and occupied it and tried to sew that division; it was always going to naturally happen. Which is nonsense because under Saddam it didn't really happen, I mean if that's what it takes, a leader like that to keep a country together and actually quite prosperous and quite developed. Like Iraq was all through the 80s and 90s, it was the most developed country in the Middle East until the Americans came along with their NATO bombing and their 'freedom and democracy'. So it's not inevitable that among any group of people in a society, or where there are two groups of people, that there will be religious or ethnic strife. It's certainly not inevitable.

Pierre: I remember when I was a kid in France there was a lot of news coverage coming from Ireland. And from what I understood at the time, what the MSM [mainstream media] hammered in our minds that
the Irish Republican Army was organizing various kinds of activity, including terrorism because of some "legitimate claims" and wanted to get their republic, their independence, so wasn't it that? Wasn't it Irish people, or some Irish people, organizing some terrorist events in order to gain their independence?

Joe: Yeah, but it wasn't terrorism as it's defined today. It was a war; unless you want to define all wars as terrorism. Terrorism is officially defined as: attacking a defenseless unarmed civilian population, or civilians, for political reasons to achieve a political aim. But the IRA generally speaking didn't do that. They attacked armed British soldiers and local, kind of, policemen. All of whom were armed and they saw it as officially a war. It was by any standard, by any modern or even historical standards, it was a war but beneath that there was terrorism. And it was primarily state terrorism. The definition of terrorists is: attacking a civilian population and terrorizing a civilian population in order to achieve a political aim. That was the British that did that, the British government, the British Intel services; that's their M.O., that's the way they operate because it's very effective. So these people don't have any qualms, there's no honor or anything, or good and bad, or right and wrong; it's about what works and the thing that works most effectively in any country.

The vast majority of people in any country are the civilians and if there's some kind of resistance movement then that resistance movement gets all of its support, practically, from the civilian population. Therefore that's their ground base. That's how they are able to operate. So the British government and the American government and other governments around the world understood that you attack them to stop them supporting the revolution. I mean a revolution is always - even if it's armed insurrection or whatever you want to call it,- against some kind of corrupt power and it always comes from injustices suffered by the ordinary people. Now, if the section of the ordinary people of the country who take up arms, the ones who are willing to do it and have whatever proclivities to do it - they are one and the same essentially in a genuine revolution or rebellion, it's the ordinary people who are rebelling and they may not be carrying the weapons but they are certainly supporting it. So, the people with the guns are hard to find because they tend to have different strategies to avoid capture. So the most effective way to destroy them is to attack the population. The civilian population and it doesn't take a lot of planning or thinking or strategizing to come to that conclusion. The powers-that-be in this world have come to that conclusion a long time ago and they've implemented that strategy for hundreds of years, over and over again. But of course, by the time it comes to the newspapers and how it's actually reported, very often, it's very different.

Pierre: So, maybe the official story concerning, for example Palestine, is not exactly reflecting truth. What we hear, usually, that in Palestine you have some radical Jihadist, or radical Muslims that out of despair, will blow themselves up in a falafel market in Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem, and the narrative, if I correctly understand, it's a political claim and by blowing yourself in a civilian place you will gain the recognition of Palestine as an independent country. So is it really what happens? How does it work? What is behind these Palestine bombing events?

Joe: Suicide bombers?

Niall: Joe wrote the book on that one!

Joe: Well suicide bombers - it may actually be true that there are some suicide attacks.

Niall: There are now!

Joe: There are now. But originally, the first one I think was reported in the early 1980s, as far as Israel/Palestine is concerned, but I think most of them, up until very recently, were certainly not suicide bombings. The idea of the suicide bombing concept has been promoted by the west because it very effectively demonizes the opposition to the western public. Anybody who'll just blow themselves up indiscriminately or partly indiscriminately are crazy. How can you identify with that? One of the basic human drives is for self-preservation. Even people who are fighting, they don't go and just run into other bullets. They want to fight against something and then live to fight another day. There's a self-preservation thing going on. These people, these suicide bombers supposedly, they don't have that. They're crazy, they're fanatical so nobody in their right mind can identify with them, certainly nobody in the west. So it was very effective propaganda against anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian propaganda to depict them as crazy suicide bombers because then it's harder for people in the west to support them.
When you think about it and based on the strategy that I was just talking about, the attack of a civilian population and encouraging a kind of civil war between two groups, the Israelis would come up with a strategy to further demonize Palestinians by killing lots of Israeli civilians themselves, because Israel is such a small country, it doesn't want to have a situation where there is open warfare; where they have an enemy in the Palestinians that can actually fight back in any effective way and threaten Israel. The last thing Israel ever wants, if you know its history and the paranoia that founded Israel or on which it was founded, the last thing that the Israelis need or want is for there to ever be a genuine threat against Israel. So they made sure that they contained the Palestinian threat.

Because I'm sure everybody knows the situation there, its Palestinian land that Israel was founded on and they are continuing to grab Palestinian land and dispossess Palestinians. So the last thing they wanted was for there to be any kind of a real Palestinian opposition, so they locked it down, so that the Palestinians could do virtually nothing to rectify the situation. But, at the same time they had to find a way to justify their continued theft of Palestinian land and subjugation of Palestinian people and the installation of an apartheid regime essentially where you have separate roads for Palestinians and summarily executed on a regular basis and Israelis can bomb.

Niall: And also to be seen, as much as possible, as the victim.

Joe: Yeah exactly, the victim complex and justifying that part. Justifying what they are doing, getting away with abusing the Palestinians. In terms of international public opinion they have to be seen to be the victim, to be attacked. How do you do that if you effectively neuter the Palestinian opposition or resistance? And that they can't actually move without you knowing about it. They can do nothing against you. It becomes a bit untenable in that situation, from the point of view of public opinion, as you are continuing to occupy their land and take more of their land and abuse them but they aren't doing anything against you and they can't do anything against you. And you don't want them to be in the position to do anything really effective against you. So at that point you have to do it yourself. That's where the whole, kind of, self-inflicted wound comes in where you essentially attack yourself and they combined that with the further demonization of the Palestinians. Not only were the Palestinians therefore going to attack Israelis but they were going to attack them in a way that was reprehensible to the west, i.e. suicide bombings.

So it's quite easy to set that up., I kind of described it in an article that I wrote. It's called: "The myth of the Palestinian suicide bomber". Because they have such complete access to what's left of Palestine and they have thousands of Palestinian prisoners, they can take their pick of anybody, "Okay, we'll let you out, we'll release you if you do a job for us. We need you to kind of spy for us" or whatever. He's like a puppet on a string really. So you can get someone like that and allow them to cross into Israel and tell him that he's going to meet someone of importance or he has to give a message to or get a message from in a falafel stand or at a falafel stand or in an Israeli restaurant in Tel Aviv, for example. And so he arrives there at the appointed time with his backpack. Carrying some documents and then the restaurant blows up. And there are lots of eyewitnesses to say a Palestinian looking guy came in, with a backpack, and seconds later the place blew up. Of course, you know my guess is, on many occasions, the Israelis have planted a bomb in the restaurant themselves and were watching the guy arriving at the restaurant and as soon as he walked in they pushed a button and the restaurant blew up. Hey presto, Palestinian suicide bomber. And you can do that as many times as you want as it is deemed necessary, from a propaganda point of view, to present the Israelis as the victim and to justify their continued injustice towards Palestinians.

Pierre: Well, now we understand a bit more the motives behind international terrorism, how then can we make sense of domestic terrorism? When there is a mass shooting or mass bombing in the U.S., the victims are U.S. and the witnesses are U.S. It's within the same country so it's not about creating or legitimizing an enemy, justifying a war. All those motives disappear, so how do you explain this shift? What are the new motives behind domestic terrorism, if there is any? Maybe just some people go postal in the end, they get just crazy and they shoot everywhere and maybe it's not political, it's about psychiatry?

Niall: There are a few things going on there. Mass shootings on one side and then you've got just simply terrorist attacks on the other. Really, when it comes to terrorist attacks, the U.S. has only suffered two since 9/11; 9/11 itself and then the Boston bombings. I would widen that definition simply to: if it caused terror then it's a terrorist attack. The mass shootings would then come under that.

Pierre: Yes.

Niall: But the official narrative is that the two are unrelated. And then there's another problem wrapped into all of this.

Joe: Well, I was going to say amongst those shootings there was a narrative propagated by the media as to whether or not it was linked with somebody who was inspired by Bin Laden or if it was simply a homegrown, kind of white American crazy person who, in the case of Sandy Hook, did it for no reason whatsoever or maybe just because he, supposedly, had Asperger. There's no real reason for that one so there are a few different kinds of flavors in there.

Niall: Yeah, the mass shootings, the first big one I think was the one in 1999. The Columbine massacre school shooting. There have been many, many more since then. I think now we're at the point where there are at least 2 mass shootings per month in the U.S., on average. Not all of these are orchestrated by the government. In fact, before we even get to saying which were orchestrated by the government, it really begins with an open mind and saying, 'Okay, something terrible has happened. This is what we are being told are the reasons for it. Does it add up? Hm, I'm not so sure, wait a minute this evidence isn't fitting' and then working back to look for a political motive. So you're right in that there's no obvious domestic, civil war type situation where they're trying to play one side off of each other, when it comes to mass shooting type events. The terrorist attacks, on the other hand, of course play into the 9/11 narrative; the 'global war on terror'. So in this case, it's about justifying American foreign policy first and foremost.

Joe: Or wars abroad.

Niall: Yeah, and if we don't see the problem we have here, we have to fight them at home. We have to fight them everywhere.

Joe: We have to get them over there before they come here.

Niall: Yes.

Joe: But in terms of the terror attacks, like I was just saying, the ones that we describe in the book, some of them are associated with people who were, tentatively perhaps, influenced by Bin Laden or Islamic fundamentalism. I think the Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim, Hasan. There were questions there that he had talked to Awlaki, the guy who Obama kind of droned.

Niall: The American citizen turned cleric who was in Yemen.

Joe: Yes, him and his son who were both killed by a drone. This guy Hasan in the Fort Hood shooting had supposedly listened and watched his videos or had some contact with him so there was that kind of connection. But in terms of all these shootings in the U.S., whether or not they are associated in some way with Bin Laden or Islamic fundamentalism as is described or whether they are simply that person going crazy and killing lots of people for some unspecified or not very good reasons, they all have an obvious effect on the American population and an effect on American society over the past 10 years. And it has coincided with 9/11. 9/11 is that moment when it all happened both across the world, in terms of the expansion of America, its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, and also the imposition of draconian legislation in the U.S., initially to protect the people from another terrorist attack like 9/11, and then that's bolstered by other non-Muslim associated shootings.
And there are also terror attacks because they're attacks on the civilian population but they are not associated with Osama Bin Laden, let's say as a generalization. So you see since 9/11, well really before 9/11 but since 9/11, a definite expansion by the U.S. around the world to grab as much land and resources and control of population as possible. We see that 9/11 was used to do that but it was also used to do exactly the same thing back at home. So that's the kind of thing that I suppose a lot of people don't really realize is that this is really a war on the American people as well. 9/11 declared war on Arab terrorism, it was a war on Muslim terrorism, or terrorism in general, but that was also applied to the U.S. Of course you get below this and there is no such thing as terrorism really and that it's essentially a justification, an excuse, to go around dominating, controlling and squeezing people around the world, including the U.S. That's the real motivation.

The whole Muslim terror threat is virtually non-existent in any effective way. There's no way that any Muslim or Arab group in the world has the capacity, or even most of them, the desire to attack America. But that's what's presented by the government as a way to concentrate their control or refine their control of as many people as possible, including in the U.S. We probably don't have to list all of the legislation that has been passed in the U.S. as a result of 9/11 and as a result of this continuation of this scaremongering and supposed terror threat that could happen at any moment, at any time. Apart from the major cases of shootings that we talked about in the book, there's been dozens of other terror plots that have been exposed or found out by the F.B.I. and the U.S.

Niall: They've been busted wide open by the F.B.I.!!!!

Joe: Busted wide open by them and if you look at every single one of them, virtually every single one of them was essentially a creation of the F.B.I. They went looking for someone who would be amenable - I'm just going to be frank here and say stupid enough - to agree to an F.B.I. agent posing as an Al Qaeda operative or an F.B.I. informant, telling this person he picks - a lower than average intelligence person of little economic means or someone who had been in trouble with the law, who was a punk type going around, they may have shown some allegiance or some kind of an interest in Islam, maybe converted to Islam after trying every other religion beforehand, he converts to Islam and they find him and they have informants in mosques in various cities around the U.S., and they pick the one that's most likely - then suggest to him that he wants to blow up the Sears tower, for example. Spin him a line, spin him a story, keep him hanging on, promises of money and weapons and all this kind of stuff and tape all the conversations and then give him a car with a supposed bomb in it, tells him to drive it to a location, have him push a button. Nothing happens obviously because it's an F.B.I. bomb and then F.B.I. agents jump out of the bushes and grab him and he goes to jail for 35 years. Such people who are extremely impressionable, extremely naive are grist for the terror mill. These dozens of terror plots that have occurred over the past 10 years really, in the U.S., and that's all exposed or presented to the American population as evidence of...

Niall: Of all this stuff going on under our society and look at the work we are doing to stop it from coming to the fore.

Joe: Yeah, but also the clear and present danger of there being a real terror threat and a lot of these plots involve people who, in some way or other, were associated with Islam or as part of the grooming process, of the entrapment process, very often they would be asked to swear an oath to Al Qaeda the F.B.I. had made up. And that's all taped and presented to the courts afterwards. So these guys are definite patsies. They're the very literal definition of the word patsy. They're used and sent to jail by the F.B.I. in order to promote the fake reality of there being a terror threat to the American people, that the American people need the authorities to protect them from.

Niall: Some of the cases are just absurd. There was this one guy, the "Times Square nearly bomber" I forget his name [Faisal Shahzad]. I think he was born in the states [arrived in the US in 1999], so he was Pakistani-American [became a US citizen by marriage in 2009]. He's basically American; he's grown up, he dresses like a westerner, he wears his shades and drives around in a nice car and they somehow roped him into driving a car with 2 cylinders of some liquid that was not explosive in the back rigged up to fireworks he had purchased in a store somewhere on the side of the road in Pennsylvania. He gets into Times Square and they pounce on him and (laughter) he's nabbed and they've got the press alerted to be there beforehand to take photos of the whole thing and it's a media event and you know this is obviously jarring. It's obviously unreal but by the time anyone is really looking at it, they come home from work and turn on the news, it's been worked up into another near miss and that's all you hear. Those little details about fireworks and cylinders full of water or something; it's just details, they're just facts, it doesn't matter in our new "we create reality as we go along" world.

Pierre: If I currently understand, these domestic mass shootings are a way to impose a more and more totalitarian regime in the U.S. but we see this trend in the rest of the world, reaching more and becoming more repressive, so why is this wave of mass shootings almost solely focused on U.S. land?

Niall: Well, you see the shootings are kind of different. In fact you should start from the premise that it was what they said it was because you have very little evidence to show otherwise. Somebody goes nuts, takes a gun, easily available in the states, goes into a school, a store, an office building and starts shooting it up. Certainly at this point it's credible in some respect that somebody has just gone nuts because the whole country is so stressed.

Joe: But the fact is in almost every case that we detail in the book, there were initial media reports and eyewitness reports. Media reports citing eyewitnesses of there being more than one shooter but every case that we cover in the book is officially a lone gunman. But in every single one of them there were eyewitness reports of someone else involved then they kind of disappeared in to the ether and no more was said about him or her, whoever it was. That's one piece of evidence that suggests that the official story is not the real story. So along with the other evidence that we detailed we kind of conclude that this was a manufactured act of terrorism manufactured by some segment, or element of the authorities for a specific purpose. And this purpose being to terrorize the rest of the American population and force them to submit to increasingly draconian, controlling legislation so that they won't complain about it, they'll willingly go to their virtual prisons without complaint, without revolt.

And as we saw the 'Occupy Wall Street', that's the kind of thing they want to avoid. As they continue to impose their will and their control of the population, which involves stripping the population of its wealth and funneling the wealth of the country up to the top of the pyramid, eventually they assume that people will start to complain a little bit. So they want to either put the people into a state of fear based compliance so that they won't complain about it, they will accept the abuse without doing anything, without revolting or they want to have the legislation in place where they can beat the heads of people who do revolt. Or they can essentially, like they did with Occupy Wall Street in a hundred cities across the U.S., in one night basically, wipe it away through force. And there's nothing anybody can do about it.

Pierre: Terrorizing a population in order to enforce more draconian policies. According to some conspiracy theorists actually the objective is none of that; it is simply to enforce some more draconian gun control because it makes some sense the elite are afraid of a looming rebellion and they need this gun control, therefore the villains cannot get arms and they cannot rebel efficiently.
I think we have a caller so we are going to take a caller now. Hello caller, what's your name and where are you calling from?
Caller: Okay, I'm not going to say much because I talk too long sometimes but I just wanted to bring up the point that I think a lot of these mass shootings are to take guns away. I think the U.S. government wants to get rid of guns like Australia and Britain and Russia did in Stalin times. I think that's what the shootings are about. That's it!

Pierre: Thanks for your question and that was along the line of the question I was asking. It's a good way to not empower civilians. You prevent the sales of guns so they cannot rebel and then are easily controllable.

Joe: Okay well, I have a question in return. Where is that gun control legislation?

Pierre: Well, today you are the guest so you're not allowed to ask the question (laughs)!

Joe: The point I'm making is that all these freedoms, civil liberties, basic civil rights, have been stripped in the last 10 years with plenty of guns on the market.

Niall: Without a shot fired.

Pierre: Yeah, but after those mass shootings maybe there's been more stringent, more constraining legislations on gun control?

Niall: Oh, they talk about it!

Joe: I think it's a way to divide the population and to have them fighting about something that, ultimately, is insignificant. Because after Sandy Hook and after several of these mass shootings, in particular Sandy Hook, there were a lot of people who came out against gun ownership, or at least limiting gun ownership in some way, passing legislation, and this caused a lot of furor and angst amongst many gun owners in the U.S., and feel like Charlton Heston, "from my cold dead hands". So, it creates a lot of division amongst people and it's a topic or a point over which people can argue and talk about liberty and their freedom and the second amendment; the freedom to carry weapons and this is what America is all about. And while people are arguing about that, they're not actually passing any laws. It may seem to some people that they are threatened but they're not passing any laws. They haven't passed any laws in most states where people are not allowed to carry guns any more. It doesn't seem to me that it's even on the horizon ever (laughs) in the U.S. that gun ownership will be forbidden, or that laws would be passed in such a way that gun ownership is restricted in the same way it's restricted in Europe. I think America will always have guns.

So while people are arguing about this, the other kind of legislation and the other programming and the other controls that are being put in place that have nothing to do with guns, continue. And no one complains about those. No one complained about the N.D.A.A., about the patriot act because that was all for your safety right? People were willing to go along with that even though these laws that I just described, that were passed, that give the actual forces of law and order in the U.S., massive power and control over the population. No one complained about that because supposedly they think it's for their protection. Then they think, well as long as I have my gun, well I don't mind that policemen have guns'.

Niall: But something I want to know is how many of the 400,000 foreclosed homes in the last 5 years were owned by gun owners? Homes that were taken away on the basis of pure outright theft by Wall Street! Not one single shot was fired. I mean your gun is supposed to protect your property, your life, your liberty. And they're now in tent cities with a gun by their side, still no shots fired. I mean the idea that it's going to protect you against the evil powers that be...

Joe: I think it's a minority of people who actually think that, who think that they want to keep their assault rifles for the final showdown against the illegitimate government in the U.S. and what if 1776 will rise again, they're going to try to take our guns away according to Alex Jones, that there's going to be a revolution with the ordinary people with their guns against the government, the government forces. I don't think most people who have guns in the U.S. have guns for that reason. I think they have guns for their own personal protection. And this goes to a deeper problem in the U.S. - and not just in the U.S. - of the state of society and the amount of violence and non-state violence that occurs in the U.S. There are a lot of robberies and shootings and attacks, rapes, all that kind of stuff. Not just in the U.S. but particularly in the U.S. it gets a lot of press because there are so many guns. Because when those crimes occur there are more people who can whip out a gun and shoot the attacker.
And that's the kind of bone of contention that that should be allowed but if you wanted to really get to the heart of it, you would have to ask the question as to why society is in such a state. Where so many people feel that they need to carry a gun for their protection in a civilized society.

What's wrong with that society? And I'm sure there are a lot of people listening to this who have no problem with living in the U.S. who have no desire to carry a gun because they feel quite safe in their communities. But I think there are a lot of people, particularly in the big cities and stuff and different parts of the U.S., who do feel that when they are walking down the street it might be useful to have a gun in your purse or on your belt. But for me that's the problem. It's not about arguing whether or not you should have a gun or whether guns should be allowed isn't the question. The question is: why do people feel they need to have guns in the first place? And then there are all the sports shooters, people who just do it for recreation. But I think they would be a minority as well. Everything else being equal, if there was no real fear in communities across the U.S. then people wouldn't feel they need to carry a gun for their own protection on the streets. I think there would be a lot less guns in the U.S. because I don't think the majority of the population, even 50% of the population, are gun enthusiasts in the sense that they go every weekend down to the range to shoot.

So the problem is on a social level, people fearing there being a lot of violence, a lot of crime, and people feeling justified in owning a gun to protect themselves. Of course there's violence in other countries, in Europe etc. but people don't have guns generally speaking. Even the criminals don't have guns; the people who do muggings and robberies and stuff. They, generally speaking, don't have guns; they have knives. So there are almost as many personal attacks on civilians, like muggings and robberies, happen in the U.K. as in the U.S. per capita. But it doesn't escalate to the point of where there's a shooting, where someone gets shot or shot dead. Because generally speaking, in the U.K. for example, most criminals have knives or something like that and the person being attacked doesn't have a gun. So, the person being attacked just gives them money and there you go. In the U.S., a criminal will be more likely to have a gun and there's a higher chance the person being attacked, will have a gun and then you have a shootout and it gets in the media.

Niall: Although that's not usually the kind of event that pops up in the media. Usually it's someone with a gun against others with no guns.

Joe: Which is an argument for people having guns but it gets back to the problem of, there shouldn't be people running around with guns shooting people, there shouldn't be so much crime. The U.S. shouldn't have the largest prison population in the world. There are a lot of problems in U.S. society that have nothing to do, essentially, with the gun debate. I mean that's not a solution. If you want to improve your society, you don't just arm everybody.

Niall: But to answer your question, no, we doubted that that was the first objective of doing some of these mass shootings. It's terror for terror's sake. It's the same rationale for false flag bombing attacks that are blamed on another country or a segment of society just taken to the next level and they simply realize: 'well hold on we don't really need a kind of cover story. Let's just strip it down'. It's unmasked, pure terror. Terrorize the population and in that climate of hysteria that comes with it, it's far easier to get things done. You can get away with doing things that 15 years ago people would never have accepted.

Pierre: About the guns actually in your book, you develop a theory that is almost opposite to the "banning gun" conspiracies. You mention that after the Sandy Hook event the sales in guns surged, increased by a dramatic factor. And actually one of the purposes of these events might be to get the civilians to be armed so there is some violent rebellion and there is a legitimate reason to take drastic measures by the army and the police against those rebels. Are you still sticking to this point?

Niall: Did we say that (laughter)? Um, that sounds like a conspiracy too far!

Joe: No, there was a surge in guns.

Niall: Yes, yes, yes, but that's more a reaction. That's an understandable reaction because, okay, now they're going to clamp down on guns. Quick get them while you can.

Joe: Look, put it this way it's the same thing as fear; it's all about instilling fear because the person who, in response to Sandy Hook, goes out and buys a gun is a more fearful person. It doesn't matter if they have a gun or not. I mean that fact that they have a gun means that they are more fearful. Beforehand they didn't think about carrying a gun, therefore they didn't feel as insecure on the streets. After Sandy Hook, now they are thinking more often, or it's in the back of their mind; school shootings, mall shootings, office shootings, whatever; I'm going to carry a gun. And the gun on their purse or on their belt is a constant reminder of why they should be afraid. Job done.

Pierre: Okay. Now, when reading your book, something that is quite striking is that almost systematically during those mass shootings, there is an official story that is quite different from the real story. Almost all the time the real story is the same during all those mass shooting events and the official story is the same. It goes back to, I mean I'm not an expert of the field, even when you think about JFK's assassination or Bob Kennedy's' assassination, it's still the same old modus operandi, it's still the same cover story. So can you describe what a typical official story is and what is a typical real story?

Niall: Just before we do, something to keep in mind is that the real story is not actually known. This is where a lot of people have a problem and they feel this need to 'bust it wide open'; "Oh I found a smoking gun, now we know exactly who did it, how they did it, why they did it." The hard thing, even historically with JFK, its well established there was a conspiracy of people in power to remove him. That's acceptable. That's accepted amongst people who are aware of it but actually naming the names, the weapons used, how they did it; that's still unknown. We still don't know how many people were involved, what guns were used.

The same applies for recent mass shootings as well. All we can say, with any kind of certainty, is the story they are telling us is conflicted by the facts, at least as the facts were presented to us. We have to also keep in mind we may not have the facts. It may be that another police officer who arrived on the scene has said "Yeah I saw three shooters", for any kind of reason is confused. It's unlikely but still you keep in mind that the real story is still in the air. The repeating modus operandi, the thing that keeps coming up is mind control. It means so many different things to different people, but we can all agree that the C.I.A. certainly was experimenting, trying to figure out ways to get people to do something they would not ordinarily do, in the 50s and 60s. These programs officially ended...

Pierre: Just one point, when you say mind control, the mind control is the patsy who would be the official shooter or are these real shooters?

Niall: It's either or.

Joe: Either or. Yeah.

Pierre: Wow, Okay. so everybody is mind controlled there.

Joe: Well actually... Yeah! No, I mean it's amazing it's part of, kind of psychology or psychotherapy, hypnosis is a standard part of it and it's been well documented that people can be put into a kind of a hypnotic trance, not like a zombie but basically be put into what you could call a state of hypnotic trance. Many people have experienced it, it's not something bizarre. I mean you can go for hypnosis to stop smoking, not that you want to but you know, or for any other problem you can have suggestions implanted in that state where apparently it will solve your problems at a subconscious level. It is talking to you on a level that is below consciousness that you're not consciously aware of but that you will act on. And there's a guy in the U.K. has a show called Derren Brown and he went through a process of actually creating, essentially, a mind controlled patsy gun man where he had a guy and took him through the hypnotic process on several occasions and went through all of the suggestive process to the point where he did actually stand up in a theatre - not a movie theatre, at a play or a show - and pulled a plastic gun out of his belt and pulled the trigger at the guy on stage and everybody knew about this. The only person who didn't know what was going on was the guy who was hypnotized.

Pierre: So he thought it was a real gun?

Joe: Yeah, he thought it was a real gun - well whether or not he even thought it was a real gun or not is kind of irrelevant. He just did what he was told to do. I mean there may be some element, some understanding that it was a gun but it's very basic and simplistic. At that level your subconscious works in rather a primitive kind of stimuli and suggestions. So whatever he understood he followed the instructions. He could've been encouraged to pull a banana or told that he had to pull a banana out of his belt and point it at the stage or throw it at someone and he would have done that as well. The point being you can get people, some people, you can get them to do pretty much whatever you want by hypnosis and that's just standard basic hypnosis that's practiced when you go to the hypnotherapist for whatever problem you have.

But I mean there's a C.I.A. program, MKUltra, that's fairly well known. I think it started in the 1950s but probably beforehand actually, and then it continued on into the 70s when it was stopped, but it probably didn't stop. There's decades of research into hypnotically controlling people, getting people to do things they wouldn't normally do via some kind of hypnotic suggestion. So for me that's kind of a moot point, it's taken as read that that is possible. Another example that maybe a lot of people don't know about is Sirhan Sirhan, who shot Robert Kennedy, his lawyer at the time - this was maybe 20 years ago, he's changed lawyers since then - had tests done on Sirhan Sirhan by another hypnotist while he was in jail and the hypnotist was able to quickly put him into a hypnotic trance. Some people are very suggestible in that sense, and Sirhan Sirhan was, and in the jail cell his lawyer had the hypnotist come in, put him into a trance and tell him that when he touched him on the forehead he would jump up on the bars and act like a monkey. And he touched him on the head and Sirhan Sirhan jumped up on the bars and acted like a monkey and when his lawyer asked him, "Sirhan who told you to do that?" and he said "No one, I did it of my own volition".

There are many other examples of the reality of that, of getting someone to act in an automatic way that they are not aware of and you can literally get them to do anything. So the idea that, if it was deemed necessary, the powers-that-be would find someone like this, that is quite suggestible and through a kind of grooming procedure, follow through with this process of programming them, essentially, to go in to a school or wherever and either shoot a gun or simply be there with a gun while other people, or another person, does the shooting and then escapes and the patsy is then left there. It's very plausible, very possible. The only argument that I can think of against it would be that they wouldn't do that. That the moral aspect of it that a person would not be able to believe, a member of the public or someone listening to this, not that it can't be done but that it wouldn't be done. That such a crime against innocent people and, for example in the case of Sandy Hook against children, is so heinous that it's not possible that anybody would follow through on such a plan.

That's a matter of belief essentially or wanting to believe that your leaders and the authorities are ultimately good people and they wouldn't do such terrible things. Now that's a very dangerous position to hold. Especially when we have evidence that our leaders aren't exactly the most moral of people. They don't hold the same moral standards that the average person does. You see glimpses of it here and there, for example Hilary Clinton delighting in the death, the public brutal execution of Muammar Gaddafi. She was on tape delighting in that. That's got to raise some questions about the kind of person Hilary Clinton is and what she would do and what she wouldn't do if it involved her getting what she wanted. So that's why it's a very dangerous position. But the facts are its possible. MKUltra is a fancy sounding program. Sure it exists and all that kind of stuff but at this stage, it's a no brainer, there's no question that people can be hypnotized effectively and in different ways and to different levels to do whatever the hypnotizer wants.

Niall: So it's technically feasible. The next problem people might have with it is, well okay, how do they go about grooming? Do they just go into any one person how do they pick them? The answer to that is partly historical. When they were doing laboratory experiments in the 50s and 60s it gave them... who's 'them' even? It came together partly, you have the C.I.A. of course, but they were working with hundreds, if not thousands, of different psychiatrists, doctors, experts in their own particular field, many of them unaware they were even being funded by the C.I.A. or receiving financing from some big Wall Street hotshot. And it created this massive network that I have no reason to believe is not still in existence today because by the 70s you had major pharmaceutical companies, the drugs that they created that became household names, they were born of the trial and error with these patsies they used in the 50s and 60s. So you've got layers upon layers. You've got a structure, there's an infrastructure in place. Let's take Adam Lanza - easy target - he spent most of his life in this particular care of specialists in certain institutions. You go all the way back to Lee Harvey Oswald who spent some time in a hospital that was a known C.I.A. safe house, or something, in New York City. So it's actually unbelievably easy for them to just dip in here, dip in there, go ahead and just set something up.

Joe: They've got maybe a hundred million people in the U.S. to pick from you know? So it's not difficult, for example, what Niall was saying is true in terms of the research, there's all sorts of homeless people, down and outs, people who have left home, people with psychological issues and stuff who are prey for these people, inmates in prisons promising them various different things. In terms of these terror plots that were associated with the war on terror in the U.S.; one example is the 2006 "Miami Terror Cell". This was a plot that the F.B.I. uncovered about these guys who were supposedly planning to, in their own words (laughs), well not in their words, in the words of the prosecution: "were planning to rage a full ground war against the U.S.". These were 6 guys and they alone were going to rage a full ground war against (laughs) the U.S. but you can imagine when you read about them that these guys would have had these kinds of delusions. Or could have been induced to have these kind of delusions but when you get down to it, it gets a bit more murky because there was 6 of them, the 'Miami Terror Cell' and they were all a little bit deranged. The leader of them, his father said he needed psychiatric help and had done for a long time before hand. But anyway, they were Christian, Zionist, Muslim, martial artist, immigrants. They called themselves: the 'Sea of David' and they were pretty much quietly living in a warehouse in Florida. They were waiting for the fulfillment of biblical end time prophecy and then one day they were identified by the F.B.I, an undercover F.B.I. agent. And the agent went down and offered them $50,000 - these were guys who were living in a warehouse, very poor - so first up he offers them $50,000. That gets their attention right. Then he initiated them into Al Qaeda complete with an oath swearing ceremony. The F.B.I. provided them with military boots and a video camera and suggested that they wanted to blow up certain government buildings. One of them was the Sears tower in Chicago. So that was pretty much it, that's as far as it went. All of the discussions were taped by the F.B.I. and then all of them went to court and all of them went to jail, for 25 or 35 years.

Just think of some people in your community, I don't want to be crude but think of someone who you would describe as a village idiot. That's the people who constitute the terror threat and have constituted the terror threat in the U.S., the homegrown terror threat for the past 7 or 8 years. It's pretty sad really but it allows for the media and the government to present this idea of there being a very, very clear and imminent threat, at any moment, of terrorism to the American people. And they manufacture it themselves that's why the books called Manufactured Terror because that's exactly what it is. When you look at it no one could come to any other conclusion that this is entrapment and completely fabricated from the ground up.

Niall: Something we've grappled with is to try to understand the mindset, let's say of at least some of the people who put these things into motion. Because you're still left with the problem that most people have when they hear this kind of thing it's like, well, you're talking about a big conspiracy. That's a lot of people to keep quiet and it's true. Practically speaking the typical M.O. [modus operandi]; I keep thinking of the Oklahoma City bombing. There you had Timothy McVeigh drive, or allegedly with someone else or alone, drive a truck loaded with explosives outside the building and goes off. Now, little reported at the time but it's well established now was that there was a concurrent F.B.I. investigation tracking a whole group of people, Timothy McVeigh, Nichols and others, as part of an attempted infiltration of different militias across the country but they were based locally in Oklahoma at the time. And McVeigh, it seems, was seeded in there as a kind if informant and he would be reporting back amongst others as well. The place was riddled with informants, apparently, but the point that I'm trying to make is that they were fully aware that there was a truck with explosives going to this destination. It was supposed to be a sting operation. There was some mix up and BOOM, it actually went off. I can imagine that most of the people, the police, F.B.I., federal authorities putting this into place, did not expect something to actually manifest from it. They thought they were involved in a sting operation. Like all of these F.B.I. operations that foil plots, which are ludicrous.

Joe: They get a lot of people to go along with it in that sense. A lot of people in the police forces and the F.B.I. and say, a lot of underlings, to go along with it in the belief that it's a sting operation but there's another kind of more shady group that are actually controlling it and they are the ones who allow it to happen, let it continue on past when it was meant to be stopped. The same was true of the World Trade Center.

Niall: In 93.

Joe: The 93 bombing all of the bombing materials were supplied by the F.B.I. This is something that's amazing because people think it was terrorists that blew that up. That was part of a sting operation and the bomb was supplied by the F.B.I. that detonated at the World Trade Center. It was meant to be a dud but somehow someone switched it with a real one. And no one really questions that (laughs). But just going back to the M.K. Ultra mind programming thing; - in late 2009 the knicker bomber, the underwear bomber I should say was the guy who got on a plane in Amsterdam and attempted to detonate a bomb in his underpants. It wasn't really a bomb it was kind of explosive material that required something more than a fuse and a match stick to ignite. So, he just set his underpants on fire on the plane but this was heralded as (laughs) being caught in the nick of time, the whole plane could've gone down, it was potentially a catastrophe for everybody. But there was a guy, a Dutch film maker who was on the flight, Jasper Schuringa, and he tackled the guy, the knicker bomber, the underwear bomber, the pants bomber, whatever you want to call him. It was Abdulmutallab and he tackled him. Jasper this Dutch guy, tackled him and took his clothes off and made sure there were no more hidden explosives. But he said that when he looked at him he saw some or smelled some smoke or smelled a strange smell from the seat behind him and looked around and he said that the underwear bomber was staring into nothing. He just had this blank, staring at nothing look on his face and that he said he was actually on fire but showed no reaction whatsoever.

Pierre: Wow.

Joe: So, that's another example of hypnosis. You can get people to withstand extreme cold. They tend to go for extreme cold. Even in surgery people can be desensitized to pain through hypnosis and have been. So this is another example of someone who's sitting there on fire and just doesn't know what's going on and he's just used as a patsy again to provide a terror scare and 'everybody be afraid' and 'it could happen to you' and 'oh my god what are we going to do? Oh well, we better look to the authorities for protection and just don't make any noise, don't complain, keep your head down' and if they pass any more Nazi style legislation it's for your own good and you know there's scary people out there who light their underpants.

Pierre: And you were talking about some mass shootings that might be the result of someone getting crazy. Just that, no conspiracy and I was thinking, is it possible to imagine that you have some individuals in the U.S. who get some hypnotic program, MKUltra-like, they have this shooting hypnotic program embedded in their mind and actually the program goes on involuntarily, though it's not triggered you know? Maybe you have read about the Greenbaum program and what do you think about this possibility?

Niall: Yes, absolutely possible. I mean this is unknown territory, how many people were subjected to this kind of "treatment". It's very possible that you have people who just go off but it's because of a condition induced in them prior. And then that specifically requires one human being to consciously do it to another. Then there's another layer in our super"hi-tech age"; there's H.A.A.R.P., there's the atrocious diet, there are all these extra mass factors. People are bombarded with electro-magnetic waves in some form or another. Even just in the form of being surrounded by media constantly lying to them. It's no coincidence that you can get a mass shooting and then a spate of them in subsequent days in other parts of the country.

Pierre: Actually another question I was wondering about: in modern societies, particularly on the U.S., you have this very toxic food, you have this high pollution, you have all those radiations, you have this wide spread prescription drug use, you have those brainwashing medias, so why do you need fabricated, manufactured terrorism to get consent? Does fear have a very specific role in human psychology that those other factors; nutrition, drugs, media that we mentioned previously, have not?

Joe: Well, I would say that fear is a great leveler because you know you can try and dumb people down through education and getting them addicted to computer games or feed them really crappy food. Tell them crappy food is good for them and stuff. There's a kind of feedback mechanism there that people will only go so far. If they start to loose rational thought or rational thinking, they will try and self-medicate to some extent or try to find out what's going on, but fear is insidious in the sense that it's self-medication because people accept it as for their own good. They see real events, these are apparently very real shootings, very real terror attacks, or they are told so, and people will decide therefore that to be afraid is the right response, it's good for them. And as long as the terror attacks continue, as long as the threat is there, they will continue to believe that that is the right thing to do. Whereas if people start eating bad food or if parents, in terms of children and their video games and that kind of thing, there's some kind of regulation perhaps, and food people may wake up to: "Well, you know, I'm not going to eat that crap any more" and there is some awareness that certain foods are bad for you. People indulge in them but a lot of people are aware that they're not so good for you and you should eat healthy.

I don't think the things you describe are an effective way to fully control the population but fear very much is belief. Like no one believes that mac and cheese out of a box is good for you. They would eat it but they don't actually say this is the best thing that I can eat. But they would say that if there's a terror attack, we need more police on the streets, the police need bigger guns to deal with this because there's objective evidence of a problem. I was going to say something about the MKUltra type thing that it seems to have gone beyond and I'm not surprised that it has gone beyond mere hypnotism in the traditional sense because they have been investigating it and researching it for so many decades. There was the Navy yard shooter - was that last year?

Niall: Yes, September last year.

Joe: That guy said that he was hearing voices in his head and that he thought that he was being subjected to...

Niall: He said that he was coming back from somewhere on a flight and somebody had beamed something at him on the air plane and as a result of this he was now hearing voices in his head. He told his employer, a private contractor; they assumed that it was the voices from the thin walls of his hotel room so they moved him to a new hotel, it was still happening, he reported himself again and went in for treatment and someone gave him some drugs.

Joe: Which made it worse. Of course you can explain that away. Genuine schizophrenia, for example, does involve people hearing voices in their head and other psychological disorders but again I don't want to get into that because I think schizophrenia is essentially a social disease, not so much a genetic disorder, it's more to do with society and how society treats people these days but I think there's more than enough evidence that the beaming of voices and in fact there's scientific papers, experiments have been done long before now to show that it is possible to project sounds into people's heads, it's reduced to a certain frequency kind of like microwaves essentially, and it vibrates the eardrum in a certain way that is consistent with the vibrations your ear receives from human speech. So, apparently, it's quite easy to mimic human speech through the vibration of the eardrum at distance with a wave and form words in people's heads so that people, basically, hear words being spoken in their ear as they normally would but there's no one there.

Another notable case of that happening was the Boston Marathon bombings where the older brother said that he had been hearing voices in his head that were telling him to do things that he didn't want to do et cetera. So that's another case. I think Sirhan Sirhan also heard voices in his head so that's the technology that's available so you don't even necessarily need to have direct contact with a person to at least drive them a bit nuts, drive them a bit crazy to the point where they're more susceptible and can be more easily controlled or even where they will do something crazy. At the very least, and again we should note that these people are patsies generally speaking. On many occasions they don't actually carry out the attacks for which they are blamed. They are just manipulated in some way to be there at the scene, kind of like the Palestinian suicide bomber. They want a person at the scene that they can pin the blame on for an operation that the intel agencies have themselves pre-established, pre-planned and laid out. I think that is the case with the Boston Marathon bombing.

Pierre: Talking about the Boston Marathon bombing and a question relating to this event. A lot of people have difficulties to reconcile the fact that on the one hand the elites probably need control, they want control, so they want to terrorize the population but on the other side they have difficulties to believe that the elites would be able to carry operations where they kill civilians and children indiscriminately and one way to reconcile those two points is: the Boston Marathon bombing. You stage a terrorist attack, a mass bombing, but actually there are no victims, only actors, fake blood and fake injuries and everybody is happy. You don't kill anyone but at the same time you terrorize the population and you get what you want; more control. So that might be a solution?

Joe: Well, I think the premise is a bit faulty in that the elite have a problem with killing people.

Niall: Why go to all that effort, not to kill anyone, when you're indifferent to it?

Pierre: But there was almost no blood and the blood didn't have the right color and this guy Bauman was carried in this wheelchair.

Niall: Pierre you have been reading too many dodgy websites.

Joe: Pierre's busted that one wide open (laughter) Ah ha! Exposed! So, you're saying that there were actors at the Boston marathon bombing?

Pierre: Yes, because there was not enough blood, I did my homework you know? And I read the conspiracy theory websites.

Joe: You looked at the pictures?

Pierre: Yeah, this guy with the bone like a stick, it didn't look so realistic and the blood was very red. There was almost no blood by the way. I mean a mass bombing with all the shrapnel and all those injuries? Almost no blood and the people didn't act like they were terrorized or like shocked or they didn't seem.

Niall: Did you measure how much realistic blood there was?

Pierre: No I did not.

Niall: Have you been in a trauma surgery room?

Joe: Most of the injuries were kind of partially superficial, kind of flesh wounds. So with those you don't get an out pouring of blood. Usually you see a lot of blood when someone has been filled full of holes or something like that, or shot. But the bombing was shrapnel wounds and sure they bleed, but it was quite a small explosion, in a small area and the blood thing, as far as I'm concerned, the pictures that I saw of that scene, there was enough blood there to account for the kind of injuries that people had. The people closest to the bomb sustained the worst injuries and took the brunt of the blast and essentially protected other people from more serious injuries. There's two things about blood, people were talking about the color of blood and stuff; blood is bright red when it immediately comes out of you because it's oxygenated and then as it lies on the ground and it gets deoxygenated and it turns into a darker red so I didn't see any evidence to think there was any problem with the color of the blood. Also, TV renders blood in a slightly different color; TV images or even photographs will render red in a different color than you see them with your eye so you can't rely on that to make an objective assessment. Jeff Bauman, the famous guy with the leg in the wheelchair; why was there no blood spurting out of his leg all over the place like there is in the movies?

Pierre: The femoral artery being severed?

Joe: Yeah, obviously he would have contributed some blood to the scene but in terms of what happens when you get an amputation like that your blood vessels kind of spasm and they kind of tend to pull back into the injured part and this could slow or stop the bleeding quite quickly by constriction of blood vessels. The point is that your body is fairly well designed in that it knows that if you get a wound, if it was just to squirt all the blood in your body out the wound, then you would die very quickly and you wouldn't be a very well made machine. You wouldn't last very long so there's many mechanisms to staunch and stop blood flow, including clotting etc. So, I've talked to surgeons who don't find that image surprising at all. And there's also a theory that they showed Bauman afterwards and you see that the amputation was below the knee and then ultimately when he came out on the hockey ice rink at the hockey match, he was an above the knee amputee. If you look at the extent of the injuries and the official story is that it was decided for various medical reasons and for his interests to cut above the knee, essentially the rest of his knee, the rest of his leg wasn't saveable.

Niall: And that's just Jeff Bauman who certain conspiracy theorists chose to home in on. There are about six or seven other amputees who were present so we need to go and explain to them and their families "Ssshhhh, keep quiet, remember you're only acting." At that point it becomes a little bit impossible to keep this as a staged event in the way in which they are talking about. A public event completely staged.

Pierre: Look at the Trinity test during the Second World War, the first atomic bomb. It involved more than 100,000 people. They were consuming 20% of the U.S. electricity consumption. It involved the creation - of an entire village, 120 facilities, hidden from the whole U.S. public for 25 years, so staging a small bombing event like the Boston Marathon one with a few dozen actors is small compared to a major conspiracy that history has eventually revealed.

Niall: Well, there's a difference between the two settings. One takes place in a desert under strict military control that even the president doesn't know about. The other takes place at a public venue at a very public sporting event with potentially tens of thousands of TV eyewitnesses in addition to the thousands present. You're comparing apples and oranges, I think.

Joe: The whole contention is ridiculous if you just think it through. That they put on these proceedings immediately after the bombing. Obviously nobody disagrees that a bomb went off and it blew out windows and stuff. So it would have been quite a shocking thing but apparently immediately afterwards, within the next 10 to 30 seconds afterwards, there were supposedly teams of crisis actors, crisis actor helpers, crisis actors themselves who having sustained the force of the blast, they very quickly regained their wits, all took their positions and the helpers came in with the prostheses and started to put them on the legs. For example on Bauman because that's supposedly a prosthesis, the femur sticking out, and this was all organized. - You can just think through the intricacies of planning to do something like that and how it's even feasible that people would be able to operate under those conditions while there were people milling around. Immediately people and race organizers ran over; they were all part of it supposedly as well. Maybe they put on the prosthesis so quickly that the race organizers didn't see that this was going on. Apparently they were throwing fake blood down, no one saw that. Everybody was involved right? Everybody was involved in this conspiracy and nobody said a word and for what point? It takes such massive planning to do that compared to just put a real bomb and let real people get killed and injured and you have the same effect.

Niall: Joe has dealt with the actors theory, piece by piece, thoroughly in the book. I can assure you. If it sounds like we're being just dismissive here and not even willing to listen to the evidence, we have, we're pretty confident we've thoroughly looked at it.

Pierre: If it's true it's extensively dealt with.

Joe: I have one point: one theory behind the actors thing is that they used - the powers-that-be or whoever was behind this - used actors because they didn't want people to be killed but I ask the question, for what reason? And it's just their own moral...

Pierre: They're human?

Joe: They're human so it's just at that personal level but at the same time everybody thinks that real people were killed. So it's certainly not to save the population of the trauma of actually realizing that a bomb went off and people were killed because everybody in the U.S. and round the world who watched it thinks that a bomb went off and killed real people. So, it's just too save those people from the idea? I don't really understand the point of it?

Pierre: I see what you mean why the exception in Boston.

Niall: This began with the Sandy Hook shooting, I think, as Joe said at the time, this shooting in particular has done a real number on people: 22 children 5 to 6 years old were riddled with 11 to 14 bullets in the space of 2 and a half minutes. I think that was so unbelievably terrifying to accept that that could have been done just for the sake of terror. I think people who are used to actually looking at the horror of reality in the face for some reason this actors thing came out of that because they couldn't quite accept it.

Pierre: Just to escape the pain.

Niall: So they invented a scenario where the entire school was fake. It was never a real school. It was a purpose built stage managed event with cameras, lights, action, crisis actors. Why don't they show the children's dead bodies? Well, for the same reason they wouldn't in any situation because it's horrific. But that was taken as evidence that there were no actual children killed and that was at the heart of it. They can't accept that they just killed 22 kids and from there it's a phenomenon that's snowballed. And it's snowballed retrospectively. Somebody applied the actors theory to the JFK assassination.

Pierre: And to 9/11?

Niall: To 9/11...

Pierre: Hologram.

Niall: Okay, we saw it there too, the no planes theory. In other words, to contemplate the thought that there were people in the plane slamming into buildings was just a little bit too much.

Pierre: Just another point about discovering this topic, I was surprised to see that almost systematically, the terror event coincides with a drill operation. So is it just coincidence?

Niall: No, this is something that has come to the fore since 9/11. It's another layer of this infrastructure I was talking about. Just about everywhere at any given time there are drills going on in the U.S., all the time, and it's become an industry in itself involving E.M.T. personnel, federal agents, police etc. And invariably you find a drill was happening simultaneously, in some cases at the precise location at the time. To quote the head of the drill operations taking place in London during their terror attack in 2005: "oh we just thought, oh real bombs went off at exactly the right time and place so we just switched from drill to a live situation" and all the personnel they had in place then responded as it was real. It's a case by case basis. You sometimes see there was a drill nearby. Sometimes there was something happening at the same location. In the case of Sandy Hook, there were a couple of things going on nearby: one of which we speculate would have been an ideal cover for which people who would otherwise stood out, like, "Who are you and what are you doing here dressed from head to toe in black loaded with guns and ammo?" "Oh, oh, I was part of a drill and I heard what happened so you know I came over." "Oh, oh, sure go on." You know what I mean it's another layer of infrastructure that provides...

Joe: It floods the area with law enforcements from out of town so that it complicates the whole scenario and certain people can get in there who wouldn't normally be there or who normally would stand out or who would be questioned because if it's just a local situation then immediately on the scene it's just local police. So, if a stranger comes in that would stand out but if there's something going on nearby, foreigners can come in, guys from somewhere else on some kind of F.B.I. or police or S.W.A.T. training mission or something. They hear about it on the radio and they come over. So the drill thing either is for that purpose or, in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, there was a drill for a bomb going off at that site, a planned drill. It's an amazing coincidence and you have to be a real coincidence theorist to believe this. But, it would allow again certain people to be in place to be doing certain things that otherwise would look suspicious but can be passed off as part of the drill. So it's a cover, essentially, for people to be there to do what they need to do or part of the actual fake terror attack along with people who don't know what's going on. And so it's a confusing situation that allows for people who are really in the know to do what they need to do while the rest are kind of confused and not sure what's going on.

Niall: Yeah, it's a need to know basis. The drill situation in Boston is kind of complex but I'll try and tease out the different parts. There was, and it's been an annual event in Boston, a massive drill organized by a company that specialized in organizing drills that I think was due to be held in November last year. In June, so 3 months after the attack in the Boston Globe, a story came out like a kind of, 'Oh by the way isn't that interesting' kind of story where the man cancelled the Boston drill, had as his drill scenario pretty much exactly what happened on April 15, 3 months before. The drill that was announced on the day wasn't quite a pre-planned drill. It kind of came up as a last minute thing. So 2 hours before the actual bomb went off outside the public library in Boston there was a tweet by the Boston Globe saying: "Police have just announced there's going to be a controlled bomb explosion in 1 minute" at 1pm, 2 hours before. It's kind of like someone was going "Quick get this out... Oh wait..." you know there was some confusion there. There was also some confusion at the beginning of the race, beginning in the sense of where the race started and at the time it started. A lot of police were suddenly out in force and, judging by eyewitnesses, they said the place seemed like that wasn't planned, it was kind of nervous, like they had gotten a tip about something.

Joe: Yeah, there were snipers on rooftops and stuff.

Niall: So that's not quite a drill that's more like...

Joe: It was very overt because drills are usually done in a way that doesn't disturb the public activity going on or at least has minimal impact, certainly it wouldn't stop the marathon or cause any disruption.

Niall: Delay.

Joe: Delays or disruptions but apparently this one did and one of the guys who were running the marathon said, when they announced it, that it seemed legitimate, that it wasn't part of a drill. These people were saying that there was some kind of an alert, a real alert going on. Because they don't announce those drills to people because the whole point is that nobody is meant to know it. Even in those drills, even the police officers don't know. They are given very basic information about what they're meant to be looking for, just go out and there may be something happening. They're meant to find a suspicious device so nobody knows, the public certainly don't know and the police have very little information as to what is part of the drill but this was announced at the start of the race to the public. So that's why this guy said that 'yeah that wasn't part of the drill that was real', so it seems like, as Niall was saying, that there was confusion going on. But confusion again worked to the benefit of the plotters as well. But what it all comes down to, the thing that these people who organize these fake terror attacks, false flag attacks, the thing that they rely on is what we were just talking about a while ago which is the peoples credulity or their lack of willingness to believe that their authorities would ever do anything like that. And that gives them a lot of scope to do a lot of things and then provide...

Niall: It gives them a mile wide blind spot.

Joe: ...provide a plausible, bull shit explanation that people will willingly believe because the alternative, even the alternative to which the evidence points, people will dismiss because of this idea: 'that they wouldn't do that'. Because people cannot allow themselves to think even for a moment that people in positions of authority are essentially conscienceless and far from having their best interests at heart, care very little about them and would sacrifice them very quickly and very easily if it was deemed necessary to serve the elite's interests. And of course, this brings in the topic of psychopathy and the idea of psychopaths and the idea that there are people who do not have that conscience or that empathy, that natural human conscience that would stop the average person from just going out, or planning to kill another person indiscriminately or kill children indiscriminately. If you have people in positions of power, in particular who don't have that conscience or the sense of empathy, that natural human tendency or innate characteristic, well then you have to accept that. And that's why psychopathy is so important, in that case you have to accept that they would do that because that's what they do because that's who they are and they are essentially not really human beings, in that sense. Depending on how you define human beings. A human being, if you define it by a kind of a sense of community and a caring and a consideration and a protective instinct of other people and certainly an aversion to killing other people for no reason when you're not being threatened, then these psychopaths are not human beings and they are essentially more like animals or even worse than animals, in a certain sense. They have a kind of destructive inclination and that manifests through them to destroy, control, and to dominate others and they have no compunction about doing it. They have no problem with doing it. They don't have those pangs of conscience, they don't feel empathy for the suffering of other people and they are the people who are in power and they are the people who organize these kinds of terror attacks that kill other people and put other people in prison. Innocent people in prison for 35 years, to serve their interests and they don't care. It doesn't bother them. They sleep very well at night. When people project their own natures or their perceived normal human nature onto people who don't have it, well then, it's like Niall just said, it's a massive blind spot and it's going to cause problems.

Pierre: True.

Joe: It's going to get you in trouble.

Pierre: And, if on one side you have psychopathic elites that are driven by their greed and lust for power and are willing to kill hundreds of innocents; on the other side you have a human population that is a victim of those manufactured terror events and that is being terrorized. But on the level of human psychology, as you posit, there may be a normalization factor. I mean, you say mass shootings now occur twice a month in the U.S., so it is starting to become old news, maybe the population is starting to get used to it. How do you see the future? Do you think the psychopaths in power have started this never ending race where they have to escalate the terror in order to maintain this constant level of fear? How is it going to evolve, worse and worse?

Niall: Well, they have a problem you see, terror wears off, as Martha Stout would put it: "the paranoia switch becomes desensitized". Now it doesn't mean that people necessarily improve in terms of they know what's going on, 'I have a better idea', rather that it doesn't have enough of an effect in scaring people to do whatever they want them to do.

Joe: It's like they develop a resistance to it, essentially, that you have to increase the dose of terror but the problem with increasing the dose of terror is you upscale your operations then you certainly increase the risk of...

Niall: Making a mistake.

Joe: ...of making a mistake and doing something so big and so outrageous that your usual patsy that you try to blame it on just doesn't fit anymore. They even experienced that with 9/11, although they fought hard against it. The idea that a guy with diabetes and kidney failure on a dialysis machine in a cave in Afghanistan, was able to carry out 9/11 was rather implausible, you know? So they had to really massage the facts in that one and get the media behind them and just catapult the propaganda, as George Bush stupidly said over and over again; just repeat the message over and over again. But they had to keep up with it because it's in that trauma period afterwards, where people are kind of like in a state of shock, that they are open to that kind of suggestion and the lies that came out immediately after 9/11 during that trauma period was like a version of mass hypnosis in a mild form because people were in an open, traumatized kind of shock and at that point they are very receptive to basic facts; black and white, he did it, let's get him, let's go; and that's why they wanted to 'go, go, go now' and they had a plan in advance. Before people had time to kind of calm down and think about it a little bit, they were already in Afghanistan. Too late, you know?

Pierre: Maybe before we end this show a last question. During this research and writing process that took months, if not years, what were the most important and most unexpected things you discovered with the manufactured terror topic?

Niall: That it's even worse than I thought (laughs). No, actually you kind of get some clarity. You understand it more because it's so disgustingly inhuman. It's not anything we will really ever properly understand why someone would do such things deliberately, but nevertheless, you do get a better idea of what they think they're doing to people and why they do it. And you actually realize they're pretty stupid, they just do it again and again and again. They think they're super intelligent because "look how deceptive we are, they don't know", people don't know because, out of the goodness of their hearts basically, they don't consider you're capable of it. But then someone really looking at it can see it's stupid as a rock.

Joe: When you see the effects of what they do and, what Niall was saying about the short sightedness of it all in that the plan is kind of finite, there's only so many resources, there's only so much you can destroy, there's only so much you can screw up before you render the planet kind of unlivable almost. You can push it to that point and you see these people just continuing on pushing it to that point. You can see the point coming where you'll have a collapse of the system in many areas at the same time, or progressively, and that it ultimately it's a dead end game, it's going nowhere. I can't understand what the end result for these psychopaths in power is and I don't think they have an end result. They just live from moment to moment and do what it's in them to do in a mindless kind of a way. They just react. They are reaction machines. They're more like as close as you can get to a human robot that's been programmed to fulfill a function.

And for me, that then poses the question if maybe there being some other force or power or something that has some agenda and you can even call it god, but if it's god, it's a pretty evil god, that controls this planet and it's pushing this planet in a certain direction because you have all these people on the planet who supposedly just want to live a normal decent life. Most of them are normal people and by and large they wouldn't end up destroying the planet. They just want to live simple lives and stuff but you see how terribly, horribly wrong it's gone and how things are going in a certain direction, it's certainly not good so we're towards the edge of the cliff. And so we say, yeah okay, obviously people are being manipulated and we cite all the evidence and we look at all the details of how people are being pushed in that direction by these psychopaths in power but then you say, well what are they getting out of it? They want to push the planet over the edge of the cliff with them on it? So you wonder why and in the end you come to the conclusion that it's all just nihilistic in a certain way. There's no point to anything. It's just pure destruction and greed and feeding for no purpose until there's nothing left, just for greed as an end of itself. There is no consideration of maintaining the planet. Even from an evil point of view, you would think that the evil doers would want to maintain the system so that they can continue to feed but they are pushing the system towards a complete collapse. So what's the point? It's either just completely nonsensical and nihilistic or there's some other force on this planet that is acting through this elite, these people in power, for a different agenda that we don't really fully understand.

Niall: This is why I said it's even worse than I had thought before I went down this rabbit hole because it's not an overarching conspiracy. It's a conspiracy as a condition. It's a condition of life on this planet in the sense that you have an inter-species predator, as Dr. Robert Hare calls them, just doing what it does, there is no purpose, as far as they're concerned, to why they do what they do. In that sense it's even worse than having an 'Illuminati' seeking to impose a new world order. Yes there's definitely a dynamic of a smaller league group or groups, wanting more control. It's a dynamic rather than an actual set plan. Each step is controlled. Remember many of these mass shootings are consequences, but indirectly, they're not all planned and carried out by government agencies of any kind. It's like the terror is introduced by specific actions of the elites. But then it anchors in people and they themselves carry it out like this whole thing about the actor theory, it's like I can imagine some of them are deliberately spreading disinfo but for the most part it's not. It's just spontaneously grown because it's systematic, as far as I'm concerned, of this schizophrenic break from reality that people are having, that the terror is too much for them and they would rather create a fantasy world where this was all done by Hollywood and is totally staged.

Joe: And that mirrors the understood reality of the psychopath and the way a psychopath sees the world that it's essentially of his or her own creation. There's a guy called Gunsberg [Amos M. Gunsberg, Beyond Insanity], who cited a study done with a psychopath, under some kind of clinical conditions or whatever, he was being interviewed and he was asked about a chair. How does that chair stand? It's got legs and, basically, the conclusion was that if he doesn't see the chair, it doesn't exist. I mean as in kind of like when he turned away from the chair it no longer existed. So that, basically, what they see is reality and that goes back to the quote from what Seymour Hersh said, a U.S. politician, a Bush government insider, apparently Karl Rove talked about them being reality creators where what they believe to be reality, they decide they're going to make it their reality and objective reality be damned. So it's almost like that kind of ideology or that view of the world of the psychopath has filtered down and has infected the minds of some people and in other ways the way society is structured and the things that entertain people and what people believe and the mainstream media, what it promotes and what it tells people, does the same thing to every other person on the planet. Where it tells them lies and they believe those lies and that becomes their reality and it's completely divorced from objective reality, what's actually happening.

Pierre: Yeah, psychopaths, obviously from your description, won't change so on this path of destruction our civilization has only one choice. The choice between the manufactured reality created by psychopaths or the objective reality and the only source of hope is, apparently, that humanity chooses, even if it is painful to assess reality as it is.
Okay folks I think that we are done for this 2 hour show. Thank you for sharing all your insights about these fascinating topics.

Joe: No problem, you're welcome.

Pierre: And that reminds me, we remind the listener of the title of your book "Manufactured Terror Busted Wide Open" by Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley

Niall: No, that's the title of the show!

Joe: That's the title of the show!

Pierre: "Manufactured Terror" is the title of the book. Okay and it's available in the Kindle version or paper version on Thank you for listening, thank you for chatting and see you next Sunday. Bye!

Joe: Bye!

Niall: Bye, bye!