(mirror) - The Real Deal: Jim Fetzer and Steve De'ak; How were the gashes in the Twin Towers made?

Video Transcript:

This is Jim Fetzer, your host on the real deal with my very special feature guest, Steve Dayock, who is going to be talking about 9-11 and research he's been doing about the very peculiar aspects of the plane strikes on buildings in New York City, which most serious students have concluded is somehow completely fake to phony the question becoming how it was done. Steve, I must say it's a great pleasure to have this meeting with you because we've exchanged a lot of emails, but you can get a very different impression of a person through email than you do through their actual encounter physically, even if it's over the internet. I'm just really pleased to have this opportunity. Likewise, thanks for having me. Yeah, you can't emote very well over email. And you don't see any subtleties, but in any case, yeah, thank you very much. And there is a lot to discuss. I have been trying to get this. I don't, I think we all think we're right in our conclusions, and I think I am, but if I am wrong, I want to know where because there's got to be a better explanation. Well, let me put it this way before we proceed. I have done quite a lot on all four of the plane crashes, but one issue that I have not felt myself to be satisfied with was the creation of the gaseous. And I know that's your focus. So I'm particularly glad to have this opportunity. Oh, well, thank you. Good. So this screen I have here is just a little clip from PDF out there about crime scene investigations. So my wife's a big fan of CSI and those kind of shows. And so I'm not, but she is. And so I, whenever I walk in the room and she's watching one of them, I see, you know, basically what I see. Steve Steve, Steve, my wife too. She loves all those. And you know, criminal minds. I know. NCIS and all that. I can't tell you how many I've seen myself as a consequence. Actually, I like a lot of them, but I understand what you're saying. Yeah, they are painfully, to me, they've probably been mystic and well, but many of them actually are exercises and forensic investigation. I don't know if you've ever watched bones, for example. Yes, that's one of her favorites. Very, very amusing, informative, entertaining. I really like the show. And the three women characters are simply sensational each in their own way. Yeah. They all kind of take the same, I mean, the same tack. There can be a minor little clue that changes everything. Yeah, that's right. And so it's like it's like in total recall when the, the, the, the, the, the, the shrinkage is trying to convince Arnold that he's actually in an illusion, but there's a being a perspiration that comes down his face that would not have happened. Had he not been real in Arnold blows him away. There you go. So there are these little things like that that I think I know I've missed quite a few clues over the years. And I, you know, when we spoke many years ago, I was, I'm still basically in the same boat trying to answer all the, what, how they did it. And so what I've had to do is to basically go to the very beginning and a crime, crime scene reconstruction to try to figure out how it was done. By looking at the evidence of the crime scene, you can formulate a good hypothesis of hypothesis as to what. See, as you may or may not be aware, I mean, scientific reasoning is one of my areas of expertise. Yeah. And what we're really talking about is known as inference in the best explanation, which hypothesis if it were true would confer the highest probability on the available relevant evidence. In other words, you know, with, with, say, Sandy Hark, you had no surge of EMTs into the no string of ambulances, no medical helicopter. There were donation website put up the day before Adam Lodz at the Lent shooter was recorded as having died on the 13th, making his feeding shooting 20 children and the six adults are following all the more remarkable. What's the probability if this is a real shooting that those should be the case versus that it was a staged event? And you realize if it was a stage event, the probability of those is very high. And if it was a real event, very low. Yes. And then when the evidence is settled down, we have enough evidence to be confident that you are not leaving anything out and that you're not being misled by fake or fabricated evidence. You're entitled to accept the conclusion in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. Meaning you can't guarantee your conclusion is true, even though it's the best supported. And you are entitled to accept it is true, but also knowing that if you get new evidence, do hypotheses, new alternative, you may have to revise your state of belief and reject hypotheses, you previously accepted, accept hypotheses, you previously rejected and leave others in suspense. Yes. I think that we probably both traveled on that path with 9-11. Yes. Yes, of course. Right. So we can agree there wasn't a plane. I think we both agree on that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. My conclusion elaborated elsewhere, such as in the real deal episode 100 where I did a two-hour interview with Major General Albert Stubbelbine, US Army retired formerly in charge of all US military and photographic intelligence, which you can find online, two hours going through all the crash sites, lead to the conclusion. Two of the planes weren't even in the air that day. And that in fact, what happened in New York was a sophisticated form of video fakery. There are alternative hypotheses where I am convinced that in fact it was done using sophisticated holograms. But the point is important for you and me to agree rather than how it was done is that these were not the effects of a real plane hitting these buildings. There's no way. Right. You can look at the evidence speaks very loudly against that. Yes. Yes, including that there's no debris on the ground but anything's for sides. There should have been bodies, seats, luggage, tail, wings as I've offered putting it in the pouring out of these things. That's right. You can see them all in the debris field as well. That's right. See any of that. That's right. Go for it, Steve. So we agree on that. And I think like you, I used to believe that it was explosives that had done the deed. If it wasn't a plane, it had to be something to cut the whole. Right. So it was well trying to research what explosives did that I realized that it may not have been. So simply just, you know, we, I don't need to, this is for any novices who might not be familiar with the whole idea of what's what happened on 9-11. Yeah. Looking at the damage evidence, I'm trying to evaluate what hit it. Well, I see physical damage, which to me, indicates a physical impact. Yeah. But I couldn't wrap my brain around that thinking it's got to be, this had to be done with explosives. Yeah. So how do they do it? Well, let me just specify the significance of Newt's law here. But it means is the impact, if the plane is traveling, say, 500 miles an hour and the building is stationary, this 500,000 ton building, the effects would be the same as if the plane were stationary and the building hit it going 500 miles an hour. It should be equal enough. It can also be viewed from the point of view of the relativity of motion. You could take either of them as immobile and the rest of the world moving and so forth. So there's a very general phenomenon. It is. You hit you hit you hit a wall with your hand, the hand hits you wall with the same force. That's right. That's right. You're hitting the wall. So that's these are equivalent descriptions. Yeah. And so anybody with little common sense and just look at these pictures and say this car was struck from the front, this car was struck from the side. Any kid that's ever run a picket, a stick against a picket fence can attest that there is lateral lateral damage here, something struck from the side. That's what I see. If I'm wrong, okay, there's got to be a better explanation. Well, that's just what it this way. It looks very much on first consideration as though what we have here is damaged. That might very well have resulted from the impact of an object from the side and angular impact. Yes, that's what I see. And if you take that to be fairly apparent on first consideration, then you're going to need an argument to overcome the presumption that that's what happened. Yes. And so, and I've had a lot of arguments to overcome that. Yeah, you're using the steel. We know the measurements are pretty much well known. There are 14 inches wide, generally. And so using that as a gauge, we can determine that whatever it was that whacked this aluminum plating down here, probably in just one. Probably too much, but in any case, I won't spend too much time on that. Everything's good, Steve. Keep going. Whatever whacked this piece of aluminum plating here was not 14 inches and was not very dense because it didn't sever the plating like it did over here. And this little protrusion here at the bottom is where that's plating the column. That's 12 feet there, where that would have overlapped the column below it. So this is just a given idea of what we're looking at here to people who really don't know how the towers were constructed. Well, you're talking about increasing these increasing severity of damage from left to right. It gets progressively worse. It does. Lowered a higher. Yeah. And then you have this roughly a big hole there on the right hand side that seems to be maximal damage. Yes, right here on the ninth column. Sorry. There's my. And of course, we're talking about the North Tower here. Yes, this is the North Tower. But later on, I'll show pictures of you. And you've got in your slideshow that you can see the South Tower has almost identical damage to the same place. Right. Very similar location. The difference is in the South, they're intersecting with seven floors of steel trusses filled with concrete in the South Tower eight. Yeah, for the whole width of the gash. But when we're focusing on just the left sides of both both towers, it's almost identical. We have eight progressively worse damaged columns sharply bent to the right, starting with very light damage to the cladding, moving to the right, getting worse and worse until you end up on the ninth column with an inward blasting hole, nowhere near where we were told the engines should have impacted. Right. And we see it on the video. You just look at the video and see, yeah, this was nowhere near where the engines impacted on video. And we can also look at the. You can look at the Purdue video too and show that, you know, they recreated it as well. Right. Right. The engines had the greatest mass at forward motion. They would have been the objects that would have made the greatest impact on the building had a real plane actually hit. But you don't even get the right spacing or effects that would have occurred from the engines alone. Yeah, nothing fits. But again, with parallel columns, and if you have an engine that's about 12, 14 feet around, it's not going to damage columns that didn't hit. Right. I mean. Right. You're not going to get damage way over here, caused by an engine that impacted over here. It's going to crush right through the columns and hits and then hits anything behind it. Right. And then however, the, you know, the, the, the, the, uh, trusses were damaged by that engine would reflect in the damage to the floor behind it. Yeah, I frequently speculate that if these had been real planes, that probably virtually the only parts that would have penetrated the building were the engines themselves. That the rest would have crumpled externally. Body seats, wings, let it, tail, fall into the ground for the most part because these external steel support columns, I mean, ignoring the aluminum cladding are quite massive in and of themselves. And when you figure your intersecting was seven in the north and eight in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the seven in the north and eight in the south, I mean, it would have put most massive resistance to a real plane. No, no real plane could have penetrated the buildings. It's just the reason why they had to abandon the use of drones. I knew they, they couldn't do it with drones because no real planes would have done it. Yeah, nothing. And again, if they could, like David Griskom says, um, you know, they had a reinforced super duper plane that was somehow light enough to fly and at five hundred and fifty miles an hour at, I think we both share similar opinions about, yes. A man who professes to be a highly competent, physical, physical assistant is demonstrated precisely the opposite. Yes. So that if he is competent, he's the liver, if he is competent, then he's massively corrupt to you. Yeah. I think it's somewhat of both. But that's just my opinion. Uh, what is what I share, Steve. Yes. Thanks. So given that there are a lot of people in the truth movement who think that they were reinforced planes. Your sound was better before we got weaker. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Very good. Good. So given that a lot of people believe that they were reinforced planes, had they been reinforced, then they would have struck in a wedge motion, right? With a 30 degrees sweep of the wings, the left wing would have struck the right hand corner of the columns. We would see absolute opposite of what we actually see in the impact. So going over what I see here, I see like you, it started at the left and it seems to get progressively worse as it moves to the right. You can see that here in the damage. It impacts this steel column and sharply bends it to the right, gets even worse on the next one, and then the next column is shattered. Something exploded on the face, causing the top of it to pop out. To me, this is evidence that there were removed bolts at this location, because you're not going to snap for bolts without, I mean, you would see some damage to the column above it, I would think as well. So to me, this is evidence of at least removed bolts here. And if you look closer at the footage here, at this picture, at other photographs, you can see that these two columns beside this one that's really popped out are also wedged loose a little. So it looks like they are all removed from this location. When you look at the damage evidence, you can see where the seams were pretty clearly. And so when you look at the damage, you can see that these were seams to where there should have been wall panels connected. Now on this one here, you can see this wall panel that connected to the seam above it was just cut in half and bent to the right as well. So what I see is that if these seams actually had bolts in them, there should be similar damage to the top and bottom. If it hit only the column below it, it's not going to just snap all these bolts without causing some sort of trauma to the columns they were connected to. So to me, this is evidence that they did a job in these buildings and actually prepped the locations for whatever they were doing. Right, well, they knew they had to. If they're going to take a plane hitting the building, what's going to be most convincing to the public is that you see some residue, the effects. So they're trying to create a skeleton outline that would, you know, correspond roughly and given the naive of the public. And their virtual total ignorance of physics, not to mention aerodynamics or explosives or any related issues, they felt they could do a con job. And they did. Yep, and they did. And they still are. That's right. No. So, so what most people don't know is that well, how they were constructed. So, you know, you can see these are massive columns. These weighed what, four to six tons of piece. And they were put together and sort of like bricks on their sides. So each one of these panels had, wherever there was a spandial there, you see there, there should be a floor on each spandial. And frankly, Steve, no aircraft could penetrate even one of those. I mean, you see the damage from hitting a small bird and fly. If you'd hit one of these chunks in space, it would have obliterated the aircraft. It would have shredded it like a large heirloom tomato on a tomato slicer. It would have been horrendous. It would have been called rendous. Yeah. So, and for most people to understand what we're seeing here, I just threw this in here, too, each of these connections had four bolts at the point of impact, more bolts below that level. But it's, that's all that had to happen was for them to remove these bolts to prep the area for whatever was they were planning to complete their ruse because they were, you know, they were pulling a con job. And they would have had access from inside the building to the bolts. Absolutely. And the thing is that you can't get access to those, to those bolts and still have a wall there. So obviously the tenants of those floors had to have been aware of this. Very good. And, you know, of course, the gelatin group, the so-called Israeli art students had access to both buildings. They were performing doing performance art outside of the buildings, but they appear to have been the agents who had access to these parts of the building in good of a range. Yeah. That's a possibility. And I have considered that as well. But to support the conclusion that, yes, there is evidence that bolts are removed. You can see it throughout the debris fields. Here we have bolts, empty bolts here, a nice guy with a clean uniform right here. And there's always an American flag in the shots, almost always. Again, clean outfits, remove bolts wherever you look. You should, I will show you some examples of bolts that were, you can see empty bolt holes here, here, up here you can see one bolt that was snapped off and three that weren't. So three empty holes and one bolts there. So if, for example, they did prep these buildings by removing bolts, that would be one way to go about the, you know, we're making sure that it would collapse the way they wanted to. I know it sounds outrageous, but this is the evidence I'm looking at. Well, of course, here is an example of what, what I consider to be, you know, pretty strong evidence that they removed at least two of these bolts. And when the column panel fell away from the tower, it bit these bolts and snapped off. So if indeed they had prepped this panel by taking out two bolts, this is exactly the sort of damage I would expect to see on that connection after it fell apart. And this is just to show people that what we should expect to see in the debris field would have been thousands of trusses. All right. Yeah, sure. These things all over the place and you can see them in other collapses of other buildings. You can see evidence of trusses everywhere. And, but you don't see them in the world trade center. What you do is filled with four to eight inches of concrete because the trusses had these that were four inches deep somewhere, some places it was eight inches deep, other places four. Yes, depending upon the floor on the mechanical floors, they had to be a lot beefier to support the way to the large elevator motors and other heavy equipment. In this case, though, I'm looking at just the construction. This is, this is, look at all the trusses up there. And these straps you can see here, there's some lines here, we're next to this guy. These are the straps that were attached to the wall. They gave it a little more resilience to keep the trusses snug up against the wall and give it some flexibility. They were these straps were poured under the concrete, any floor that had concrete, these straps would be poured into them. And so when you look at the evidence of the debris field, you can see the straps hanging there on the walls. So this is the level where the lobby ceiling would have been. Yes. And you can see evidence of the remains of the lobby ceiling where the ceiling material met the walls. Okay. And you can see the truss straps just hanging there. Now that shouldn't be the case because these lobby ceilings were built with IBM. They weren't trusses over these sections. They were IBM's. And so we can see evidence that these, the lobby ceiling at least used to be there because we can see these straps that used to be attached to the trusses or the IBM's that are no longer there. So that makes, to me, it makes no sense whatsoever. How could the straps be there and the trusses they were once attached to, not? Did they just all snap in the same location? And the other thing is that you don't see any other straps like you can see the straps hanging on all along the lobby ceiling area as well as the mechanical room ceiling area. You can see the straps above that you do not. You don't see any evidence of where the ceiling met the walls like we did here. You should see that stuff. Every one of these floors above the lobby ceiling had to have concrete where it met the walls if those floors were there. They're not. You don't see it anywhere. You don't see trusses throughout the debris field. And furthermore, this is from the female photo op, which is what I call it. If you go through the theme of photo op, you'll notice that all of this heavy equipment has been sorting this material for many weeks before the FEMA photo shoot happened. So they were out there with search dogs and all these search and rescue teams from all over the country after heavy equipment had already been sorting the material. It's a total propaganda photo op is what that was. But you can look here at the all of the remaining floors that should have had trusses attached to them with concrete floors above them. You can see evidence where the ceiling of the lobby was, but nothing above that area. Here again, no evidence of floors where they met the walls, but you can see it where it met the lobby ceiling. So if floors had been removed, the evidence is there. There's more evidence of it here in the impact zone where you can see these two wall panels curled in like a clutching hand. Well right here at the where the the spandrel is for both of these columns, there should be a floor scooped up in those knuckles. You should see some material in there. You do not. Again, this is just evidence that I see removed bolts from this scene here because this whole wall panel was struck so hard that it curled in like this didn't even damage the one that was attached to you below it. Could not happen unless the bolts were removed in my opinion. This is the same view from a different angle. And again, you can't see any floor material where it was supposed to be scooped up in that wall panel. What in the world is that figure doing there? That is a fake image of a man. That's a that's official photograph of a jumper who is allegedly jumping out of the North Tower. But it's photoshopped. Yeah, it's totally photoshopped. Yeah, it's a fake picture. They had real images and they had real images and fake images to fool people. And then they put the Simon Shaxx of the world out there to tell us that it's all fake. Well, they're there by destroys all the evidence. In relation to the damage, I mean, if he'd actually leave, he would have been out of the picture. I mean, you know, given what you're seeing here, they're not consistent causally. Yeah, this guy looks like he's actually in a park somewhere sitting on a park bench, leaning back and pointing at someone. Yeah. And then they self with his. Yes. And so this is manly chest. Yes. And it's totally photoshopped. But even better, this is part of a museum exhibit in the 9-11 museum that is purported to be this wall call this panel. They found it into debris. Jim. That's supposed to be the very panel there. That's what they're saying. It is not. You can see easily by looking at it. It's a close. It's a facsimile teachers. Yeah. So, but this just goes to show you the kind of propaganda they're putting out there. The goal. Yeah. The sheer. The crazy. Yeah. So just to demonstrate what we should have seen behind each one of those columns behind each spandial, we should have seen floors and trusses. We did not. Or that, you know, for people to wrap their brains around on the side that was impacted on the north tower. It should have been 60 foot of trust on each one. You know, a lot of them there. I don't know how many they had. But you can see this is what we should have expected to see behind each one of those things. And we should have seen piles of trusses in the debris field. So either they were disintegrated and the straps were left alone where they weren't there. Well, as you were aware, I believe this was done with a sophisticated arrangement of many of micro-nukes that were directed upward. And that were used to blow the building apart from the top down and convert most of it into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. Which it would seem to me could account for the obesity trusses by a large, but it's very interesting that you make the point. Yeah, but the straps are a troublesome issue. Because if the trusses were vaporized, then these flimsy little straps should have been vaporized as well. Along with them. Yeah. But they weren't. They were disconnected where they were connected to the knuckles. And they left hanging there on the wall. To me, that's evidence of being dismantled. So some people think it was a real jets. I'm just going over this for the people who are still fixated on jets. Right. This is we are to believe that this wing tip was at once so light that it could only lightly pinch this cladding here on the left. But it was somehow a few feet later able to sharply bend and gouge steel columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveled. Just to show other people what we expect to see here. The cladding was very thin that went over the top of the columns. And just just to get ideas to how thin, that's pretty thin aluminum sheeting. They were 12 feet long with seams at the spandrel level. So we should expect to see sort of a wedge attack if it was a real plane. This is not for you. But we didn't. We see just the opposite. We see left instead of being struck on the right corners of the columns. We see them damaged on the left corner and struck in a completely different direction. This is the north tower here, south tower here. We see the same sort of pattern, lightly damaged cladding on the far left, progressively worth steel damage. This one's just gouged out completely. And then here it looks like whatever it was was deflected and actually popped out this column, the cladding here. And you can see all of these columns here are twisted and bent to the right. And both of them show an inward blasting hole on column number nine. So I think we both agree it wasn't a plane, but to answer what it was, I've broken it down to what the available options are. I'm not going to go all Judy would on you. But these are the, these are what I think are the options that are available in the real world that can't be verified. Some would argue that there are, there's secret technology that could do this sort of thing. Okay, but I'm unaware of it and it can't be proved. So. Well, I mean, if you overlooked an alternative, then of course you'd have to revise your assessment. Yes, we're to be proposed as a former artillery officer in the Marine Corps. I find all this quite fascinating. Well, you can correct me too. I'm sure because I definitely don't know as much as you do on these things. However, I, I, as I was investigating these, this damage, I started coming to the conclusion that there had to have been a physical impact that, that even if explosives could do what they thought they could do, why would they mimic a lateral impact instead of mimicking what they were showing on television. So I'm trying to break it down to what I consider are the possibilities. I just basically scratch artillery off the, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think for artillery is far too powerful and too identifiable to be able to pull down. Yeah, I don't see any indications that artillery was used in this instance, but it's interesting to talk about it. Yeah, so you can see that artillery solid-shard artillery in World War II did a number on these poor bastards in these pillboxes here, but that steel is arguably much thicker than the steel would have been in the World Trade Center. So artillery would have left an easily recognizable hole and can therefore be discounted. Well, I, yeah, I'm not quite sure. Those look probably more like tank around, savhing it that pillbox if, if I were to, well, they were from actually, um, naval artillery. They just, uh, just leveled those poor suckers before they even stepped foot and tried to attack them. But yeah, um, was this, was this on D day? I'm sorry. I was just wondering what location, what's the scene that those came from, but oh, that was, uh, it's incident. I can't recall. This would have been, uh, yeah, D day. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. In any case, laser weapons, you can probably take off the off the, uh, the list because, um, they're probably more, uh, lasers would probably be more useful as a guidance system than actually burning through. There's no damage to indicate that lasers were used as well and try to get it. Microways, I love this. Microways are reflected by metal. You know, there's, they would be completely inappropriate to be used on as a weapon to cause the damage and particle beams don't cause any kind of the physical connect. They can cause kinetic damage, but, um, nothing like what we see in the World Trade Center. So these can pretty much be disregarded as possibilities. Good. Explosives, I think they, they had to have been exposed to in conjunction with what I think were missiles because there is evidence that explosives were used, at least in the, some of the spandrels that were shattered, uh, these things were just destroyed. But again, I don't see a lot of evidence for the use of explosives at the very far left of the, uh, well, you mean, there's some using it. It's an alternative hypotheses to those you have specified, but I have contemplated that it could have been thermite or nano thermite that was used. I think you could, if you throw it in also eliminate that alternative, but it is one you don't have in your original set. Yeah, I didn't, uh, I didn't include it because from what I've heard about thermite and nano thermite, it's not going to cause the sort of lateral bends that we see. And it's not trying to, it'll cut me in a clut right through. It's just, it might be an hypothesis worth adding in order to eliminate for those. Okay. Thank you. And I think that it could be considered as something that may have been used in the collapses. I don't see any, um, any evidence of that in the, um, impact damage, but I could be wrong. I think, uh, Neal's hair had estimated it would take 29,000 metric tons of nano thermite per tower. If everything was in there, that was advertised. That's the other thing is, you know, with the evidence of missing bolts and floors, maybe the, the, maybe it was like a big, um, magic trick where half a, where the trick was just to, um, advertise that these things were the fully occupied cities within the cities that they told us they were. Well, they were open since 1970. I know. It's, it's, it's very difficult for me to imagine you perpetrate this fraud. Are you talking about, uh, empty towers or hollow towers? But if anybody could, but if anybody could do it, it was the, uh, port authority of New York and New Jersey. They were treated. What, this would be another hypothesis to add to your set, too, I suppose, unless you're arguing that that's the result of your research. No, no, that's just, that's just peripheral. Okay. Um, but again, but again, if, if you want to go there, yes, if anybody could pull it off, it would be the, uh, port authority because they are a quasi-governmental body that does not answer to the public. They, they, um, they can seize property through eminent domain. And they don't, uh, they only answer to two people on the planet. And that's the governors of New York and New Jersey. They don't, they, in other words, all of the statistics that we have for the world trade center during the time that the port authority, uh, owned it, we have to take their word for it because we can't verify any of it. Well, there's going to be a massive documents of leases and all that sort of thing. And, but it's all, uh, it's all from them. They're like, you'll be, but I mean, you're talking about a staggering documentary falsification process over decades and decades. Well, these are the, the Rockefellers, I mean, they're talking, we're talking billionaires. They don't care. Yeah. It's, it seems to me a stretch, Steve. That's all I'm saying. It might, it might create the buildings to be phony empty buildings. You know, that doesn't make it to me a lot of sense because they're, because they, because these guys work over decades and they, they are planning on invading the world over this thing. But, but I'm still focusing on what the evidence shows. I certainly believe that BB Netanyahu thought this up in the late 1980s and with the demise of the Soviet Union, there was an opportunity to promote it by the Neon cons project for a new American century. And they got their ultimate result because the towers had become quite elephant, saying problems with tendency and were loaded with asbestos that would have been prohibitively expensive to, to build scaffolding to remove it. You couldn't take it down by a classic control demolition because it would have released all the asbestos and biohazards into the air. How convenient that we happen to have to terrorist aircraft perform a demolition job that couldn't otherwise be done. And a prize that Larry Silverstein was willing to pay. Yeah, well, I think that Silver still, however you pronounce it, Silverstein or Stein. I think that he probably very well knew that these things were ready for demolition. And that was what his role was. Oh, of course, so of course, to be a lighting rod. Well, when you got to take, it takes personal private possession six weeks before the event. Well, sure. The security term team that has been looking after the tyrosans 1970 gets a new insurance policy with a terrorist clause so he can claim double indemnity. Yeah, but you could be like four and a half billion on $114 million investment. But you can't have those things don't happen by accident. And they don't happen overnight. So that was all well prepped in advance. There's no way that he would have to do this. The designs for the new World Trade Center one were actually prepared in advance of nine to 11. So yeah, yeah, there's plenty of information that I don't have on the slide set that goes back and talks about how much it would have cost to just they would have been forced to dismantle them. They weren't going to be allowed to demolish them because of the asbestos. But the asbestos was only like 40% of tower one. They changed their fire retardant that midway through the construction of tower one. Anyway, so we're left with shape charges that can cut through steel like butter, but there's no evidence that they were used to cause the impact damage. This was just footage of shape charges with the damages. EFPs are explosive penetrators that they can cause all kinds of damage with a shape charge projectile. There's no evidence that I see of that sort of damage throughout the World Trade Center. So to me, it leaves missiles. And then it starts getting difficult because people just reject missiles right off the top of their heads because they think somebody would have reported it. There wasn't a report of a missile being fired from the World War Building. Actually, there are quite a few. Don't go too fast through these slides. I mean, I want to get to the, yeah, the the World War Building here. These are the reports from the World War Building. And you'll notice that most of them are from the media and the authorities. Yeah, I'd rather stunning if you look at who was calling into the various networks. They were all related to husbands or wives, close friends, even actually hired by and are working for the networks. I mean, they had a complete control over the information they were allowing to come in to put out. They did. And yet they still had Don Dollar and Dick Oliver talking about missiles. Because remember the second impact happened about 18 minutes after the first. And until that time, nobody knew what had happened. But the majority of the reports were that anything other than a large plane had caused it. Until that point, until we all saw it on television, then everyone was, oh, a second plane. Right. But if we see, you know, the footage. So we did have reports of missiles quite a few actually. And not just at the World Trade Center, but at Shanksville as well. So if we believe Newton and anybody with today's 3D animations and videos, it should be pretty easy to understand that these videos are a piece of cake to fake. But what a lot of people have a problem with is realizing that not all of those impact shots took place live. All the videos of the Flight 93 penetrating the wall happened after the live broadcasts. You mean 11? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got totally totally. Yeah, Flight 175. Flight 175. The second impact. We only were shown, what, five or six views of the tower with the plane flying behind it, followed by an explosion. Well, about 52 videos that show. Yeah, but only five or so. They're really handful that were shown live. And all of them show a building with the planes inside. We don't see the face getting hit. All of those happened later. And each and every one of them shows anomalies. That's all by itself, isn't it? You think the news, they would have cameras all over the place. Let's see, have the first hit. You'd have teams out there everywhere. Yes. And so what I suspect is that they did have a team of 50 some on propaganda south there who were deployed to capture the footage so they could, because if you know anything about video editing, it's a whole lot easier to add things to real video than to fabricate an entire scene. And so you use a tripod. Well, there are the three theories of CGI, which the web very advanced or of video compositing Ace Baker or the hologram Richard Hall. So you have advocates of those three different theories about how it was done. Right. And so we have, I think Ace Baker is probably closest to the right, but he hates the missile prospect too. So we have the, let me make it clear. I only care about the truth. I have it first or always at it right or whatever. I just care about sorting it out. That's right. That's really, really interesting because it's an area that I have been self-conscious about not having explored sufficiently. So I'm particularly pleased to have this opportunity. Well, it's not my hypothesis anyway. It's I think it was it was homegrown who came up with it. The guy was a genius. The guy was a complete genius. I'm increasingly suspicious that his death was I agree. No, yeah. So just just to just to go on. He was and yeah, I have a video. I have just done a transcript of his. I have a video of his Skype conference call that I got from Rosalie Grable before she passed. And I just transcribed it because it's terrible audio and he's got a thick Australian accent. And it's many ways the rest of us are still catching up. I know. It is amazing. And he just winged it. I was a genius. He had it nailed. In any case, so I'm showing this footage just because we're all familiar with the Herzarkani. And just pay attention. You can see here that the smoke here beside the building freezes right at the time. It penetrates the building. The plane penetrates the building. To me, this is total evidence of fraudulent video. I've broken it down to frames. You can see slight motion. It's hard to see. I had hoped to gotten way further along on this presentation by the time we actually talked. So I can highlight all of the smoke. Well, thank you. So when you go frame by frame, you can actually see the smoke freeze to the left of the building here. I'm looking at it. It stops moving. Do that? Yeah. Yeah. Basically for the Burbis of animation or video compositing. Yeah. So again, when you look at the towers, it's a square tower. And you can see there's a shadow here. It's always been Bikil. You're the total lack of definition of the facade itself. It's just like a blur. Right. So what I see here is that, and actually, if you go back and look at the Hertzark County, but it is actual shot. Yeah. Back up a bit. There is a point because I do a lot of messing around with footage. I try to make things disappear just because I like to make videos of Christmas. And I've got some good Darwin awards shot of myself doing construction and almost killing myself and not getting things off. And so I would put a risk. Did you actually receive a Darwin award? I can. No, not yet. Give me a minute. Very good. Very good. So I know how easy it is to create, to make things appear and disappear on video, all you need is a tripod. And each you never wanted these guys was on a tripod. When you look at the Hertzark County, he spends a lot of time. He's got his fluid head. He's moving around like he's not on a tripod. These guys are pros trying to look like amateurs. Okay. Good. Excuse me. I got to get some water here. Good. Sure. You can see him passing, zooming forward, zooming back. And then he locks it in for a split second of like two or three frames. And that's his predefined, rehearsed location before he's going to pan up to find the shot of the plane coming in. Very good. All very good. Right there. He just locks it in. I think this is the spot. And then boom, pans up, catches the frame. So you can see right there, the guy was on a tripod. Every one of them were the, what's his name? Luke Corchez. He was on a tripod. Very obvious. Even, not a day, he used a tripod. And you can see where he took it off the tripod just before he hops in Fifers truck to drive off to the World Trade Center after the first shot. They all used the same, the same means. They had to have the propaganda out there to capture whatever really did cut the holes before they could edit it out and put in a plane of what they were showing. They added enough anomalies to their footage to give the truth movement something to talk about for the next 15 years. And to avoid the conclusion that yeah, these guys did edit. I, the Hertzark County Chef, this one in particular, vexed me, no, and how the hell did this guy do that? The only way that I figured it out is that smoke stops moving. So he had a, he cut out the square front here, right here, is easy to cut out of any footage. He did the same background frame and moved the plane forward. Yeah, and it's just like the, it's a TV trope is a website. If you look at the sequence on the left here, it's TV can see that the smoke pattern isn't changing. Yeah. And so that's fraudulent footage. There's no other way around it. And if one of them's fraudulent, odds are pretty good, they all are. Oh yeah. Yeah. And so what gets me is, well, what are they covering up? Because it's not just the plane that's fake. It's like the whole scene. So this is, this is, you know, the, the, the camera spoof. It's from, you've seen the videos where they, you know, the, the crime caper where there's a, these criminals who are going to go rob a safe, and they put it, they take a Polaroid snapshot of the scene of the security camera who's going to, the security guards watching. And they stick the Polaroid in front of the camera. You see this on videos over and over again, right? It's called the Polaroid Punk. It's the camera spoof. They use it in like Hudson Hawk. Any number of movies. We're not doing full screen here because we can see, you know, the sequence in that the smoke isn't moving by just looking down the side. Yeah, right here. And you can see that it's, it's, very pretty. Very good catch. Pretty hard to deny. Has anyone else in the world realized that the smoke isn't moving? I don't know. I mean, I, I was fixated with Ace Baker's thing for a long time where he did the ghost plane, you know, and that's very convincing, but that doesn't even address the fact that, yeah, there's probably both. He had to have a, because the plane's not real, but the footage was at some point. It's just, he froze it right there. So what that tells me, and this is what, what Gispy's all of the footage of the explosions and the smoke, you know, the fireball. Yeah, all of it matches. It's identical. Depending upon the perspective, every photo matches, every video matches. So to me, that means that footage is real. There's no way they're going to be able to fake that anyway. Any, any fraudulent footage of the explosion would have blown the whole thing off. Because that would have been easy to compare from different perspectives. Right. Well, they have pre-positioned, Jeff Fuel, Nate Bomb, whatever they use. Yes, they had that in the building. Yes, because because whatever cut the holes was not defiant. Right, right, right. So, this is all sensational stuff, Steve. Well, thank you. But after the penetration, the smoke starts moving again. We can see that in the footage later. So there's a period just after the plane enters the building completely, but just before the fireball, which is really the only place they could have melded the two scenes together. So that's where they went from pre-recorded plane footage composted onto their live footage with their frozen screen there off to the side. But it was just like one of these Polaroid punks where they took a video camera, put a fake scene over it so that the security guard thinks that the safe is just fine. Meanwhile, they're in there drilling into the safe and he can't see anything because they're seeing footage on top of other footage. That's what they did. You can set this one more slide. I've got a whole bunch of stuff, Jim, but I'm not prepared to go on the... Yeah, but I was just going to say, remember when you skipped over a group of slides? Oh, yes, yeah. I go back to those because those were very interesting to me, but we discounted them. And then you can talk about your theory of how all of this was done. Yeah, so we're forward from there, right? Yeah, we're from here. Yeah, and go on to the missiles and the witnesses about the missiles. Yeah, so the witnesses are later after this, but most people disregard missiles because they think a lot of... Everybody thinks... Everybody subplanes. If it was my operation, I would have had lots of stuff in the air for people to see. I would have had flyovers and you can see that in other footage of the white plane that you've seen that was reported over Manhattan. There's actually footage of it. If I had my wits about me, I would have had a link to that here, but I have it on my website. And we can... I'll create a video of all this that'll explain it in more detail when I'm better prepared. Dave, we can do it again, my friend. This is a great, great introduction. I love it. Well, thank you. But again, when it comes down to missiles, you know... You're looking at the delivery inside of the slide when you want to stay outside it. Yeah. Okay. Delivering a distraction from afar is this is American as baseball. And we've got the missiles, aircraft carriers and battleships with lots of hands on experience to prove it. Right. Right. But 10 years ago, the big stick was cruise missiles. That was... I can't think of any international diplomacy that wasn't solved first by softening them up with a few Tomahawks. Sure. So most people disregard missiles because they think people would have reported it. Well, they did report it. And the thing is, is that the author... Who would they report it to were the people that were selling us the planes. So of course, they're not going to report tell us that everybody saw missiles. They're going to try to limit that. And that's what we saw. After the second strike, nobody was talking missiles because you had a camera stuck... A TV stuck in your face. It was a plane. Go to the next one. Yeah. So the next one is what people would have seen had they seen a missile. Now, mind you, you're in Manhattan, you're minding your old business, you're trying not to get hit by a cab, you're surrounded by bustle and bustle of a city. You're not going to be looking up for a missile a thousand feet over your head. You can blame this, right? And if you did look up, you would see this. This is a flyby of a Tomahawk in Iraq. And this guy was ready for it. You can see that the cameraman was ready. And you barely see this thing. Yeah. It's... And it's gone. Right. And he was waiting for it. So a thousand feet below in the hustle and bustle of the city, you are not going to be seeing any missiles. Well, you're unlikely to. And if you do, it's just serving lamps and you try to figure out what was that, you know? Yeah. And then when you have a TV shoved in your face, you're going to say, oh, it must have been a plane. It was going so fast. Well, I get a lot of grief because they think, well, how are you going to have multiple missiles hit these things? They don't fly information. Well, look at this. They do... Why multiple? Why multiple missiles? Because, well, I'm not going to be... You can't just argue that the openings that were created by a single missile from the side that went below. No, no. There's just no way. It's too small. The missiles are too small. The missiles are too small. Really? Yeah. And these are bunker-busting missiles. So to get to what the evidence shows, and it's not just any missile that can do this, Jim. It's got to be something that's a bunker buster. And that's what a J-Sam is, a joint air to surface standoff missile. They have a warhead that's 60 by 12 inches. So if you look at the size of the columns, we know to be 14. So if you look at the big bend here that bends to the side, I could picture a 12-inch warhead causing that. They weigh 900 pounds. And at a glancing angle, the wing would impact first, okay? Which can account for the pinched cladding or the lightly damaged cladding. That's where the wing of the missile impacted the columns first and just whacked it like a stick. It's very small and not very massive. They're fiberglass or whatever. As it moves closer further to the right, the fuselage would impact and shatter against the columns. And then the warhead, the 900 pound warhead would carry on like a large bullet. And how many are you proposing hit each building? I don't know as many as it takes to account for the damage. But I figure I wouldn't want just one. You would think if they were hitting that there'd be a certain homogeneity or similarity in the damage from each of the different missiles. Well, you see that though. You see practically. You can't be a very large number. It would seem to me. I would think not. But this is just the wing tip. Jim, you're giving me so much to think about. Have you gotten more slides that we haven't covered? Yeah. This is, this is, okay, go ahead, go for it. And so this is a hardest rendition of the concept. If I could just click on the button here. Okay, good. Okay, good. Good. Good. So you can see how coming from the side, the missile would hit. It would pinch the cladding with the wing and then the warhead itself would continue on like a large bullet from a really sharp, glancing angle. I'm going to have an artist do it again with a different angle. Did the warheads explode or with these without warheads? They don't need to explode to be able to do the damage. These warheads are masking, you know, yeah. And they wouldn't want these to explode to have caused that damage. However, some of them did explode. And let me just take fascinating stuff. Fascinating stuff, Steve. I feel very much about this as I did the first time I interviewed Judy Wood. Because here she was introducing a whole new approach to understanding what happened at the World Trade Center. And I let out this whoop. You know, something like, wow, because the conceptual space, you know, of what we were dealing with have been enormously expanded. And people thought I was there by swooning in support of a theory. I was swooning in support of the expansion of the intellectual space. I love what you're doing here. I have a very similar feeling about it that you've offered us a whole new approach to understanding how those cutouts were made. I love it. Well, thank you. So, and I can get into it deeper. I don't want to waste a lot of time. Today's good. For an introduction, this is perfect. Yeah. So, after I came to these conclusions and found these this this concept, I rejected it as well. I thought there's no fricking way. They would launch multiple missiles in broad daylight, you know, to do this. But I cannot come up with any other conclusion. And of course, they could they they they own all the media. They can control the the narration, the narrative. So they they're going to control the the whole story. And of course, you're going to be the idea of missiles are going to be rejected, especially if it's the right answer. Where there are other locations from which witnesses report seeing missile fired than wall work. No, but ironically enough, if you follow the trajectory and that that was those reports were for the North Tower. But if you follow the trajectory of these arrows away from the North Tower, it goes right past the Woolworth building. Right. Pass. It goes right past the Woolworth to here. I have a video on my website. I can absolutely sensational. I can't thank you enough. I'm thrilled. I find it fascinating. You've given me so much to think about an original approach. I really value that. The hardest part of scientific research is passionning and hypothesis, especially in sufficient detail that you can explore it. You have done that. That's a great accomplishment. I compliment you on very, very impressed. I find this fascinating. I learned a lot from our exchange today. I look forward to featuring you on the show again. Thank you. I look forward to it too and I will be better prepared. Oh, you did a great job. This is Jim Fetzer. Your host on the the real deal. Thank you. My special guest, Steve Doc, for being here and all of you for watching. Thanks again, Jim.