SOTT editors on TV
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
Joe on WTC Building 7: Maybe it decided to collapse in solidarity with the other two!
Many thanks to Joe and Simon for having the courage to get out there. It seems like this TV show wants to carve its niche through 'cutting edge' reporting. Witness the presenter's excitement towards the end over the 'exclusive' story about kidnapped children. If the producers can grok ponerology, then they'll surely realise that it is the mother of all stories.
I'll get started on this Dan. Has anyone else started doing this? If so, shout me and we can split the show into segments.
Many thanks to Joe and Simon for having the courage to get out there. It seems like this TV show wants to carve its niche through 'cutting edge' reporting. Witness the presenter's excitement towards the end over the 'exclusive' story about kidnapped children. If the producers can grok ponerology, then they'll surely realise that it is the mother of all stories.
Dant said:
I'll get started on this Dan. Has anyone else started doing this? If so, shout me and we can split the show into segments.
Some of my thoughts:
-Joe and Simon did a good solid job of making their points. I personally would have liked to see them talk more but it didn't seem to work out that way during the show. The other guy and his film got the lions share of the time.
-I am very sceptical of the other guys claims of child kidnapping. A very emotionally impactful topic coming right in at the end of the show ends up being the take home message. It seemed to overpower the 911 topic the show was about. Plus if it doesn't come from Sott I am instantly sceptical.
-A suggestion for a topic to cover is comet strikes, something wicked comes this way etc. That seems to me to get peoples attention without being to left field for the average person. All of Laura's great work/data on this topic combined with that great piece on you-tube gives people something to look at and could be impactful?
-Joe and Simon did a good solid job of making their points. I personally would have liked to see them talk more but it didn't seem to work out that way during the show. The other guy and his film got the lions share of the time.
-I am very sceptical of the other guys claims of child kidnapping. A very emotionally impactful topic coming right in at the end of the show ends up being the take home message. It seemed to overpower the 911 topic the show was about. Plus if it doesn't come from Sott I am instantly sceptical.
-A suggestion for a topic to cover is comet strikes, something wicked comes this way etc. That seems to me to get peoples attention without being to left field for the average person. All of Laura's great work/data on this topic combined with that great piece on you-tube gives people something to look at and could be impactful?
Great video interview Joe and Simon! With so little airtime you got to talk about very important points anyway, and that was simply excellent!
Thanks for the Flashgot hint SAO, it's really fast. As a non native speaker I really welcome a transcript, it wasn't easy at all to follow the speech and I may have lost a lot :)
Talking about the In Plane Sight docu., I really do wonder about William Lewis's sources at this point. Assuming he's not a conscious agent of distraction...
But anyway, after the many flaws on the pod's theory which at this point any conscious researcher would have taken into account or at least re-considered and re-digested, how is that he's now into another smoking gun with absolutely no evidence to back it up?!? A certain feeling of embarrassment pops up just thinking that he may have had a thought like that... even if he has any kind of 'evidence' on his side (A phone call from an 'insider'? A anonymous letter, perhaps?) how it comes to mind to talk about it after all? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks for the Flashgot hint SAO, it's really fast. As a non native speaker I really welcome a transcript, it wasn't easy at all to follow the speech and I may have lost a lot :)
Talking about the In Plane Sight docu., I really do wonder about William Lewis's sources at this point. Assuming he's not a conscious agent of distraction...
But anyway, after the many flaws on the pod's theory which at this point any conscious researcher would have taken into account or at least re-considered and re-digested, how is that he's now into another smoking gun with absolutely no evidence to back it up?!? A certain feeling of embarrassment pops up just thinking that he may have had a thought like that... even if he has any kind of 'evidence' on his side (A phone call from an 'insider'? A anonymous letter, perhaps?) how it comes to mind to talk about it after all? It just doesn't make sense to me.
SOTT On The Edge - Transcript of UK TV program about 9/11
Aired by Edge Media, Sky Channel 200, Thursday 9th October 2008
Part I
Presenter: Good evening! Welcome to the second edition of the new program On the Edge with me, Theo Chalmers. We are live, so if you have any comments, questions or suggestions during the show, text them to... [instructions on how to send text messages to the studio follow]
[1 min]Our program tonight is about what happened on September 11th 2001. We'll be showing clips from the seminal film, 9/11 in Plain Site. If you're one of those people who believe the official story of that day, then you'll definitely want to stay tuned. To talk about the film, live via telephone from the “home of the brave, land of the free” is William Lewis, who directed and produced the film. In the studio, I'm delighted to have Joe Quinn, editor of the Sign of the Times website... I'm sorry, Signs of the Times, and co-author of 9/11 The Ultimate Truth. And I've also got former investment banker Simon Davies who has collaborated on a book about government false-flag operations, called From Belfast to Baghdad.
What a show we've got tonight!
[To Joe and Simon] Welcome! Welcome to you as well William Lewis, if you can hear me?
Lewis: Thank you!
Presenter: I think we'll start with you William, just in case we lose the line...
William, you made this film, 9/11 In Plain Site, [holds a copy up for camera] which I think is pretty amazing actually. I'd like to ask you; how did you get involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement?
Lewis: Well, it was not intentional. This whole thing came about as a result of having information in our hands that we felt we had to get to people. Since things had already begun to fall apart at the Pentagon [inaudible] that was based on Pentagate, a French website, that discussed all sorts of things like why the holes in the wall were too small to accommodate a 757, things of that nature. We had been in contact with Phil Jayhan [correct spelling?] who discovered “the flash” and who was telling us about “the pod” and then we found out that we were in possession of approximately two or three dozen videotapes that people had sent us over the years and it all added up to the intricate details of everything that came out that day. We started looking at the footage and realised; we've got stuff that people have never seen before. You may have seen it once on live TV, but you didn't get to see it again. So we began to sift through all this footage, put it together with the Pentagon story, put it together with Flight 11 and Flight 175 that hit the North and the South Tower. By the time we reached the end of the story, we just had to point out inconsistencies in the official government story and by the time we reached the end of the documentary, we realised we'd just blown a big hole in the story!
Presenter: Well William, we're gonna look at some bits from your film, and I think if we go to the first clip, please, which is about the Pentagon, that'd be a good place to start... so if we can show that film now please...
[cuts to 9/11 In Plane Site]
Eye-witness: I mean it was alike a huge missile with wings... slammed right there into the Pentagon... huge explosion... great ball of fire... smoke started billowing out...
Video Narrator: Shortly after September 11th, as what usually happens, many conspiracy theories began to emerge as to what really happened on September 11th of 2001. And because many of these theories were not grounded with any evidence, we didn't really pay too much attention to them. However, in February of 2002, my attention was drawn to the following website entitled “Hunt the Boeing: Test Your Perceptions.” Now the original website was completely in French, and was released by the French, and drew some very serious questions as to what had really happened at the Pentagon. I mean, after all, we had all seen the big hole that was created by the 757 that had slammed into the Pentagon at 9:43 on September 11th. But some of the photographs that were shown on this website raised very serious questions as to whether or not that's exactly what had happened. Some of these photographs showed a smaller hole. And in some cases showed that there was no way that a 757 could have created this damage. So we began our own investigation and that started by taking a look at some of the magazines that we all saw at the supermarket checkout stands shortly after the events of September 11th.
As I began poring through the photographs I had one goal in mind and that was to prove the French wrong with their website “Hunt the Boeing.” After all, there must have been some photographic evidence that showed that the 757 had hit the Pentagon. But as we went through all these photographs we could find no pictures whatsoever showing a tail, a nose, fuselage, wings, engines, wheels, luggage seats, nothing. There were no photographs showing any recognisable wreckage from a 757. Furthermore, when you look at the size of the hole at the Pentagon, it is approximately 65 feet across, and the height of the Pentagon is approximately 73 feet. From wing-tip to wing-tip, a 757 is 124 feet, 10 inches. From nose to tail, a 757 is 155 feet and 3 inches in length. And the height is 44 feet and six inches. However, when you look at the hole at the Pentagon, you find that it's only approximately 65 feet across. How does a plane of those dimensions fit into a hole only 65 feet across? Upon further inspection, we found that the damage at the Pentagon was completely and totally inconsistent with the damage of the planes that had hit the WTC. I mean, after all, the planes that had hit the WTC created a fire that was so intense that it super-heated the steel and collapsed the buildings, or so that's what we were told.
And yet when you look at the left side of the Pentagon, you'll note that there is very little smoke damage or heat damage at all. On the third floor it's very plain to see a file cabinet with a computer monitor; neither if them are damaged. On the second floor you can see a wooden desk; it hasn't burned. And on the first floor, a very curious sight indeed; a wooden stool with a book that is laying and open – the pages aren't even singed.
Now each of the planes involved in the September 11th attacks had embarked upon trans-continental flights, which means that they had a majority of their fuel left over when they hit their respective targets. That means that approximately 8,600 remaining gallons of of fuel would have been ignited when the 757 hit the Pentagon. Again, we look at the photographs and ask ourselves: is the smoke and heat damage consistent with that amount of fuel being ignited?
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Well William, I mean, that's incredibly powerful isn't it? I'm sure you recognise that piece of your film even though you can't see it with us. When you found these images and looked at these facts, I mean, did you feel that you had a kind of moral duty to make this film? Is that the thinking behind it?
Lewis: Absolutely. People, don't worry about copyright. Just get this thing, make copies of it in your DVD player and get it out there to people. And really I think that's how the message began to spread so quickly. We've had reports of some people that have made literally hundreds of thousands of copies they were giving out for free! So, y'know, we were thrilled to find out that this information was getting out to people.
Y'know... I don't think the American people quite get it that the September 11th terrorist attacks have been used to lull the American people into a sense of fear and fright and we've got to act, we've got to do something... [we] got tricked into going into wars with other countries; 'first-stike wars', where we're the aggressor, we're the ones goin' in starting this stuff, y'know? Uhm, I don't believe the American people really and truly understand that we're not looked upon very favourably around the world and the whole excuse being used to trick the American people is this episode of 9/11 [inaudible] this soap-opera.
Presenter: That's very passionately put William, I really appreciate that. I'm just going to tell the audience that we are in fact going to give your film, 9/11 In Plain Site, its television premiere here on this channel, Channel 200 Edge Media TV... I'm not sure of the date yet, but stay tuned and you will see it on this channel in full.
I'm just gonna go to Joe Quinn now. If you can stay on the line please William, cause there are some other questions I wanna ask you. Joe, you're very familiar with this subject, you've written this book 9/11 The Ultimate Truth, with Laura Jadczyk – did I say her name right?!
Joe: Close enough!
Presenter: Give me a bit about your kind of feeling about what you just saw? And where did that plane disappear to? And is there any rational, logical explanation for what we just saw? Could it have been a 757 jetliner loaded up with passengers, loaded up with fuel, with jet engines that are 9-odd feet across?...
Joe: It's very unlikely, to put it lightly. As we saw in the video, there are no marks... the width of the hole was at most 90 feet wide. And a 757 is at least 125 fee wide. And there are no marks on the sides of the building where the wings of the plane would have had hit to have hit if it was a 757 plane. So obviously, on that point alone, you'd have to say that the suggestion that a 757 hit the building is very unlikely.
Presenter: Ok, I've just been told from the gallery that we're showing 9/11 In Plain Site on Wednesday 22nd October at 8:30 pm, so please tune in for that. And thank you very much Joe for that point.
Joe: No problem.
Presenter: Actually, I think we'll go to Simon Davies now because you're writing a book about false-flag operations, so the question I'm gonna ask you is this: if 9/11 was, let's say, not as presented by the media in this country and in America, who benefited? Who benefited from this? And why would they do this, why would they kill? Say it was the American government who killed 3,000 of their own people and foreigners from almost every country in the WTC, how would they benefit?
Simon: Well, I think we have to define who we mean by the 'American government.' I think it's a likelihood that it was a small part of the American government, a group associated with the Bush administration, acting alone; some might call them rogues, some might refer to them just as the Neo-Con Group, however you want to refer to them. They get carte blanche as a result of this. There's a significant history - we've got the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor - of attacks occurring that were either facilitated or at least allowed to occur, to get the American people behind what would otherwise be completely unacceptable foreign policies.
Presenter: Let me just ask you; you mentioned Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was an attack on the American Navy by the Japanese, so that wasn't terrorists with box-cutters, was it?!
Simon: No it wasn't, but there is an absolute massive amount of evidence to say that it was provoked. The defence that would normally have been put in place to allow Pearl Harbor not to have occurred was deliberately removed, key assets were not in Pearl Harbor that would normally have been in Pearl Harbor, defense controls that should have been there were not there and a mountain of communications information and intelligence that should have been made available to the admirals and the military in Hawaii was not provided to them and was stalled in Washington deliberately so that the attacks could take place; there would be sufficient loss of life; sufficient shock among the American public... the entry of the United States into the Second World War was facilitated by that act.
Presenter: I've got a text coming in here; Malcolm of Lincoln has asked, “Why was the grass still green in front of the Pentagon?” William, would you like to take that one?
Lewis: [Laughs] Well you know, there are a lot of theories about why the grass is green... if the plane would have come in at the altitude that we were told it came in, we would have seen some type of ground damage. We've seen incidents where they've done this with cars, where they fly very low over a passageway and you see these cars literally being flipped onto their sides. There's a tremendous amount of pressure built up as the plane passes by and it displaces, dislodges everything in its path. And the very fact that we don't have a clear picture, video evidence, of a plane striking the Pentagon is even more fascinating. The photographs that they released after the fact don't even show a plane. These are the images they use to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon, but you don't see a plane!
Presenter: There's no image is there?! William, we've got a couple of minutes before the break. I've just enough time to show clip 3 which I think shows in a bit more detail what the plane is supposed to have done to the Pentagon. If we can see clip 3 please, before we go to the break?
[cuts to 9/11 In Plain Site]
Video Narrator: Keep in mind that each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall. Each wall is approximately 18 inches thick of steel-reinforced concrete. That means that each ring consisted of 36 inches, or 3 feet, of steel-reinforced concrete, for a total of approximately 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete.
Question: could a 757 have pierced 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete and left a 14 to 16 foot hole and no wreckage? If not, what could have created that type of damage? On our radio program, The Power Hour, we have a lot of veterans and military experts that listen in. And many have called up and agreed that it could not have been a 757 that created that damage, but in fact had to have been something else altogether. What could have caused that damage? Some call it a bunker-buster or a missile.
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Joe, you wanna pick up on that point there?
Joe: Yes, it's a ridiculous contention that that hole in the C-ring...
Presenter: That was the inner hole you see there in that image?
Joe: Yes, three rings in at the Pentagon...
Presenter: 9 feet of concrete...
Joe: Yeh, according to Donald Rumsfeld, that was made by the nose of the 757...
Presenter: Which is made of aluminium...
Joe: Yeh.
Presenter: 'Aloominum' to some [a reference to W?!]
Joe: Yeh! So, ehm, a lot of military experts and weapons experts have suggested that that could only have been made by a missile or a shape-charge that makes that kind of circular hole.
Presenter: Right, we're going to go for a break now... see you very soon.
**End Part I**
Aired by Edge Media, Sky Channel 200, Thursday 9th October 2008
Part I
Presenter: Good evening! Welcome to the second edition of the new program On the Edge with me, Theo Chalmers. We are live, so if you have any comments, questions or suggestions during the show, text them to... [instructions on how to send text messages to the studio follow]
[1 min]Our program tonight is about what happened on September 11th 2001. We'll be showing clips from the seminal film, 9/11 in Plain Site. If you're one of those people who believe the official story of that day, then you'll definitely want to stay tuned. To talk about the film, live via telephone from the “home of the brave, land of the free” is William Lewis, who directed and produced the film. In the studio, I'm delighted to have Joe Quinn, editor of the Sign of the Times website... I'm sorry, Signs of the Times, and co-author of 9/11 The Ultimate Truth. And I've also got former investment banker Simon Davies who has collaborated on a book about government false-flag operations, called From Belfast to Baghdad.
What a show we've got tonight!
[To Joe and Simon] Welcome! Welcome to you as well William Lewis, if you can hear me?
Lewis: Thank you!
Presenter: I think we'll start with you William, just in case we lose the line...
William, you made this film, 9/11 In Plain Site, [holds a copy up for camera] which I think is pretty amazing actually. I'd like to ask you; how did you get involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement?
Lewis: Well, it was not intentional. This whole thing came about as a result of having information in our hands that we felt we had to get to people. Since things had already begun to fall apart at the Pentagon [inaudible] that was based on Pentagate, a French website, that discussed all sorts of things like why the holes in the wall were too small to accommodate a 757, things of that nature. We had been in contact with Phil Jayhan [correct spelling?] who discovered “the flash” and who was telling us about “the pod” and then we found out that we were in possession of approximately two or three dozen videotapes that people had sent us over the years and it all added up to the intricate details of everything that came out that day. We started looking at the footage and realised; we've got stuff that people have never seen before. You may have seen it once on live TV, but you didn't get to see it again. So we began to sift through all this footage, put it together with the Pentagon story, put it together with Flight 11 and Flight 175 that hit the North and the South Tower. By the time we reached the end of the story, we just had to point out inconsistencies in the official government story and by the time we reached the end of the documentary, we realised we'd just blown a big hole in the story!
Presenter: Well William, we're gonna look at some bits from your film, and I think if we go to the first clip, please, which is about the Pentagon, that'd be a good place to start... so if we can show that film now please...
[cuts to 9/11 In Plane Site]
Eye-witness: I mean it was alike a huge missile with wings... slammed right there into the Pentagon... huge explosion... great ball of fire... smoke started billowing out...
Video Narrator: Shortly after September 11th, as what usually happens, many conspiracy theories began to emerge as to what really happened on September 11th of 2001. And because many of these theories were not grounded with any evidence, we didn't really pay too much attention to them. However, in February of 2002, my attention was drawn to the following website entitled “Hunt the Boeing: Test Your Perceptions.” Now the original website was completely in French, and was released by the French, and drew some very serious questions as to what had really happened at the Pentagon. I mean, after all, we had all seen the big hole that was created by the 757 that had slammed into the Pentagon at 9:43 on September 11th. But some of the photographs that were shown on this website raised very serious questions as to whether or not that's exactly what had happened. Some of these photographs showed a smaller hole. And in some cases showed that there was no way that a 757 could have created this damage. So we began our own investigation and that started by taking a look at some of the magazines that we all saw at the supermarket checkout stands shortly after the events of September 11th.
As I began poring through the photographs I had one goal in mind and that was to prove the French wrong with their website “Hunt the Boeing.” After all, there must have been some photographic evidence that showed that the 757 had hit the Pentagon. But as we went through all these photographs we could find no pictures whatsoever showing a tail, a nose, fuselage, wings, engines, wheels, luggage seats, nothing. There were no photographs showing any recognisable wreckage from a 757. Furthermore, when you look at the size of the hole at the Pentagon, it is approximately 65 feet across, and the height of the Pentagon is approximately 73 feet. From wing-tip to wing-tip, a 757 is 124 feet, 10 inches. From nose to tail, a 757 is 155 feet and 3 inches in length. And the height is 44 feet and six inches. However, when you look at the hole at the Pentagon, you find that it's only approximately 65 feet across. How does a plane of those dimensions fit into a hole only 65 feet across? Upon further inspection, we found that the damage at the Pentagon was completely and totally inconsistent with the damage of the planes that had hit the WTC. I mean, after all, the planes that had hit the WTC created a fire that was so intense that it super-heated the steel and collapsed the buildings, or so that's what we were told.
And yet when you look at the left side of the Pentagon, you'll note that there is very little smoke damage or heat damage at all. On the third floor it's very plain to see a file cabinet with a computer monitor; neither if them are damaged. On the second floor you can see a wooden desk; it hasn't burned. And on the first floor, a very curious sight indeed; a wooden stool with a book that is laying and open – the pages aren't even singed.
Now each of the planes involved in the September 11th attacks had embarked upon trans-continental flights, which means that they had a majority of their fuel left over when they hit their respective targets. That means that approximately 8,600 remaining gallons of of fuel would have been ignited when the 757 hit the Pentagon. Again, we look at the photographs and ask ourselves: is the smoke and heat damage consistent with that amount of fuel being ignited?
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Well William, I mean, that's incredibly powerful isn't it? I'm sure you recognise that piece of your film even though you can't see it with us. When you found these images and looked at these facts, I mean, did you feel that you had a kind of moral duty to make this film? Is that the thinking behind it?
Lewis: Absolutely. People, don't worry about copyright. Just get this thing, make copies of it in your DVD player and get it out there to people. And really I think that's how the message began to spread so quickly. We've had reports of some people that have made literally hundreds of thousands of copies they were giving out for free! So, y'know, we were thrilled to find out that this information was getting out to people.
Y'know... I don't think the American people quite get it that the September 11th terrorist attacks have been used to lull the American people into a sense of fear and fright and we've got to act, we've got to do something... [we] got tricked into going into wars with other countries; 'first-stike wars', where we're the aggressor, we're the ones goin' in starting this stuff, y'know? Uhm, I don't believe the American people really and truly understand that we're not looked upon very favourably around the world and the whole excuse being used to trick the American people is this episode of 9/11 [inaudible] this soap-opera.
Presenter: That's very passionately put William, I really appreciate that. I'm just going to tell the audience that we are in fact going to give your film, 9/11 In Plain Site, its television premiere here on this channel, Channel 200 Edge Media TV... I'm not sure of the date yet, but stay tuned and you will see it on this channel in full.
I'm just gonna go to Joe Quinn now. If you can stay on the line please William, cause there are some other questions I wanna ask you. Joe, you're very familiar with this subject, you've written this book 9/11 The Ultimate Truth, with Laura Jadczyk – did I say her name right?!
Joe: Close enough!
Presenter: Give me a bit about your kind of feeling about what you just saw? And where did that plane disappear to? And is there any rational, logical explanation for what we just saw? Could it have been a 757 jetliner loaded up with passengers, loaded up with fuel, with jet engines that are 9-odd feet across?...
Joe: It's very unlikely, to put it lightly. As we saw in the video, there are no marks... the width of the hole was at most 90 feet wide. And a 757 is at least 125 fee wide. And there are no marks on the sides of the building where the wings of the plane would have had hit to have hit if it was a 757 plane. So obviously, on that point alone, you'd have to say that the suggestion that a 757 hit the building is very unlikely.
Presenter: Ok, I've just been told from the gallery that we're showing 9/11 In Plain Site on Wednesday 22nd October at 8:30 pm, so please tune in for that. And thank you very much Joe for that point.
Joe: No problem.
Presenter: Actually, I think we'll go to Simon Davies now because you're writing a book about false-flag operations, so the question I'm gonna ask you is this: if 9/11 was, let's say, not as presented by the media in this country and in America, who benefited? Who benefited from this? And why would they do this, why would they kill? Say it was the American government who killed 3,000 of their own people and foreigners from almost every country in the WTC, how would they benefit?
Simon: Well, I think we have to define who we mean by the 'American government.' I think it's a likelihood that it was a small part of the American government, a group associated with the Bush administration, acting alone; some might call them rogues, some might refer to them just as the Neo-Con Group, however you want to refer to them. They get carte blanche as a result of this. There's a significant history - we've got the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor - of attacks occurring that were either facilitated or at least allowed to occur, to get the American people behind what would otherwise be completely unacceptable foreign policies.
Presenter: Let me just ask you; you mentioned Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was an attack on the American Navy by the Japanese, so that wasn't terrorists with box-cutters, was it?!
Simon: No it wasn't, but there is an absolute massive amount of evidence to say that it was provoked. The defence that would normally have been put in place to allow Pearl Harbor not to have occurred was deliberately removed, key assets were not in Pearl Harbor that would normally have been in Pearl Harbor, defense controls that should have been there were not there and a mountain of communications information and intelligence that should have been made available to the admirals and the military in Hawaii was not provided to them and was stalled in Washington deliberately so that the attacks could take place; there would be sufficient loss of life; sufficient shock among the American public... the entry of the United States into the Second World War was facilitated by that act.
Presenter: I've got a text coming in here; Malcolm of Lincoln has asked, “Why was the grass still green in front of the Pentagon?” William, would you like to take that one?
Lewis: [Laughs] Well you know, there are a lot of theories about why the grass is green... if the plane would have come in at the altitude that we were told it came in, we would have seen some type of ground damage. We've seen incidents where they've done this with cars, where they fly very low over a passageway and you see these cars literally being flipped onto their sides. There's a tremendous amount of pressure built up as the plane passes by and it displaces, dislodges everything in its path. And the very fact that we don't have a clear picture, video evidence, of a plane striking the Pentagon is even more fascinating. The photographs that they released after the fact don't even show a plane. These are the images they use to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon, but you don't see a plane!
Presenter: There's no image is there?! William, we've got a couple of minutes before the break. I've just enough time to show clip 3 which I think shows in a bit more detail what the plane is supposed to have done to the Pentagon. If we can see clip 3 please, before we go to the break?
[cuts to 9/11 In Plain Site]
Video Narrator: Keep in mind that each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall. Each wall is approximately 18 inches thick of steel-reinforced concrete. That means that each ring consisted of 36 inches, or 3 feet, of steel-reinforced concrete, for a total of approximately 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete.
Question: could a 757 have pierced 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete and left a 14 to 16 foot hole and no wreckage? If not, what could have created that type of damage? On our radio program, The Power Hour, we have a lot of veterans and military experts that listen in. And many have called up and agreed that it could not have been a 757 that created that damage, but in fact had to have been something else altogether. What could have caused that damage? Some call it a bunker-buster or a missile.
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Joe, you wanna pick up on that point there?
Joe: Yes, it's a ridiculous contention that that hole in the C-ring...
Presenter: That was the inner hole you see there in that image?
Joe: Yes, three rings in at the Pentagon...
Presenter: 9 feet of concrete...
Joe: Yeh, according to Donald Rumsfeld, that was made by the nose of the 757...
Presenter: Which is made of aluminium...
Joe: Yeh.
Presenter: 'Aloominum' to some [a reference to W?!]
Joe: Yeh! So, ehm, a lot of military experts and weapons experts have suggested that that could only have been made by a missile or a shape-charge that makes that kind of circular hole.
Presenter: Right, we're going to go for a break now... see you very soon.
**End Part I**
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
Excellent Video, and great job to you both 
On the issue of the "remote control operators" and their "kidnapped children", I also could not find anything on the net about this. This theory definitely made me raise an eyebrow. I find it odd that after eight years; this theory is just coming out now. It just doesn’t really add up for me, mostly because Lewis states his info comes from “contacts within the state and the federal government”. Well the government has been known to lie on more than one occasion. I mean isn’t the government’s lie the whole reason we’re having this discussion about the validity of 9-11 attacks. So for the guy to come out and claim something as far-fetched as this and state his sources as “contacts within the state and the federal government” it raises a red flag for me.
Why not use those contacts within the state and federal government to get a hold of some of those confiscated videos, or SOME evidence that leads to something more than hear-say.
Oh and I think the topic of ponerology for the next show would be great. Considering you can tie it all pretty well to the topic of 9-11. Since one of the points people just can’t seem to get their heads around is WHY would the American government kill their own people and for what cause.
Again, nice job fellows!
On the issue of the "remote control operators" and their "kidnapped children", I also could not find anything on the net about this. This theory definitely made me raise an eyebrow. I find it odd that after eight years; this theory is just coming out now. It just doesn’t really add up for me, mostly because Lewis states his info comes from “contacts within the state and the federal government”. Well the government has been known to lie on more than one occasion. I mean isn’t the government’s lie the whole reason we’re having this discussion about the validity of 9-11 attacks. So for the guy to come out and claim something as far-fetched as this and state his sources as “contacts within the state and the federal government” it raises a red flag for me.
Why not use those contacts within the state and federal government to get a hold of some of those confiscated videos, or SOME evidence that leads to something more than hear-say.
Oh and I think the topic of ponerology for the next show would be great. Considering you can tie it all pretty well to the topic of 9-11. Since one of the points people just can’t seem to get their heads around is WHY would the American government kill their own people and for what cause.
Again, nice job fellows!
SOTT on TV - Part II of On the Edge
Presenter: Welcome back to On the Edge! Tonight we're talking about 9/11 In Plane Site, the film. We've got the director and producer on the line from America, William Lewis, we've got Joe Quinn, editor of Signs of the Times – I'll get it right one day! - S O T T dot net - and co-author of 9/11 The Ultimate Truth, in the studio. And we've also got Simon Davies, a former investment banker who knows 'that thing' from the inside and co-author of From Belfast to Baghdad, a book which is coming out about false-flag operations.
Just before the break we were talking about false-flag operations, so I think we'll go back to you William, if you like, to give us a bit more of – I'm sorry, Simon – to give us a bit more about...
Simon: You were asking about the hole. Not only do we have a very small hole that was completely inconsistent with the [series?] of a 757, but we have the Pentagon which has to be the one of the most highly protected buildings in the world. Not only does it have incredible surveillance, but it also has incredibly sophisticated air-defense systems...
Presenter: So you mean they would have fired a missile at it?..
Simon: Yeh, they'd have shot it down. Somebody had to stop that happening. Now, it either was deliberately overridden or the system regarded whatever was coming in as a friendly, a friendly object, and that had to have been programmed into it. So that's the key point, that all the systems didn't work. The other thing is; this building has incredible surveillance. Every corridor, every wall, every roof, every thing of the Pentagon is under camera, surveillance.
Presenter: So if they wanted to, they could show us film of the plane in slow-mo penetrating these nine feet of steel-reinforced concrete... and not burning any books or anything!
Simon: Exactly. And the wings folding up and the engines tucking themselves away and the luggage just evaporating, and all those things would have had to have happened.
Presenter: Right... Well, let's go to clip number two 'cause we're still on the Pentagon for another little bit, then we're gonna go on to New York. I've already got a couple of questions about New York, but if you save questions on New York until a little bit later, right now if we could go to clip 2 that'd be great...
[9/11 In Plane Site]
Video narrator: But shortly after the release of the article From Deception to Revelation, we were sent some photographs that were taken apparently right after the attack and before the outer wall had collapsed.
When examining these photographs, we can clearly see that the area in question had not yet collapsed. In fact, there is very little evidence of a hole big enough to accommodate a 757. The hole that we do see is approximately 14 to 15 feet across.
Question: how does a 757 fit into a 15-foot hole, and leave no damage or wreckage on the outside of the Pentagon? These are questions that deserve serious scrutiny. Let's take a look at some of the photographs that were taken before the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed.
[20 min] In this first photograph we can see the fire-fighters pulling the hoses away from the fire-trucks. In the foreground we can see wire-spools that were left in the front lawn of the Pentagon – after all, this section of the Pentagon was under renovation. We'll use these wire-spools as reference points. Also to the right of those wire-spools and on the face of the Pentagon we can see that some concrete facing has broken away. We'll also use this as a reference point as we examine these photographs. Now, to the left of that area where the facing has broken off, we can clearly see that the Pentagon has not yet collapsed. There are some flaming areas and that area appears to be the only section where there is a hole approximately 14 to 16 feet.
Question: How does a 757 fit into a 16 foot hole and leave no wreckage on the front of the building? We can also see that the roof of the building does show fatigue, but has not yet collapsed.
[21 min] In this photograph an astonished onlooker sees exactly what we're seeing. The Pentagon had not yet collapsed; and again, there is no sign of any wreckage whatsoever. No tail, no fuselage, no wings, no wheels, no engines, no seats, no luggage, nothing on the outside of the Pentagon. The Pentagon roof line is clearly visible, and again it is under fatigue, but it has not yet collapsed.
[21 min, 30 sec] As we examine this next photograph, let's take a good close look at the lower left corner; you'll see Engine 331 from the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. We contacted the fire chief from this engine company. Chief Plower agreed to come on our radio show along with two of his fire fighters. But one hour before air-time, they cancelled. We were told that the two fire-fighters had been placed on indefinite leave. When we look at this photograph we can see that the fire-retardant foam is being sprayed on the front of the Pentagon; and again, the area in question has not yet collapsed.
[22 min] You can see, right in the centre of the photograph, a big area where some of the concrete facing has broken away. It appears that this is the only major hole in the front of the Pentagon. Again, is this hole big enough to accommodate a 757? And where is the wreckage?
[22 min, 30] In this photograph we again see Engine 331 and fire-retardant foam being sprayed onto the Pentagon. Note clearly, in the centre of the photograph, we see the upper floors of the Pentagon again, yet to collapse. But also notice that there does not appear to be any damage to these upper floors.
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Right, William, no doubt you've heard that. I've got some questions here which I think I'll put to you, if you don't mind. One of them is: “If it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, why only show a few frames of footage and why confiscate CCTV videos from gas stations and hotels?” I've also got another [text message] here that says there's a clip on YouTube of a camera on the Hilton Hotel which shows it wasn't a plane. Uhm, I'm not familiar with that; are you familiar with that, William?
Lewis: No, I don't think so! Y'know I'm not familiar with that exact footage unless it was sneaked [?] out of the FBI [inaudible] I believe 84 videos at this point that they will not release because it's a matter of national security. It's funny that they can put one out every once in a while whenever they need to disprove whatever the conspiracy theorists are saying at the time! But to be quite honest with you, it would really quiet the whole 9/11 'Truth Movement', y'know if they would just release the videotape and just tell us that it was a Boeing 757. But I don't think they can because I think you and I both know it wasn't a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon.
Presenter: Well, I've gotta say, it does seem rather unlikely given what we've just seen. So, who can call the American government, if you like, to account? Who can say, in America, “let us see those clips”? Why is nothing happening? That's what I don't understand.
Lewis: This all goes back to the President. You will remember that it was at his request that the networks began to stop showing all of the footage of the collapse of the buildings and anything that would remind him of 9/11. But they only bring those up when they need to get re-elected. You'll notice that they ... all you could see at the Republican National Convention was nothing but images that reminded people of September 11th! So they bring it up when it's convenient for them. But won't they release [?] this information, this is what this boils down to. They have 84 video in their possession that they won't let us see: they keep telling us to swallow the official story – we keep poking holes in the official story – so somewhere along the line, it's gotta break. To be quite honest with you, they don't have to do anything and I don't think anything will ever actually be done. We may never get a real investigation.
Presenter: Doesn't the power rest with the people?
Lewis: [Laughs] [Inaudible] ...but they used September 11th to systematically remove one right, one liberty after another. You go back to the USA Patriot Act that they passed right after this; it violates our first amendment, our fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and thirteenth amendments... why [inaudible] one bill that no one read and was switched [?] at the last minute??
Presenter: Well that's powerful stuff. William, we're gonna switch now to clips from your movie which are about New York – otherwise we're not gonna have much time to show them. So if we can roll clip number 5 please?..
[9/11 In Plane Sight]
Video Narrator: In the September 24th 2001 edition of People magazine, on page 34 there was an interview with Louis Cattiori, a 51-year-old fire-fighter assigned with Engine 47 of Harlem-New York and he had this to say:
“We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking fire-fighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up, a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.”
Well Louis Cattiori isn't the only fire-fighter that claims that there were bombs or explosives going off in or around the WTC:
[Video cuts to fire-fighters sharing observations]
Fire-fighter 1: ...we made it at least two blocks and we saw... floor-by-floor, it started poppin' out...
Fire-fighter 2: It was as if they had detonators, as if they had planned it to take down a building – boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom
Fire-fighter 1: All the way...
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Joe, talk to me about this.
Joe: Yeh... the holes in the US Government's 9/11 conspiracy theory, because that's what it is...
Presenter: It's not a conspiracy theory!
Joe: Well they have a conspiracy theory...
Presenter: It's not the conspiracy theorists who have [inaudible]
Joe: Well, there are two 9/11 conspiracy theories...
Presenter: Ok, right...
Joe: ...a 'conspiracy' being a group of people conspired together to carry out the 9/11 attacks...
Presenter: 19 people with box-cutters!
Joe: The government conspiracy theory is that. And the alternative conspiracy theory is that it was the US government themselves, or a faction therein. So there are so many holes in the evidence for their conspiracy theory that it's just laughable. A much better, more believable, with more evidence to back it up, is the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory. Which is, that it was the US government themselves.
Presenter: Which you see in this movie...
Joe: Yeh, exactly, I mean there is so much documented evidence that there were bombs going off in the World Trade Center towers before where the planes hit, above where the planes hit, below where the planes hit. It seems beyond doubt that those towers were demolished.
Presenter: They fell in ten seconds. Is that possible? With aviation fuel as the only propellant, if you like!
Joe: Well, logically, no! It seems that the only way they could have fallen in more or less free-fall speed was if they were brought down, if all of the resistance below was immediately removed by explosives. And also there's World Trade Center 7
Presenter: Right, World Trade Center 7...
Joe: ... wasn't hit by any plane, was a 46-storey building, had a few isolated fires and just 9 hours after the attacks decided to do the same thing, maybe in solidarity with the two towers, it just decided to collapse all by itself aswell!
Presenter: We've got a clip about that! Can we show number 6 please?
[9/11 In Plane Site]
Video Narrator: Let's go to a clip of Larry Silverstein, he was the lease-owner of the WTC, as he gave an interview on PBS...
[embedded clip of PBS interview]
Larry Silverstein: I remember getting a call from the uhm, from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, y'know we've had such terrible loss of life, I think the smartest thing to do is just pull it. Uh, and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.
Video Narrator: Now, we've just heard Larry Silverstein making an admission that when it came to Building 7, the decision was made to 'pull it', a term that is used by demolition experts in bringing a building down.
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Well Joe, there's your building 7!...
Joe: It is! The official 9/11 Commission Report... well, it ignored World Trade Center 7 actually. It didn't really address why it fell, or that it fell at all, but as we've seen in the film, Larry Silverstein knew, or knows, why it fell. It was deliberately brought down with explosives and ehm, what can you say about it?!
Simon: Interestingly, the BBC announced its collapse 25 minutes before it actually happened.
Joe: If you check on YouTube, there's a video of a BBC presenter saying, “We've just heard that World Trade Center 7 has collapsed,” and in the background World Trade Center 7 is still standing!
Presenter: So it looks like the press release went out a bit early!
Simon: Yeh, they were in a rush!
Presenter: We're getting quite a lot of texts here. “I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, but why kill their own people to blame the Muslims, who I am not a supporter of same...” Sorry, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me! But I take your point. So, why?
Simon: First of all; who did they kill? It's very interesting who they did kill in the Pentagon. They killed people in the Office of Naval Intelligence and in the Office of Defense Accounting. Defense Accounting announced, in fact Donald Rumsfeld announced, the day before 9/11, that there was a $2.3 Trillion hole in the Pentagon's budget.
Presenter: Just $2.3 Trillion?!
Simon: Just $2.3 Trillion. Nowadays, of course, that's just one bank rescue!
Presenter: It isn't that big, is it?
Simon: No it isn't that big, but it was a lot of money in those days! Also, the Office of Naval Intelligence has historically been the most powerful organisation In the United States and is basically a known enemy of the Neo-Cons and their faction within the CIA.
Presenter: It's in-fighting.
Joe: But the obvious reason why they would kill their own people is to garner public support, public outcry, public anguish that could then be used to back a war against Muslims as your viewer asked. But not so much against Muslims, but against the fact that a lot of Muslims live on land that the US government is kind of partial to acquiring for itself.
Presenter: For strategic reasons.
Joe: ...for strategic reasons and [makes universal 'money' sign]
Presenter: [Breaks off to provide instructions for viewers to send in text messages] We're gonna go and see another clip now... ah, I've only got three seconds, so we're not gonna see another clip – before the break, that is – uhm, William, can you give us a bit of insight into Building 7? There have been people saying that it was brought down by the flames or fires that were burning as a result of the World Trade Center; is that possible?
Lewis: [laughs] Well, if it were possible, then it's never happened before, except for Tower 1 and Tower 2 that fell earlier in the day!..
Presenter: Ok, William, I'm gonna break with you now, we're going for another break. Once again, if you'd like to text in your messages, do it soon! See you after the break.
[Commercial Break]
***End Part II**
Presenter: Welcome back to On the Edge! Tonight we're talking about 9/11 In Plane Site, the film. We've got the director and producer on the line from America, William Lewis, we've got Joe Quinn, editor of Signs of the Times – I'll get it right one day! - S O T T dot net - and co-author of 9/11 The Ultimate Truth, in the studio. And we've also got Simon Davies, a former investment banker who knows 'that thing' from the inside and co-author of From Belfast to Baghdad, a book which is coming out about false-flag operations.
Just before the break we were talking about false-flag operations, so I think we'll go back to you William, if you like, to give us a bit more of – I'm sorry, Simon – to give us a bit more about...
Simon: You were asking about the hole. Not only do we have a very small hole that was completely inconsistent with the [series?] of a 757, but we have the Pentagon which has to be the one of the most highly protected buildings in the world. Not only does it have incredible surveillance, but it also has incredibly sophisticated air-defense systems...
Presenter: So you mean they would have fired a missile at it?..
Simon: Yeh, they'd have shot it down. Somebody had to stop that happening. Now, it either was deliberately overridden or the system regarded whatever was coming in as a friendly, a friendly object, and that had to have been programmed into it. So that's the key point, that all the systems didn't work. The other thing is; this building has incredible surveillance. Every corridor, every wall, every roof, every thing of the Pentagon is under camera, surveillance.
Presenter: So if they wanted to, they could show us film of the plane in slow-mo penetrating these nine feet of steel-reinforced concrete... and not burning any books or anything!
Simon: Exactly. And the wings folding up and the engines tucking themselves away and the luggage just evaporating, and all those things would have had to have happened.
Presenter: Right... Well, let's go to clip number two 'cause we're still on the Pentagon for another little bit, then we're gonna go on to New York. I've already got a couple of questions about New York, but if you save questions on New York until a little bit later, right now if we could go to clip 2 that'd be great...
[9/11 In Plane Site]
Video narrator: But shortly after the release of the article From Deception to Revelation, we were sent some photographs that were taken apparently right after the attack and before the outer wall had collapsed.
When examining these photographs, we can clearly see that the area in question had not yet collapsed. In fact, there is very little evidence of a hole big enough to accommodate a 757. The hole that we do see is approximately 14 to 15 feet across.
Question: how does a 757 fit into a 15-foot hole, and leave no damage or wreckage on the outside of the Pentagon? These are questions that deserve serious scrutiny. Let's take a look at some of the photographs that were taken before the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed.
[20 min] In this first photograph we can see the fire-fighters pulling the hoses away from the fire-trucks. In the foreground we can see wire-spools that were left in the front lawn of the Pentagon – after all, this section of the Pentagon was under renovation. We'll use these wire-spools as reference points. Also to the right of those wire-spools and on the face of the Pentagon we can see that some concrete facing has broken away. We'll also use this as a reference point as we examine these photographs. Now, to the left of that area where the facing has broken off, we can clearly see that the Pentagon has not yet collapsed. There are some flaming areas and that area appears to be the only section where there is a hole approximately 14 to 16 feet.
Question: How does a 757 fit into a 16 foot hole and leave no wreckage on the front of the building? We can also see that the roof of the building does show fatigue, but has not yet collapsed.
[21 min] In this photograph an astonished onlooker sees exactly what we're seeing. The Pentagon had not yet collapsed; and again, there is no sign of any wreckage whatsoever. No tail, no fuselage, no wings, no wheels, no engines, no seats, no luggage, nothing on the outside of the Pentagon. The Pentagon roof line is clearly visible, and again it is under fatigue, but it has not yet collapsed.
[21 min, 30 sec] As we examine this next photograph, let's take a good close look at the lower left corner; you'll see Engine 331 from the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. We contacted the fire chief from this engine company. Chief Plower agreed to come on our radio show along with two of his fire fighters. But one hour before air-time, they cancelled. We were told that the two fire-fighters had been placed on indefinite leave. When we look at this photograph we can see that the fire-retardant foam is being sprayed on the front of the Pentagon; and again, the area in question has not yet collapsed.
[22 min] You can see, right in the centre of the photograph, a big area where some of the concrete facing has broken away. It appears that this is the only major hole in the front of the Pentagon. Again, is this hole big enough to accommodate a 757? And where is the wreckage?
[22 min, 30] In this photograph we again see Engine 331 and fire-retardant foam being sprayed onto the Pentagon. Note clearly, in the centre of the photograph, we see the upper floors of the Pentagon again, yet to collapse. But also notice that there does not appear to be any damage to these upper floors.
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Right, William, no doubt you've heard that. I've got some questions here which I think I'll put to you, if you don't mind. One of them is: “If it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, why only show a few frames of footage and why confiscate CCTV videos from gas stations and hotels?” I've also got another [text message] here that says there's a clip on YouTube of a camera on the Hilton Hotel which shows it wasn't a plane. Uhm, I'm not familiar with that; are you familiar with that, William?
Lewis: No, I don't think so! Y'know I'm not familiar with that exact footage unless it was sneaked [?] out of the FBI [inaudible] I believe 84 videos at this point that they will not release because it's a matter of national security. It's funny that they can put one out every once in a while whenever they need to disprove whatever the conspiracy theorists are saying at the time! But to be quite honest with you, it would really quiet the whole 9/11 'Truth Movement', y'know if they would just release the videotape and just tell us that it was a Boeing 757. But I don't think they can because I think you and I both know it wasn't a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon.
Presenter: Well, I've gotta say, it does seem rather unlikely given what we've just seen. So, who can call the American government, if you like, to account? Who can say, in America, “let us see those clips”? Why is nothing happening? That's what I don't understand.
Lewis: This all goes back to the President. You will remember that it was at his request that the networks began to stop showing all of the footage of the collapse of the buildings and anything that would remind him of 9/11. But they only bring those up when they need to get re-elected. You'll notice that they ... all you could see at the Republican National Convention was nothing but images that reminded people of September 11th! So they bring it up when it's convenient for them. But won't they release [?] this information, this is what this boils down to. They have 84 video in their possession that they won't let us see: they keep telling us to swallow the official story – we keep poking holes in the official story – so somewhere along the line, it's gotta break. To be quite honest with you, they don't have to do anything and I don't think anything will ever actually be done. We may never get a real investigation.
Presenter: Doesn't the power rest with the people?
Lewis: [Laughs] [Inaudible] ...but they used September 11th to systematically remove one right, one liberty after another. You go back to the USA Patriot Act that they passed right after this; it violates our first amendment, our fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and thirteenth amendments... why [inaudible] one bill that no one read and was switched [?] at the last minute??
Presenter: Well that's powerful stuff. William, we're gonna switch now to clips from your movie which are about New York – otherwise we're not gonna have much time to show them. So if we can roll clip number 5 please?..
[9/11 In Plane Sight]
Video Narrator: In the September 24th 2001 edition of People magazine, on page 34 there was an interview with Louis Cattiori, a 51-year-old fire-fighter assigned with Engine 47 of Harlem-New York and he had this to say:
“We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking fire-fighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up, a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.”
Well Louis Cattiori isn't the only fire-fighter that claims that there were bombs or explosives going off in or around the WTC:
[Video cuts to fire-fighters sharing observations]
Fire-fighter 1: ...we made it at least two blocks and we saw... floor-by-floor, it started poppin' out...
Fire-fighter 2: It was as if they had detonators, as if they had planned it to take down a building – boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom
Fire-fighter 1: All the way...
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Joe, talk to me about this.
Joe: Yeh... the holes in the US Government's 9/11 conspiracy theory, because that's what it is...
Presenter: It's not a conspiracy theory!
Joe: Well they have a conspiracy theory...
Presenter: It's not the conspiracy theorists who have [inaudible]
Joe: Well, there are two 9/11 conspiracy theories...
Presenter: Ok, right...
Joe: ...a 'conspiracy' being a group of people conspired together to carry out the 9/11 attacks...
Presenter: 19 people with box-cutters!
Joe: The government conspiracy theory is that. And the alternative conspiracy theory is that it was the US government themselves, or a faction therein. So there are so many holes in the evidence for their conspiracy theory that it's just laughable. A much better, more believable, with more evidence to back it up, is the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory. Which is, that it was the US government themselves.
Presenter: Which you see in this movie...
Joe: Yeh, exactly, I mean there is so much documented evidence that there were bombs going off in the World Trade Center towers before where the planes hit, above where the planes hit, below where the planes hit. It seems beyond doubt that those towers were demolished.
Presenter: They fell in ten seconds. Is that possible? With aviation fuel as the only propellant, if you like!
Joe: Well, logically, no! It seems that the only way they could have fallen in more or less free-fall speed was if they were brought down, if all of the resistance below was immediately removed by explosives. And also there's World Trade Center 7
Presenter: Right, World Trade Center 7...
Joe: ... wasn't hit by any plane, was a 46-storey building, had a few isolated fires and just 9 hours after the attacks decided to do the same thing, maybe in solidarity with the two towers, it just decided to collapse all by itself aswell!
Presenter: We've got a clip about that! Can we show number 6 please?
[9/11 In Plane Site]
Video Narrator: Let's go to a clip of Larry Silverstein, he was the lease-owner of the WTC, as he gave an interview on PBS...
[embedded clip of PBS interview]
Larry Silverstein: I remember getting a call from the uhm, from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, y'know we've had such terrible loss of life, I think the smartest thing to do is just pull it. Uh, and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.
Video Narrator: Now, we've just heard Larry Silverstein making an admission that when it came to Building 7, the decision was made to 'pull it', a term that is used by demolition experts in bringing a building down.
[Back to studio]
Presenter: Well Joe, there's your building 7!...
Joe: It is! The official 9/11 Commission Report... well, it ignored World Trade Center 7 actually. It didn't really address why it fell, or that it fell at all, but as we've seen in the film, Larry Silverstein knew, or knows, why it fell. It was deliberately brought down with explosives and ehm, what can you say about it?!
Simon: Interestingly, the BBC announced its collapse 25 minutes before it actually happened.
Joe: If you check on YouTube, there's a video of a BBC presenter saying, “We've just heard that World Trade Center 7 has collapsed,” and in the background World Trade Center 7 is still standing!
Presenter: So it looks like the press release went out a bit early!
Simon: Yeh, they were in a rush!
Presenter: We're getting quite a lot of texts here. “I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, but why kill their own people to blame the Muslims, who I am not a supporter of same...” Sorry, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me! But I take your point. So, why?
Simon: First of all; who did they kill? It's very interesting who they did kill in the Pentagon. They killed people in the Office of Naval Intelligence and in the Office of Defense Accounting. Defense Accounting announced, in fact Donald Rumsfeld announced, the day before 9/11, that there was a $2.3 Trillion hole in the Pentagon's budget.
Presenter: Just $2.3 Trillion?!
Simon: Just $2.3 Trillion. Nowadays, of course, that's just one bank rescue!
Presenter: It isn't that big, is it?
Simon: No it isn't that big, but it was a lot of money in those days! Also, the Office of Naval Intelligence has historically been the most powerful organisation In the United States and is basically a known enemy of the Neo-Cons and their faction within the CIA.
Presenter: It's in-fighting.
Joe: But the obvious reason why they would kill their own people is to garner public support, public outcry, public anguish that could then be used to back a war against Muslims as your viewer asked. But not so much against Muslims, but against the fact that a lot of Muslims live on land that the US government is kind of partial to acquiring for itself.
Presenter: For strategic reasons.
Joe: ...for strategic reasons and [makes universal 'money' sign]
Presenter: [Breaks off to provide instructions for viewers to send in text messages] We're gonna go and see another clip now... ah, I've only got three seconds, so we're not gonna see another clip – before the break, that is – uhm, William, can you give us a bit of insight into Building 7? There have been people saying that it was brought down by the flames or fires that were burning as a result of the World Trade Center; is that possible?
Lewis: [laughs] Well, if it were possible, then it's never happened before, except for Tower 1 and Tower 2 that fell earlier in the day!..
Presenter: Ok, William, I'm gonna break with you now, we're going for another break. Once again, if you'd like to text in your messages, do it soon! See you after the break.
[Commercial Break]
***End Part II**
SOTT on TV - Transcript of On The Edge
Part III transcribed by Redfox
[33 min] Presenter: Welcome back to On The Edge and tonight were talking about 9/11 In Plane Site, the film about what may really have happened on September 11th 2001. We're gonna go straight to another clip from the film, which by the way were showing live here.... I beg your pardon, were showing the film for its UK television premiere on the 22nd of October, that's 22 October at 8.30pm - that's well worth watching. But here is another clip from it.
[Cuts to 9/11 In Plain Site]
Video Narrator: On April 15th of 2004 we received a news release that alerted us to a website that was entitled www.letsroll911.org.
Phil Jayhan the web master for this website, had taken the video clips that you've just seen and slowed them down to examine them frame by frame and what he found was astounding. There are several different anomalies that need to be examined and questioned.
First of all what is attached to the bottom of the plane that hit the south tower? And second of all; what is that brief flash that occurs just as the plane makes impact?
Now when we first looked at this video footage I said to myself “Well this video footage could well be manipulated.” So I wanted to check it out myself.
Well we went and found the DVD that we had purchased shortly after September 11th entitled America Remembers - this was directly from CNN. We took this DVD and put it in our machine and examined the very clip that you've just seen. Lets take a look at it.
[clip of plane flying into the south tower]
Lets take another look at this clip in slow motion. But before we do, keep in mind that sometimes the best place to hide something is 'in plain sight'.
We've all seen this video clip, and there have been many publication that have taken frames from this video and published them in hundreds of magazines. Here's an example; on page 3 a full size blowup of this picture. And in this magazine it was published on page 4, and on the back of this book that we discussed earlier, it's on the back cover.
I suggest you all take a copy of your magazines and books and if you have the video footage, take a good hard look - we've all got this. Now lets take a look at this in slow motion.
As the plane approaches the south tower notice carefully the belly of the plane; there appears to be something attached and just as its hits the building there's a flash.
Let's take another look in super slow motion.
Let's look at this photograph that was taken near ground zero. On the right we see the south tower, and the smoke that's rising into the sky is emanating from the north tower which is completely hidden from view. On the left, just entering the field of vision of the camera, we see the plane just before it hits the south tower.
Note a couple of items here. The engine on the right wing has a shadow and the shadow moves towards the front of the plane and off of the plane. So the anomaly that appears to be attached to the belly of this plane could not be caused by a shadow. Also note that the item that appears to be attached to the belly of this plane is on the right side. This plane has something that is not symmetrical on the bottom of the plane. When we compare that with the bottom of a regular 767, we'll note that a normal 767 has a belly that is smooth. This plane does not.
In the summer of 2003 in Barcelona Spain, a publication by the name of Le Vanguardia did an investigative report on the plane that slammed into the south tower. After a thorough digital image analysis, performed by a Spanish university, the investigators came to the conclusion that the anomaly was 3-dimensional in nature and could not have been caused by shadows or reflections.
Question: is it outside the realm of possibilities that an object of this size and shape could be attached to the belly of a plane of this type?
[Back to studio]
[37:37 min] Presenter: Well that was amazing! William, I've got a text message here from a viewer who says, “If the planes that hit were not the passenger planes stated, did those planes take off? If so, where are the passengers and terrorists?”
Lewis: [laughs] Well, my response to someone who says something like that is just go watch a TV program and I think you can figure it out. Y'know, these guys work with an unlimited black operations budget, and I'm sorry to break it to the American people but when you want to dispose of less than a couple of a couple of hundred passengers on those planes, there's ways to do it guys.
Uhm, so where the passengers are? I have no idea. Where those actual planes are? I have no idea. But what we do know is that the official story that we are being given about those planes, and some of these intricate details, just don't add up.
We know that flight 93 landed in Ohio because they said there was a bomb feared aboard - this was a news report that came out on CNN. And the mayor he even conformed it.
So, heh, here we go again, y'know, here's another inconsistent fact. One thing that not in the documentary is we know that – or, we've been told - and I won't say where we got this information from... but uhm, we were told that the first two planes that hit the first two towers - we're talking about Flight 11 and Flight 175 - there are reports, that we believe, that say those planes landed at an air force base and where offloaded and those passengers were put aboard another plane. That's where the story ends; we don't know where it goes from there, but I think you can see where this goes.
Presenter: Well they're obviously not around any more. I mean, their names were released and their DNA was apparently identified at the Pentagon but not at the Twin Towers, is that correct?
Lewis: I believe that is correct, yes.
Presenter: That's the story isn't it? Uhm, I just wanted to ask you one more thing, because when we had a conversation on the phone yesterday, you mentioned something to me about... erm, people who might otherwise talk out about this, who were involved in some way, unknowingly. Is there anything you want to say about that, William?
Lewis: Well y'know, people... people can't get a firm grasp around this thing, I don't think, because they may not understand the techniques that are used to keep people quite. Uhm, you know there are individuals out there who will say this is too big of a conspiracy to keep quiet, too many individuals would be involved, someone would speak out by now, and that's just not necessarily true. And its not true because... y'know I have, I have contacts within the state and the federal governments who have pointed me in a completely new direction. And I believe now that the war games that were being carried out that day - we're talking about Vigilant Warrior and uhm, y'know those three that were being carried out.
One of those in particular; I believe Vigilant Warrior is the one where they were actually flying the planes into buildings - this was supposed to be simulated. But we know of 7 individuals who were in a room helping to remote-control pilot those planes - they happened to look over at a television monitor 'cause they were watching the ball game – and they weren't supposed to have the TV - and they see the, y'know, a plane is crashing into the, into the tower and a guy turns to someone else and says, “man, this is great special effects, we never had this before!” Y'know [laughs], they begin to realise very slowly over a 30 minute period of time, they just killed all these people. They crashed planes into live targets.
OK, those particular individuals wanted to speak out, they wanted to tell their story, but they where kept quiet by officials in our own government who ended up kidnapping the children - the youngest children from each family member was kidnapped ...uhm. They won't speak out about it now. Most of them are very ill; they've all come down with the same symptoms - sounds a lot like depleted uranium exposure, or poisoning.
Presenter: William this is..
Lewis: So these people are slowly dying off.
Presenter: William this is an extraordinary allegation - as far as I know its the first time its ever been anywhere on the internet or broadcast, so er..
Lewis: I mean we talked about this before... I mean we have to... we're trying to protect these people because we don't... out of the 7 children that were kidnapped we know that 2 of them are already dead. We're, y'know, we're trying to get the information but we don't want to put in jeopardy those other 5 children.
Presenter: Well that is truly horrific. Let me just quickly go to my other 2 guests on the sofa here in the UK for a moment just to reflect on that if you would.
Joe: Yeah...
Simon: Yeah...
Joe: It's...
Simon: ...completely believable.
Joe: It's er...
Simon: ...[inaudible] possible.
Joe: I mean... we're dealing with people here... People very often ask the question... or they disbelieve that the government or that members of the government - George Bush, whoever you want to blame - would actually do this; would kill there own people. How, why would they kill there own people?
Presenter: In cold blood...
Joe: ...yes, how could they kill there own people. But what people have to understand is that, there are a lot of scientific studies er and psycho, psychological studies that have been done over the past 50 years that have fairly specifically identified a segment of the population - a small segment of the population - about 6% of the human population, who are essentially psychopaths. And that is to say that these are people who genetically, biologically, psychologically are unable to feel empathy for another human being.
Presenter: ...so they could...
Joe: They have no conscience
Presenter: They could essentially go have breakfast after killing people?...
Simon: Oh yeah, absolutely.
Joe: They simply don't have a conscience. And there have been a lot of studies done to show that this is a reality. If you then imagine that such people rise into positions of power and gather around them similar-minded people...
Presenter: Uhum...
Joe: ...well you can imagine what they can do.
Simon: And our great weakness is that we project what we couldn't do - onto these people.
Joe: Exactly
Simon: [inaudible]
Joe: When you think about that situation, you will automatically think to yourself... ehm, you will put yourself in that situation and say; “well, I couldn't do that. How could someone else do it?” Well, you have to understand that not all people are created equal; not all people are like you.
Presenter: Si... Simon, we've looked at who benefited - qui bono? - if you like... from what happened on 9/11. Was there any other group or nation that benefited?
Simon: Well there... it's, it's... I'm glad you asked that because its fascinating. George Bush himself came out and said that there was a spy network operating inside the united states that was linked with the events of 9/11. And within a few months after 9/11 occurring 200 spies were indeed thrown out of the United States.
Presenter: From where?
Simon: From the state of Israel
Presenter: Israeli spies?
Simon: They were all Israeli spies.
Presenter: OK...
Simon: Uhm, now you say that on its own and its an interesting fact, but when you add in what's become known as the '5 dancing Israelis', which are the 5 gentlemen who where across the river from the twin towers on top of a van, filming the event and dancing one would seem - it would seem - for joy.
Presenter: So they must have known in advance then if they had all this?...
Simon: Well, in fact, yeah, they did and nicely they've admitted to it because once they where repatriated to Israel..
Presenter: So they weren't arrested?
Simon: No, no... well they were arrested and detained for a while, then they went back to Israel just after a couple of months...
Presenter: uhhum...
Simon:..they were on - went onto - Israeli television and they said; “We were there to document the event.” That shows clear foreknowledge.
Presenter: So why is this not on the BBC? Why is it not on NBC or ABC?
Simon: Look at who owns and controls the media.
Joe: Well there's... it's, it's on the web as well; there's a journalist who is – was - quoted as saying that any investigation of Israeli spying in the US, or Israeli involvement in 9/11 was considered, in the media - in the mainstream media in the US - as career suicide.
Presenter: This is extraordinary! I mean tonight we've, we've touched upon something that I've never heard before from William Lewis in America, who made 9/11 In Plane Site about these people who were, y'know, they've had their children kidnapped in order to maintain their silence...
Joe: uhum
Presenter: ...We've heard that another state was involved in some way - possibly, potentially - with 9/11, if it was an inside job. Uhm, y'know, where does the rabbit hole end?! How deep does this go?
Simon: Well, I think people need to understand there is a war, but it's not a war 'on terror', it's a war 'of terror'. And it's against us. It's against the people of the world. The ordinary people of the world. Uhm, if you look at actually what is going on, cut aside all the media - other than, obviously, this program – uhm, what is actually happening is: we are loosing our freedoms, we are loosing rights, to free movement, to remain anonymous in front of our governments; all the things that are considered basic freedoms historically. And it all stemss from 9/11. There is a war, and we are its victims. And people need to understand that.
Presenter: OK... Let me go back to William in America. William, y'know, what about the Bill of Rights? What about the constitution?... y'know, that was set up so well by the founding fathers. Is it all in tatters?
Lewis: Y'know, we put out a documentary at the beginning of the year called Washington, You're Fired and it covers everything that happened in the past 8 years under the Bush administration after - or the last 7 years - after the September 11th attack.
And just one bill after another is laid on the table, and we can show you how to connect the dots between all of those bills - between the Military Commissions Act and the Protect America Act and USA Patriot Acts, and every single one of these things that has been used to remove posse comitatus or habeus corpus, or y'know, our right to just simply have representation or be able to go before a judge or have an attorney or know why you've been locked up. All these things have been removed from our constitution, and its, its turning into a situation where we're, y' know... we knew we were living in a fascist state; but now the average person - the common person - can look at all these facts and say “Hey!” y' know? “Wake up!”... And, and, begin to hopefully understand that they are a part of this system, unless they withdraw there allegiance and support. Uhm, it's a hard sell. It's hard to make people change their reality, their concept of reality. Even when you look at one of these documentaries you can only hope to shift someone's perspective approximately 10%.
So, y' know, you really have to look at a lot of this information... oh, I think when they see this for the first time there intrigued because they can interpret photographs, they can interpret video footage. They can look at it for themselves and make up there own mind as to what they believe happened.
Presenter: William, we've got 8 seconds before I've gotta do my outro. But thank you so much for being on my show And thank you to Joe and to Simon. It's been extraordinary.
That's all we've got time for tonight. Thank you to everyone for watching. Thank you to those who sent in texts, and thanks to my special guests William Lewis, Joe Quinn, Simon Davis.
If you've enjoyed this show, tell all your friends; if you haven't, tell your enemies! Next week we've got UFO investigator and author Richard D Hall who's making a series of extraordinary shows for this channel, so please do not miss it. We're also gonna be showing, by the way, Washington, Your Fired very shortly.
Until then, remember: they're watching you watching us watching them! Cheeri0!
[End Credits]
Part III transcribed by Redfox
[33 min] Presenter: Welcome back to On The Edge and tonight were talking about 9/11 In Plane Site, the film about what may really have happened on September 11th 2001. We're gonna go straight to another clip from the film, which by the way were showing live here.... I beg your pardon, were showing the film for its UK television premiere on the 22nd of October, that's 22 October at 8.30pm - that's well worth watching. But here is another clip from it.
[Cuts to 9/11 In Plain Site]
Video Narrator: On April 15th of 2004 we received a news release that alerted us to a website that was entitled www.letsroll911.org.
Phil Jayhan the web master for this website, had taken the video clips that you've just seen and slowed them down to examine them frame by frame and what he found was astounding. There are several different anomalies that need to be examined and questioned.
First of all what is attached to the bottom of the plane that hit the south tower? And second of all; what is that brief flash that occurs just as the plane makes impact?
Now when we first looked at this video footage I said to myself “Well this video footage could well be manipulated.” So I wanted to check it out myself.
Well we went and found the DVD that we had purchased shortly after September 11th entitled America Remembers - this was directly from CNN. We took this DVD and put it in our machine and examined the very clip that you've just seen. Lets take a look at it.
[clip of plane flying into the south tower]
Lets take another look at this clip in slow motion. But before we do, keep in mind that sometimes the best place to hide something is 'in plain sight'.
We've all seen this video clip, and there have been many publication that have taken frames from this video and published them in hundreds of magazines. Here's an example; on page 3 a full size blowup of this picture. And in this magazine it was published on page 4, and on the back of this book that we discussed earlier, it's on the back cover.
I suggest you all take a copy of your magazines and books and if you have the video footage, take a good hard look - we've all got this. Now lets take a look at this in slow motion.
As the plane approaches the south tower notice carefully the belly of the plane; there appears to be something attached and just as its hits the building there's a flash.
Let's take another look in super slow motion.
Let's look at this photograph that was taken near ground zero. On the right we see the south tower, and the smoke that's rising into the sky is emanating from the north tower which is completely hidden from view. On the left, just entering the field of vision of the camera, we see the plane just before it hits the south tower.
Note a couple of items here. The engine on the right wing has a shadow and the shadow moves towards the front of the plane and off of the plane. So the anomaly that appears to be attached to the belly of this plane could not be caused by a shadow. Also note that the item that appears to be attached to the belly of this plane is on the right side. This plane has something that is not symmetrical on the bottom of the plane. When we compare that with the bottom of a regular 767, we'll note that a normal 767 has a belly that is smooth. This plane does not.
In the summer of 2003 in Barcelona Spain, a publication by the name of Le Vanguardia did an investigative report on the plane that slammed into the south tower. After a thorough digital image analysis, performed by a Spanish university, the investigators came to the conclusion that the anomaly was 3-dimensional in nature and could not have been caused by shadows or reflections.
Question: is it outside the realm of possibilities that an object of this size and shape could be attached to the belly of a plane of this type?
[Back to studio]
[37:37 min] Presenter: Well that was amazing! William, I've got a text message here from a viewer who says, “If the planes that hit were not the passenger planes stated, did those planes take off? If so, where are the passengers and terrorists?”
Lewis: [laughs] Well, my response to someone who says something like that is just go watch a TV program and I think you can figure it out. Y'know, these guys work with an unlimited black operations budget, and I'm sorry to break it to the American people but when you want to dispose of less than a couple of a couple of hundred passengers on those planes, there's ways to do it guys.
Uhm, so where the passengers are? I have no idea. Where those actual planes are? I have no idea. But what we do know is that the official story that we are being given about those planes, and some of these intricate details, just don't add up.
We know that flight 93 landed in Ohio because they said there was a bomb feared aboard - this was a news report that came out on CNN. And the mayor he even conformed it.
So, heh, here we go again, y'know, here's another inconsistent fact. One thing that not in the documentary is we know that – or, we've been told - and I won't say where we got this information from... but uhm, we were told that the first two planes that hit the first two towers - we're talking about Flight 11 and Flight 175 - there are reports, that we believe, that say those planes landed at an air force base and where offloaded and those passengers were put aboard another plane. That's where the story ends; we don't know where it goes from there, but I think you can see where this goes.
Presenter: Well they're obviously not around any more. I mean, their names were released and their DNA was apparently identified at the Pentagon but not at the Twin Towers, is that correct?
Lewis: I believe that is correct, yes.
Presenter: That's the story isn't it? Uhm, I just wanted to ask you one more thing, because when we had a conversation on the phone yesterday, you mentioned something to me about... erm, people who might otherwise talk out about this, who were involved in some way, unknowingly. Is there anything you want to say about that, William?
Lewis: Well y'know, people... people can't get a firm grasp around this thing, I don't think, because they may not understand the techniques that are used to keep people quite. Uhm, you know there are individuals out there who will say this is too big of a conspiracy to keep quiet, too many individuals would be involved, someone would speak out by now, and that's just not necessarily true. And its not true because... y'know I have, I have contacts within the state and the federal governments who have pointed me in a completely new direction. And I believe now that the war games that were being carried out that day - we're talking about Vigilant Warrior and uhm, y'know those three that were being carried out.
One of those in particular; I believe Vigilant Warrior is the one where they were actually flying the planes into buildings - this was supposed to be simulated. But we know of 7 individuals who were in a room helping to remote-control pilot those planes - they happened to look over at a television monitor 'cause they were watching the ball game – and they weren't supposed to have the TV - and they see the, y'know, a plane is crashing into the, into the tower and a guy turns to someone else and says, “man, this is great special effects, we never had this before!” Y'know [laughs], they begin to realise very slowly over a 30 minute period of time, they just killed all these people. They crashed planes into live targets.
OK, those particular individuals wanted to speak out, they wanted to tell their story, but they where kept quiet by officials in our own government who ended up kidnapping the children - the youngest children from each family member was kidnapped ...uhm. They won't speak out about it now. Most of them are very ill; they've all come down with the same symptoms - sounds a lot like depleted uranium exposure, or poisoning.
Presenter: William this is..
Lewis: So these people are slowly dying off.
Presenter: William this is an extraordinary allegation - as far as I know its the first time its ever been anywhere on the internet or broadcast, so er..
Lewis: I mean we talked about this before... I mean we have to... we're trying to protect these people because we don't... out of the 7 children that were kidnapped we know that 2 of them are already dead. We're, y'know, we're trying to get the information but we don't want to put in jeopardy those other 5 children.
Presenter: Well that is truly horrific. Let me just quickly go to my other 2 guests on the sofa here in the UK for a moment just to reflect on that if you would.
Joe: Yeah...
Simon: Yeah...
Joe: It's...
Simon: ...completely believable.
Joe: It's er...
Simon: ...[inaudible] possible.
Joe: I mean... we're dealing with people here... People very often ask the question... or they disbelieve that the government or that members of the government - George Bush, whoever you want to blame - would actually do this; would kill there own people. How, why would they kill there own people?
Presenter: In cold blood...
Joe: ...yes, how could they kill there own people. But what people have to understand is that, there are a lot of scientific studies er and psycho, psychological studies that have been done over the past 50 years that have fairly specifically identified a segment of the population - a small segment of the population - about 6% of the human population, who are essentially psychopaths. And that is to say that these are people who genetically, biologically, psychologically are unable to feel empathy for another human being.
Presenter: ...so they could...
Joe: They have no conscience
Presenter: They could essentially go have breakfast after killing people?...
Simon: Oh yeah, absolutely.
Joe: They simply don't have a conscience. And there have been a lot of studies done to show that this is a reality. If you then imagine that such people rise into positions of power and gather around them similar-minded people...
Presenter: Uhum...
Joe: ...well you can imagine what they can do.
Simon: And our great weakness is that we project what we couldn't do - onto these people.
Joe: Exactly
Simon: [inaudible]
Joe: When you think about that situation, you will automatically think to yourself... ehm, you will put yourself in that situation and say; “well, I couldn't do that. How could someone else do it?” Well, you have to understand that not all people are created equal; not all people are like you.
Presenter: Si... Simon, we've looked at who benefited - qui bono? - if you like... from what happened on 9/11. Was there any other group or nation that benefited?
Simon: Well there... it's, it's... I'm glad you asked that because its fascinating. George Bush himself came out and said that there was a spy network operating inside the united states that was linked with the events of 9/11. And within a few months after 9/11 occurring 200 spies were indeed thrown out of the United States.
Presenter: From where?
Simon: From the state of Israel
Presenter: Israeli spies?
Simon: They were all Israeli spies.
Presenter: OK...
Simon: Uhm, now you say that on its own and its an interesting fact, but when you add in what's become known as the '5 dancing Israelis', which are the 5 gentlemen who where across the river from the twin towers on top of a van, filming the event and dancing one would seem - it would seem - for joy.
Presenter: So they must have known in advance then if they had all this?...
Simon: Well, in fact, yeah, they did and nicely they've admitted to it because once they where repatriated to Israel..
Presenter: So they weren't arrested?
Simon: No, no... well they were arrested and detained for a while, then they went back to Israel just after a couple of months...
Presenter: uhhum...
Simon:..they were on - went onto - Israeli television and they said; “We were there to document the event.” That shows clear foreknowledge.
Presenter: So why is this not on the BBC? Why is it not on NBC or ABC?
Simon: Look at who owns and controls the media.
Joe: Well there's... it's, it's on the web as well; there's a journalist who is – was - quoted as saying that any investigation of Israeli spying in the US, or Israeli involvement in 9/11 was considered, in the media - in the mainstream media in the US - as career suicide.
Presenter: This is extraordinary! I mean tonight we've, we've touched upon something that I've never heard before from William Lewis in America, who made 9/11 In Plane Site about these people who were, y'know, they've had their children kidnapped in order to maintain their silence...
Joe: uhum
Presenter: ...We've heard that another state was involved in some way - possibly, potentially - with 9/11, if it was an inside job. Uhm, y'know, where does the rabbit hole end?! How deep does this go?
Simon: Well, I think people need to understand there is a war, but it's not a war 'on terror', it's a war 'of terror'. And it's against us. It's against the people of the world. The ordinary people of the world. Uhm, if you look at actually what is going on, cut aside all the media - other than, obviously, this program – uhm, what is actually happening is: we are loosing our freedoms, we are loosing rights, to free movement, to remain anonymous in front of our governments; all the things that are considered basic freedoms historically. And it all stemss from 9/11. There is a war, and we are its victims. And people need to understand that.
Presenter: OK... Let me go back to William in America. William, y'know, what about the Bill of Rights? What about the constitution?... y'know, that was set up so well by the founding fathers. Is it all in tatters?
Lewis: Y'know, we put out a documentary at the beginning of the year called Washington, You're Fired and it covers everything that happened in the past 8 years under the Bush administration after - or the last 7 years - after the September 11th attack.
And just one bill after another is laid on the table, and we can show you how to connect the dots between all of those bills - between the Military Commissions Act and the Protect America Act and USA Patriot Acts, and every single one of these things that has been used to remove posse comitatus or habeus corpus, or y'know, our right to just simply have representation or be able to go before a judge or have an attorney or know why you've been locked up. All these things have been removed from our constitution, and its, its turning into a situation where we're, y' know... we knew we were living in a fascist state; but now the average person - the common person - can look at all these facts and say “Hey!” y' know? “Wake up!”... And, and, begin to hopefully understand that they are a part of this system, unless they withdraw there allegiance and support. Uhm, it's a hard sell. It's hard to make people change their reality, their concept of reality. Even when you look at one of these documentaries you can only hope to shift someone's perspective approximately 10%.
So, y' know, you really have to look at a lot of this information... oh, I think when they see this for the first time there intrigued because they can interpret photographs, they can interpret video footage. They can look at it for themselves and make up there own mind as to what they believe happened.
Presenter: William, we've got 8 seconds before I've gotta do my outro. But thank you so much for being on my show And thank you to Joe and to Simon. It's been extraordinary.
That's all we've got time for tonight. Thank you to everyone for watching. Thank you to those who sent in texts, and thanks to my special guests William Lewis, Joe Quinn, Simon Davis.
If you've enjoyed this show, tell all your friends; if you haven't, tell your enemies! Next week we've got UFO investigator and author Richard D Hall who's making a series of extraordinary shows for this channel, so please do not miss it. We're also gonna be showing, by the way, Washington, Your Fired very shortly.
Until then, remember: they're watching you watching us watching them! Cheeri0!
[End Credits]
Thanks a lot!
So Lewis said:
Perhaps Lewis has to read The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed, and remember about the Cutout profile of the journalist who receive 'classified' information. And eventually The Wave book 6, to get some clues about hyperdimensional manipulation too.
So Lewis said:
Perhaps Lewis has to read The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed, and remember about the Cutout profile of the journalist who receive 'classified' information. And eventually The Wave book 6, to get some clues about hyperdimensional manipulation too.