TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @RichardGage_911
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that I found 2001 newspaper archives freely available that reveal something worse. I claim WTC Construction Manager Frank Demartini knew jumbo jets couldn't take down the Towers and stayed inside to save lives, dying in the process. I say the Chief Structural Engineer designed the Towers to withstand jet impacts, so another cause brought them down, and the government is covering it up.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Thank God some newspaper archives from 2001 are free to the public. Because without that, we wouldn’t know about this. But it gets worse. See next post ⬇️ https://t.co/kydlIaS83o
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] WTC Construction Manager Frank Demartini also knew that jumbo jets could not take down the Twin Towers. That’s why he stayed in the building to save lives after the planes hit… and didn’t made it out alive. Don’t believe him? Then lets go to the expert ⬇️ https://t.co/dVXDhbARBk
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The Chief Structural Engineer of the Twin Towers designed the building to withstand jetplane impacts. So, something other than the planes and fires must have brought them down. And the government is covering it up. https://t.co/PORsSa1Rq8
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The most damning interview of Dick Cheney didn’t even involve Dick Cheney. It involved George W Bush trying to explain why he and Cheney testified to the 9/11 Commission together, in private and not under oath. What do you think they said behind closed doors? https://t.co/DOq4CA5Hpp
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: I was impressed by the questions, and I think it helped him understand how I think and how we run the White House and how we deal with threats.
Speaker 1: Mister president, critics suggested you wanted to appear jointly with the vice president so you could keep your story straight. Could you tell us what you think of the value of appearing together and how you would answer those critics?
Speaker 2: First of all, look, if we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions. I came away good about the session.
Speaker 3: And even the president and vice president agreed to meet with the commission, but with a catch. They insisted on meeting together behind closed doors and not under oath.
Speaker 2: Mister president, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the nine eleven commission?
Speaker 0: Because the nine eleven commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was I was impressed by the questions, and, and it was a I think it helped him understand how I think and how I run the White House and how we deal with threats. John?
Speaker 1: Mister president, as you know, a lot critics suggested that you wanted to appear jointly with the vice president so that you two could keep your story straight or something. Yeah. Could you tell us what you think of the value of appearing together and how you would answer those critics?
Speaker 2: Yeah. First of all, look, I mean,
Speaker 0: if we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions. And as I say, I think I came away good about the session.
Speaker 3: And even the president and vice president agreed to meet with the commission, but with a catch. They insisted on meeting together behind closed doors and not under oath.
Speaker 2: Mister president, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the nine eleven commission?
Speaker 0: Because nine commission nine eleven commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions. Sir,
Speaker 2: was asking why you're appearing together rather than separately, which was their request.
Speaker 0: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the nine eleven commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them. Let's see.
Speaker 4: We have to have one story. So I'll say a part, and if I get it wrong, hedge a little bit and give me the next.
Speaker 0: Wanna thank the chairman and vice chairman for giving us a chance to share views on a on on on on different subjects. And they had a lot of good questions, and I was I'm glad I did it. I'm glad I took the time. What topic did the commissioners wanna spend most of the time on? I really probably best that I not go into the details of the conversation.
Speaker 4: The president and vice president of The United States, don't you think they should be able to stand up and and and speak their own words? They should go under oath. They should be, yeah, in public.
Speaker 2: Don't you think that the families deserve to have a transcript or to be able to see what
Speaker 0: you You asked me that question yesterday. For an answer. I got the same answer. Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
I, RG911Team, report that these two men shattered a massive taboo—questioning 9/11 by prominent figures is career suicide; they didn’t just question it, they blew the official story out of the water. Also, nano-scale thermite was found in 9/11 dust—who put it there?
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] These two men just shattered a massive taboo. For prominent politicians or public figures, questioning 9/11 is career suicide. But @BretWeinstein and @SenRonJohnson didn’t just question 9/11. They blew the official story out of the water. https://t.co/nn2eW6PLDH
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the difficulty of considering alternative explanations to a prevailing narrative about a terrorist attack. They suggest that, in any ultimate scenario or alternative explanation, people are reluctant to contemplate other possibilities, and this reluctance blocks further inquiry. The conversation shifts to the idea that if the mainstream account isn’t correct—if it weren’t the crazy Islamic terrorists who had this plot that brought down the buildings—then what did happen?
Speaker 0 notes that they would want to talk to experts such as structural engineers, architects, and firefighters, who “know what they're talking about.” However, these professionals do not believe the narrative at all. They reportedly lay out convincing evidence for why the narrative should not be believed, proposing explosives as an alternative explanation. The claimed evidence cited includes “explosions,” specifically “thermite, military grade, nanoparticle thermite,” and various forms of evidence such as “unexploded fragments of it” and references to “thermite and iron globules.”
The discussion then turns to the question of who would have placed explosives in the buildings. Speaker 0 highlights that “nobody literally, virtually no one wants to go down that path.” The suggested question—“who would have placed explosives in those buildings?”—is described as unthinkable. The speakers acknowledge that the unthinkability functions as a defense that prevents people from asking the questions that they consider “so pressing.” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 restating the idea that the question of explosives remains a controversial or avoided line of inquiry.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think a big part of the problem is any ultimate scenario, any alternative explanation, you wouldn't wanna even contemplate. I mean, that's that's part of the problem. It's like, okay, if that's not what happened, if it if it weren't these crazy Islamic terrorists that had this plot that brought down then what what did happen? Again, we start going into the, you know, talking to the structural engineers and the architects and the firefighters. You know, people that know what they're talking about, unlike me.
Okay?
Speaker 1: Right. Or me.
Speaker 0: There's they do not believe the narrative at all. And they've got and they lay out very convincing evidence of why you shouldn't believe that narrative. Then, I mean, their explanation is explosions. Right. Thermite, military grade, nanoparticle thermite.
And they have all kinds of evidence that would point to it, including unexploded fragments of it through all the
Speaker 1: thermite and iron globules.
Speaker 0: So then the next question is, well, who would have placed explosives in those buildings? And you you nobody literally, virtually no one wants to go down that path.
Speaker 1: It's unthinkable. But, of course, its unthinkability is the defense that prevents us from asking the questions that obviously are so pressing.
Speaker 0: So
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] A team of scientists discovered nano-scale thermite in the 9/11 dust - incendiary material more advanced than what is developed in military labs. Who put it there? https://t.co/zVvYT4ioXJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the dust, unreacted thermitic material was found in the shape of tiny red-grey chips. In the reaction, these chips produce molten iron, which is the prime indication of a thermitic reaction, and such a reaction can be used to destroy steel structures. A modern version of thermite was identified, described as nanothermite, which is produced not by simply mixing two powders but is built from the atom scale up, a “bottom up procedure” akin to nanotechnology. The ingredients are much smaller, causing the materials to react faster and ignite more easily.
The primary elements in the red material are aluminum, iron oxide, silicon, and carbon. The iron oxide appears in fasted grains approximately 100 nanometers across, and the aluminum appears in thin platelets about 40 nanometers thick. This is described in their paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal published in April 2009. They note that so far none of these papers have been refuted in the scientific literature, and they claim these papers stand as an indictment of the official story of nine eleven.
Speaker 2 adds that they also examined paint that had come off the WTC steel, using SEM and a compositional analysis, and found that it was not similar to the red-grey chip or to the red layer of the red-grey chips. They assert that this cannot be paint, because paint does not have these exotic properties.
Speaker 1 concludes that this material is of military use and that it really shouldn’t be there.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In the dust, we found what we characterize as unreacted thermitic material in the shape of some very tiny red grey chips. And in the reaction, they produce molten iron, which is the prime indication of a thermitic reaction. And such a reaction can be used to destroy steel structures. What we have found is a modern version of thermite, which
Speaker 1: we
Speaker 0: call nanothermite, which is produced in a different way. It is not just two powders being mixed. The material is actually built from the atom scale up. We call it the bottom up procedure, which is what you do in nanotechnology. The ingredients are much smaller, which means they are reacting faster and they are more easily ignited.
Speaker 1: The primary elements in the red material are aluminum, iron oxide, as well as silicon and carbon. The iron oxide appears in fasted grains approximately 100 nanometers across. The aluminum appears in thin platelets about 40 nanometers thick. This is discussed in our paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal published in April 2009. So far none of these papers have been refuted in the literature, the scientific literature.
So that means they are unchallenged in the scientific sense. They stand as an indictment, really of the official story of nine eleven.
Speaker 2: We also took paint that came off of the WTC steel and looked at that in the SEM and did a compositional analysis of that and found that it was not similar to the red gray chip or the red layer of the red gray chips. This cannot be paint. Paint does not have these exotic properties. It's impossible.
Speaker 1: This is material that is of military use that really shouldn't be there.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note FDNY losses on 9/11; even one funeral a month for each would keep going for 23 years. What really killed these heroes? I’ll share their firefighting brothers’ answers in the next post. Survivors’ accounts differ from the government and media—who will help their voices be heard?
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Each of these FDNY firefighters died on 9/11. If you had one funeral a month for each one, you would still be going to funerals, 23 years later. But what really killed these heroes? We asked their firefighting brothers. See their answers in the next post ⬇️ https://t.co/VORvvriSJ4
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Firefighters who survived 9/11 have a different story to tell than what the government and media say. Who will help their voices be heard? https://t.co/T5KXeX2dDY
Video Transcript AI Summary
I saw Building 7 come down, and it was a controlled demolition. A classic controlled demolition.
That building had no reason to come down. There's no history of a high rise fire and a fireproof resulting in failure of the building because the building is, in New York City, parlance, a class one, which is a single word, fireproof.
I demand to know, as should everyone, especially the media, why important testimony from made that day from over a 150 police, firefighters, and first responders regarding explosions wasn't included in the commission report nor investigated further.
It was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until a hour later. Something? I'm gonna call the vehicle right now. You gotta get back to me. Five minutes and the elevators exploded on us.
Yeah. We we we we said something's wrong here. I mean, the plane hit up on the Eightieth Floor. I mean, fuck. In five minutes, all of a sudden, now the elevator's exploding on the first level in the lobby?
And it's the first thing I think of when I get up in the morning, and it's the last thing at night before I go to bed. I lost Tommy O'Hagan, Kenny Kompel, and Bruce Van Hynes that day.
343 firefighters, including three of my good friends, Thomas Hetzel, Bobby Evans, and Mike Keefer, perished that day. And these were some of the best and the bravest people in the world. And they, along with the rest of those who were murdered and died horrible deaths, deserve justice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I saw Building 7 come down, and it was a controlled demolition. A classic controlled demolition.
Speaker 1: That building had no reason to come down. There's no history of a high rise fire and a fireproof resulting in failure of the building because the building is, in New York City, parlance, a class one, which is a single word, fireproof.
Speaker 2: I demand to know, as should everyone, especially the media, why important testimony from made that day from over a 150 police, firefighters, and first responders regarding explosions wasn't included in the commission report nor investigated further.
Speaker 3: It was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until a hour later. Something? I'm gonna call the vehicle right now. You gotta get back to me. Five minutes and the elevators exploded on us.
Yeah. We we we we said something's wrong here. I mean, the plane hit up on the Eightieth Floor. I mean, fuck. In five minutes, all of a sudden, now the elevator's exploding on the first level in the lobby?
Speaker 0: And it's the first thing I think of when I get up in the morning, and it's the last thing at night before I go to bed. I lost Tommy O'Hagan, Kenny Kompel, and Bruce Van Hynes that day.
Speaker 2: 343 firefighters, including three of my good friends, Thomas Hetzel, Bobby Evans, and Mike Keefer, perished that day. And these were some of the best and the bravest people in the world. And they, along with the rest of those who were murdered and died horrible deaths, deserve justice.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
@TuckerCarlson [RG911Team] 9/11 firefighters agree with Tucker. The government lied about Building 7 - and a whole lot more. https://t.co/EwmgkygyqR
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the discussion, the collapse of Building 7 is debated through direct claims by several speakers. Speaker 0 states, "I saw Building 7 come down, and it was a controlled demolition. A classic controlled demolition." Speaker 1 counters with skepticism, arguing that "That building had no reason to come down. There's no history of a high rise fire and a fireproof resulting in failure of the building because the building is, in New York City, parlance, a class one, which is a single word, fireproof." The exchange shifts toward accountability and transparency. Speaker 2 asserts, "I demand to know, as should everyone, especially the media, why important testimony from made that day from over a 150 police, firefighters, and first responders regarding explosions wasn't included in the commission report nor investigated further." The conversation then moves to specific explosive claims. Speaker 3 contends, "It was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until a hour later. I'm gonna call the vehicle right now. You gotta get back to me. Five minutes and the elevators exploded on us." A sense of urgency and confusion is conveyed, with a voice adding, "We we we we said something's wrong here. I mean, the plane hit up on the Eightieth Floor. I mean, fuck. In five minutes, all of a sudden, now the elevator's exploding on the first level in the lobby?" Personal losses and the human cost are underscored. Speaker 0 reflects on the impact on his own life, saying, "And it's the first thing I think of when I get up in the morning, and it's the last thing at night before I go to bed. I lost Tommy O'Hagan, Kenny Kompel, and Bruce Van Hynes that day." The conversation culminates with a tribute to fallen colleagues. Speaker 2 notes, "343 firefighters, including three of my good friends, Thomas Hetzel, Bobby Evans, and Mike Keefer, perished that day. And these were some of the best and the bravest people in the world. And they, along with the rest of those who were murdered and died horrible deaths, deserve justice."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I saw Building 7 come down, and it was a controlled demolition. A classic controlled demolition.
Speaker 1: That building had no reason to come down. There's no history of a high rise fire and a fireproof resulting in failure of the building because the building is, in New York City, parlance, a class one, which is a single word, fireproof.
Speaker 2: I demand to know, as should everyone, especially the media, why important testimony from made that day from over a 150 police, firefighters, and first responders regarding explosions wasn't included in the commission report nor investigated further.
Speaker 3: It was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until a hour later. Something? I'm gonna call the vehicle right now. You gotta get back to me. Five minutes and the elevators exploded on us.
Yeah. We we we we said something's wrong here. I mean, the plane hit up on the Eightieth Floor. I mean, fuck. In five minutes, all of a sudden, now the elevator's exploding on the first level in the lobby?
Speaker 0: And it's the first thing I think of when I get up in the morning, and it's the last thing at night before I go to bed. I lost Tommy O'Hagan, Kenny Kompel, and Bruce Van Hynes that day.
Speaker 2: 343 firefighters, including three of my good friends, Thomas Hetzel, Bobby Evans, and Mike Keefer, perished that day. And these were some of the best and the bravest people in the world. And they, along with the rest of those who were murdered and died horrible deaths, deserve justice.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The official 9/11 story might seem reasonable on the surface. But when you focus in on the details, the massive deception becomes clear. https://t.co/8jZp0N92LT
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker argues against the idea that the top 15 stories crush the 95 below. "Do you see the top 15 stories crushing the 95 stories below? No, you don't." The top block "disintegrates by itself in the first few seconds without even impacting the building below." Then "the building below begins to destroy itself." What you see are "waves of explosions ripping the building apart, pulverizing nearly all the concrete to a fine powder and ejecting the steel up to 600 feet in all directions." The final claim: "The top 15 stories couldn't do that in a pancake and collapse."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you see the top 15 stories crushing the 95 stories below? No, you don't. The top block disintegrates by itself in the first few seconds without even impacting the building below. And then the building below begins to destroy itself. What you see are waves of explosions ripping the building apart, pulverizing nearly all the concrete to a fine powder and ejecting the steel up to 600 feet in all directions.
The top 15 stories couldn't do that in a pancake and collapse.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Rare video shows famed CIA agent Robert Baer discussing the “Dancing Israelis” who were arrested after being seen celebrating the 9/11 attacks. What else do you think he knows? https://t.co/43C4y9xUEw
Video Transcript AI Summary
there was an incident where there was a white van in New Jersey across from the World Trade Center, and five Israelis, probably Mossad, were giving the high five after the World Trade Center was hit.
The investigation was taken away at the Justice Department from terrorism and put in national security completely sealed off.
You know, if you could look at it benignly, it was the Israelis who stumbled across this.
the parameters of people knew about this of nine eleven in advance are there, and they need to be investigated.
Is it possible that these Mossad assets were in place in New Jersey in order to film the first hit?
And there's actually a lot of, reports that they were there set up before the first plane hit.
They They were set up before the first plane hit.
So you can confirm that.
That's true. Yeah. Yeah. They were set up there before.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You had said something real quickly about someone should write a book about the white van. What
Speaker 1: did you mean what
Speaker 0: did you mean by that?
Speaker 1: Well, there was an incident where there was a white van in New Jersey across from the World Trade Center, and five Israelis, probably Mossad, were giving the high five after the World Trade Center was hit. The investigation was taken away at the Justice Department from terrorism and put in national security completely sealed off. You know, if you could look at it benignly, it was the Israelis who stumbled across this. I just don't know. But the the parameters of people knew about this of nine eleven in advance are there, and they need to be investigated.
Speaker 0: Is it possible that these Mossad assets were in place in New Jersey in order to film the first hit? And there's actually a lot of, reports that they were there set up before the first plane hit.
Speaker 1: They They were set up before the first plane hit. So you
Speaker 0: can confirm that.
Speaker 1: That's true. Yeah. Yeah. They were set up there before.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG11Team] Young conservatives are awake to the truth of 9/11. At our booth at Charlie Kirk’s AmFest 2023, these men knew about our work and weren’t afraid to discuss it on camera. The murder of Charlie - who approved our booth - is a deep loss to us all. https://t.co/l7dVWr4rFe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Turning Point Conference attendees describe the booth as presenting 'the truth of what happened in nine eleven' in a setting 'not a mainstream position.' Lewis Cone states, 'The truth needs to be exposed. It needs to be put into the light anywhere and everything. And so nine eleven's part of the series of things that they have lied to us about over the years. And it's been used as a justification for various geopolitical projects that have cost Americans lives and taxpayer money.' Gideon notes, 'I didn't even know there was, like, the three buildings type deal' and that 'this building's 47 stories' are part of the conversation. Nathan discusses 'the towers came down under your brother's watch' and 'endless wars, thousands of Americans dodged, trillions of dollars spent' and 'Patriot Act' and the 'global war on terror' paying the price.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why are you guys here, especially in my booth?
Speaker 1: Well, we were already first here at the Turning Point Conference having a good time. And I was walking around with a friend, and I saw this booth. And I've been going to Turning Point conferences for a couple of years, and I never expected a booth like this to be here because, you know, it's not a mainstream position or whatever to talk about these issues. Right? But, I mean, I've been aware
Speaker 0: of And this is not actually, quite a mainstream convention as we're finding out. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of halfway to nine eleven type stuff. Already that's being discussed by, like, Vivek, in one of his speeches talked about how nine eleven was not what we were told, you know, back in the early two thousands. But, yeah, I just stopped by the booth as I know Richard's done a lot of good work over the years, and I was just impressed that he's here talking to so many people about the truth of what happened in nine eleven.
Speaker 0: Well, thanks. And how how did you guys all meet each other? First, let's get your names. We already did. Tell it.
Speaker 2: Well, we
Speaker 0: you talked too much already. Yeah. Yeah. Let's go to this young gentleman.
Speaker 1: Well, we all met in college in these turning point events. And as it happened, actually, all of us had had pretty much known that nine eleven was not exactly as it's been presented over the years, when we met. It's been a very common occurrence among younger people to not really believe the the lies.
Speaker 0: Right on. That's good news for us. We gotta get it out there. How about you? And let's see your name tag the other way.
Speaker 3: Yeah. My name.
Speaker 0: Lewis Cone. Lewis Cone. Fire away.
Speaker 3: So I'm I'm big on the truth. The truth needs to be exposed. It needs to be put into the light anywhere and everything. And so nine eleven's part of the series of things that they have lied to us about over the years. And it's been used as a justification for various geopolitical projects that have cost Americans lives and taxpayer money.
It's been a tragedy.
Speaker 0: I think so too. Thanks, Lewis.
Speaker 2: Ed. I'm Gideon. And, the the way I look at it is particularly people have an, like, an emotional attachment to it and understandably so, but people like us were born around the time it happened or not even when it happened, so we don't have that emotional attachment. Partly, yes, and partly because of that we tend to look at it objectively. And when you're able to look at something like that objectively, you can, you know, look at all these, you know, all these facts or factors that come into play.
That's kinda my position. It's like, I can look at it objectively. Like, I didn't even know there was, like, the three buildings type deal. I thought it was just two for the longest time. Like, they never talk about, like, stuff like that.
Speaker 0: And why is it important about the third building?
Speaker 2: Like, you think, like, if if another building fell fell down, they'd actually talk about it. Like, I don't they just never talked about it. I'm like I'm like, wait. There was three buildings? Like, I I think I heard about that, like, a year or two ago.
Speaker 1: I'm like, that's that's strange.
Speaker 2: They just never talked about it. You know?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and this building's 47 stories. It's a high rise. It's like one of the main deals there. It's the highest building in most of our states.
Most people don't know that. Let's jump back to you, Nathan. What's important about nine eleven for you?
Speaker 1: Oh, what's important to me is, like, kinda like what's similar to what Lewis said is the narrative of what's been told and the implications of it. I I'm a big fan of president Trump. And in the twenty sixteen debates, he talked to Jeb Bush and straight up told him, the towers came down under your brother's watch. And what was the justification then for the towers falling down? Was these endless wars, thousands of Americans dodged, trillions of dollars spent, and our generation has had to pay for those consequences from the Bush administration, what they lied about, and then blind the American people and using that also to collect all of our data with the Patriot Act and just controlling people.
Speaker 0: I hate to bring it break the news to you, but your grandchildren will be paying for the $6,500,000,000,000 global war on terror that, 09/11 started. Keep going.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. So it's just now understanding of, like, what actually happened is really key so that we don't allow future false flags to, to occur again and be aware of what the US government is willing to do in terms of narrative control and lying to the American people. It's unacceptable. What the current American regime is did in the early two thousands and what they've kept doing through the COVID era and what they would like to do in the future to control the American people.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
***** What happened to WTC 7? The great gaslighting experiment. "This is an Orange" Anthony Lawson https://t.co/T4FYG7RFuT
Video Transcript AI Summary
This building is about to be destroyed in what is called a controlled demolition. The initial charges are spaced about one second apart, and you can see that each section begins falling separately. Successful demolitions require that all structural support columns collapse at virtually the same time. If they don't or if something else goes wrong, the result will look something like this. This is World Trade Center 7 just before it collapsed on 09/11/2001. It had not been hit by an aircraft. It had been damaged by falling debris and fire. Yet the Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that the collapse was due primarily to fire. As at July 2007, there is no final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology still rules out a controlled demolition.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is an orange. If you were told it was something else, you wouldn't believe it, would you? This is called visual identification based on experience. This building is about to be destroyed in what is called a controlled demolition. Buildings do not do this spontaneously.
Here is another example of a controlled demolition. The initial charges are spaced about one second apart, and you can see that each section begins falling separately. Successful demolitions require that all structural support columns collapse at virtually the same time. If they don't or if something else goes wrong, the result will look something like this. This is World Trade Center 7 just before it collapsed on 09/11/2001.
It had not been hit by an aircraft. It had been damaged by falling debris and fire. But by 05:20PM, most of the fires have been extinguished. Although the building was 47 stories high, it doesn't fall sideways nor collapse unevenly. For this to have happened, all of the building's vertical supports must have given way at almost exactly the same time.
Yet the Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that the collapse was due primarily to fire. But what does it look like to you? As at July 2007, there is no final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology still rules out a controlled demolition. So the question is, do you believe what you can see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told?
reSee.it AI Summary
On 9/11, a suspicious box truck was spotted near the Twin Towers, prompting an NYPD officer to investigate. After 24 years, Sergeant Richard Bylicki shares his account, which aligns with a YouTube video from 12 years ago where bystanders mentioned the same truck. Police scanner audio from that day also reported the truck, raising questions about why it wasn't more widely covered. While an alleged photo of the truck has circulated online, it appears to be an artist's rendering. The full interview with Bylicki provides more insights.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] On 9/11, a very disturbing box truck was seen near the Twin Towers. An NYPD officer went to investigate. 24 years later, he is finally breaking his silence. See next comment for more⬇️ https://t.co/yRAoUR1yWm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Approaching firehouse, we heard people screaming and pointing to a van. It was a U Haul truck with Twin Towers mural and plane. I end up pulling my gun out, taking this guy out gunpoint, laying him on the ground next to vehicle. As I'm doing this, I tell EMS girl that I'm with, 'we survived the building collapse. We're not gonna survive this.' I'm assuming it's a truck bomb. A couple of uniformed guys, I said, cuff him. I go to Odemat. I told him, 'in ten seconds what just happened.' 'Authority of me declare a level two mobilization.' I had no authority to declare that as a rank of sergeant. 'So authority of inspector Odemat, I'm declaring level two mobilization, which that brings in certain things. And I also set emphasis on the bomb squad.' The truck was cleared. The mural definitely made a lot of people nervous.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So, okay, me and her, I don't know, approaching the firehouse. We're kinda looking at the firehouse, and next thing we hear people screaming and like pointing to a van. From what I remember of this incident was, I think it was a U Haul truck and on the side of the U Haul truck had a mural at the Twin Towers on the side and a plane going into the Twin Towers. And that's why all these people were screaming, and and I end up pulling my gun out, taking this guy out gunpoint, laying him on the ground right next to the vehicle. And as I'm doing this, I tell the EMS girl that I'm with, I go, we survived the building collapse.
We're not gonna survive this. I'm assuming it's a truck bomb that, you know, it was just we were we were in for another round of explosions, I guess. So a couple of uniformed guys there, I said, cuff him. I go to Odemat. I told him, you know, in ten seconds what just happened.
He goes, okay. Authority of me declare a level two mobilization. I had no authority to declare that as a rank of sergeant. So authority of inspector Odemat, I'm declaring level two mobilization, which that brings in certain things. And I also set emphasis on the bomb squad.
And so that got obviously a rapid response to my area. They kept him. They kept him and kept him in cuff, and he was taken away. The truck was cleared. The truck was completely empty in the back, but the mural on the side of the truck definitely made a lot of people nervous.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The @AE911Truth interview with NYPD Sergeant Richard Bylicki includes more details about this mysterious box truck and its driver. But that’s not the whole story… ⬇️ https://t.co/YjxoxuUyfE
Video Transcript AI Summary
It would the guy did say he rented it from Jersey, and he was coming in to do business.
And he didn't say what business from which No.
Right. So it's not necessarily from the U Haul company. It was just a truck that looked like the same kinds that U Haul uses. Correct?
Okay. Alright. That's interesting. And the mural mean, did it look like you say vinyl, but did it look like an artist painted this, or did it look like somebody like, was like a sticker that was put on or something like that?
I would probably have to say a sticker.
What was description of the guy? Was it what race, age roughly?
I'm just gonna say from what I remember, dark skinned. I don't think he was black. I would just say darker skinned.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It would the guy did say he rented it from Jersey, and he was coming in to do business.
Speaker 1: And he didn't say what business from which No.
Speaker 0: I was not interested in that. That's what we have detectives for to
Speaker 1: Right. So it's not necessarily from the U Haul company. It was just a truck that looked like the same kinds that U Haul uses. Correct?
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. That's interesting. And the mural mean, did it look like you say vinyl, but did it look like an artist painted this, or did it look like somebody like, was like a sticker that was put on or something like that?
Speaker 0: I would probably have to say a sticker. Where exactly was the the truck when you saw it? Like, in terms of which street, which which block? One block off the Westside Highway. Probably about 10 blocks away from the World Trade Center.
Speaker 1: What was description of the guy? Was it what race, age roughly?
Speaker 0: I'm just gonna say from what I remember, dark skinned. I don't think he was black. I would just say darker skinned.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] This NYPD officer’s testimony is similar to a 9/11 video posted to YouTube 12 years ago where bystanders mention hearing of the same truck. But it gets weirder… ⬇️ https://t.co/5kP6eGanAK
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers describe a chaotic scene in the rain, with gunfire and people running. "They're actually so rainy. Oh, shit. They're shooting. Serious. I get saw a people and running. I told them, like, do do." They discuss rumors or unclear details, asking, "you hear that they have a bot they caught a bus? Like A buck or a a truck?" Another line adds a terse note: "A bank on the bombs, guys." A further claim follows: "Oh, no. Somebody said there was a truck. They had a picture of the World Trade Center with a plane flying into it. They caught it. Damn."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They're actually so rainy. Oh, shit. They're shooting. Serious. I get saw a people and running.
I told them, like, do do
Speaker 1: you hear that they have a bot they caught a bus? Like A buck or a a truck?
Speaker 0: A bank on the bombs, guys.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. Somebody said there was a truck. They had a picture of the World Trade Center with a plane flying into it. They caught it. Damn.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] NYPD police scanner audio from 9/11 also picked up reports of the same suspicious box truck… so why didn’t this ever become headline news? More info in next post ⬇️ https://t.co/D5txIc6yo5
Video Transcript AI Summary
9415, you on? Anybody advise the ten ten stations, operated? Copy. Negative. About give an update on the plane. Spencer, I got a message on that, plane. It's it's a it's a big truck with a mural painted of a of an airplane diving into New York City and exploding. Know what's in the truck. The truck is in between Sixth And Seventh on King Street.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 9415, you on? Anybody advise the ten ten stations, operated? Copy. Negative. About give an update on the plane.
Spencer, I got a message on that, plane. It's it's a it's a big truck with a mural painted of a of an airplane diving into New York City and exploding. Know what's in the truck. The truck is in between Sixth And Seventh on King Street.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] An alleged photo of this suspicious box truck has been floating around the web for years, but it appears to be an artist’s rendering and not the real thing. What is 100% real is the account from NYPD officer Richard Bylicki. Full interview below ⬇️ https://t.co/MnFBlaHHYP
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The Youtube video of bystanders talking about the truck is here: https://youtu.be/XNiBJbkxdpo?si=MBt8vxydc9BFJFjT Watch the full interview of NYPD sergeant Richard Bylicki from @AE911Truth here: https://youtu.be/T7KNuWNaW1E?si=LTp--C_7_RpcgH01
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] NYPD police scanner audio from 9/11 also picked up reports of the same suspicious box truck… so why didn’t this ever become headline news? More info in next post ⬇️ https://t.co/D5txIc6yo5
Video Transcript AI Summary
9415, you on? Anybody advise the ten ten stations, operated? Copy. Negative. About give an update on the plane. Spencer, I got a message on that, plane. It's it's a big truck with a mural painted of a of an airplane diving into New York City and exploding. Know what's in the truck. The truck is in between Sixth And Seventh on King Street.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 9415, you on? Anybody advise the ten ten stations, operated? Copy. Negative. About give an update on the plane.
Spencer, I got a message on that, plane. It's it's a it's a big truck with a mural painted of a of an airplane diving into New York City and exploding. Know what's in the truck. The truck is in between Sixth And Seventh on King Street.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] This NYPD officer’s testimony is similar to a 9/11 video posted to YouTube 12 years ago where bystanders mention hearing of the same truck. But it gets weirder… ⬇️ https://t.co/5kP6eGanAK
Video Transcript AI Summary
Transcript depicts a chaotic scene in the rain: "They're actually so rainy. Oh, shit. They're shooting. Serious. I get saw a people and running." Speaker 0 notes the shooting and people running, adding, "I told them, like, do do." Speaker 1 asks, "you hear that they have a bot they caught a bus? Like A buck or a a truck?" Speaker 0 adds, "A bank on the bombs, guys." Then Speaker 1 says, "Oh, no. Somebody said there was a truck. They had a picture of the World Trade Center with a plane flying into it. They caught it. Damn."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They're actually so rainy. Oh, shit. They're shooting. Serious. I get saw a people and running.
I told them, like, do do
Speaker 1: you hear that they have a bot they caught a bus? Like A buck or a a truck?
Speaker 0: A bank on the bombs, guys.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. Somebody said there was a truck. They had a picture of the World Trade Center with a plane flying into it. They caught it. Damn.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] There were thousands of computers in the Twin Towers. Thousands of desks. Thousands of chairs. Thousands of phones. In an earthquake collapse, they are usually found - damaged, but identifiable. Why were virtually all of them vaporized on 9/11? https://t.co/g5wdoyoxn6
Video Transcript AI Summary
There wasn't much that you could say you could describe.
Everywhere was, everything was dust and metal.
There was there was no typewriters.
There was no chairs.
There was no there was no nothing.
Everything was pulverized.
There wasn't a computer screen,
laptop that there's no office.
I mean, it it was, you know, 210 story buildings of office equipment.
You don't find a chair.
You don't find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad, and it was about this big.
There wasn't one thing that resembled an office building, and this was the biggest office building in the world.
And I haven't seen a door.
I haven't seen a phone.
I haven't seen a computer.
I haven't seen a doorknob.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There wasn't much that you could say you could describe. Everything was, everything was dust and metal. There was there was no typewriters. There was no chairs. There was no there was no nothing.
Everything had been crushed.
Speaker 1: Everything was pulverized. There was, you know, there were no desks. There were no phones. There were, you know, maybe now and then you find a fragment of something, but basically everything was just pulverized. There wasn't a computer screen,
Speaker 2: a
Speaker 1: laptop that there's no office. I mean, it it was, you know, 210 story buildings of office equipment.
Speaker 2: You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad, and it was about this big. It was devastation. There wasn't one thing that resembled an office building, and this was the biggest office building in the world.
Speaker 0: And I haven't seen a door. I haven't seen a phone. I haven't seen a computer. I haven't seen a doorknob.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared observations about the presence of molten steel at ground zero weeks after 9/11, which contradicts the idea that jet fuel and office fires could have caused it. Many first responders reported seeing this molten steel, leading to the question of its origin. I discussed thermite, an incendiary capable of melting steel, and highlighted a photo from cleanup worker Duane Matters, who documented hot steel at the site. His experiences revealed that fires burned deep in the rubble for months, and scientists later found something in the dust that could explain the molten steel.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Is this a lava flow from an active volcano? Is it burning embers from a campfire? No. It’s red-hot molten steel from the Twin Towers at ground zero - 7 weeks AFTER 9/11. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg ⬇️ https://t.co/SPOAOoLpRA
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Numerous 9/11 first responders and cleanup workers reported seeing molten steel at ground zero. The problem is that jet fuel and office fires can’t get nearly hot enough to melt steel. Do you know what can? See below ⬇️ https://t.co/CTNzpEnQKr
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to speakers, deep within the wreckage of the World Trade Center, they observed what appeared to be molten lava or molten steel. One speaker described it as bright orange and moving like a volcano eruption. Another speaker stated they saw pockets of molten steel while searching for bodies and witnessed molten steel running down channel rails, resembling a foundry. Beams were reportedly melted due to intense fires, with molten steel being dug out. Molten metal was also said to have dripped down the sides of a wall from Building 6. These molten areas allegedly remained hot for days.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Further down into that pile I got, the more I could make out what what looked like from a science fiction movie molten lava. Okay? And it was way down deeper in inside this this this nightmare, but it was it was it was it was it was bright orange and and and moving like you would see in a in a volcano eruption in a movie.
Speaker 1: What we had in the World Trade Center, and I saw myself, was molten lava like pockets of molten steel. Alright? I spent the night on the pile searching for bodies, and I saw that with my own eyes. Down below, and you'd see molten steel. Yeah.
Like a little Molten steel running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry. Mhmm. Yeah. Like lava.
Like like it was lava from a volcano.
Speaker 0: The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug out.
Speaker 1: Ground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of a wall from Building 6.
Speaker 0: And these these molten, areas stayed hot and stayed very molten for days and days.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Thermite is an incendiary designed to melt steel and burn for extended periods, including underwater. Its advanced variant, nanothermite, is much more powerful. And it matches what the 9/11 worker photographed. See next post ⬇️ https://t.co/ApLHGtWaTO
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thermite devices purportedly exist for building demolitions and can be found via Google search. Thermite cutting charges are quieter than RDX explosives, using thermal heating to melt steel. Infrared overflights detected 1,400-degree Fahrenheit hotspots at ground zero for a week. Thermite could explain why fires at ground zero couldn't be extinguished, as they burned deep within the pile in oxygen-starved environments. Thermite contains its own oxygen within the metallic oxide, allowing the incendiary reaction to occur even underwater.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you do a search on Google for thermite and building demolition, you can find devices that have been fabricated and invented that use thermite for building demolitions.
Speaker 1: In the case of thermite cutting charges, you would have heard far less noise since they are worked by, thermal heating, melting of the steel rather than an explosive cutting as in RDX charges. Overflights had detected, with infrared camera 1,400 degree Fahrenheit hot spots on the surface, of ground zero. And, that being there for a week, you know, indicates that there was something very hot going on below the surface.
Speaker 0: So thermite would also explain potentially the fact that the fires could not be put out at ground zero. The fires lasted for quite a while, but most importantly, they were deep within the pile where people would expect that the environment was oxygen starved. And thermite could explain this because it has its oxygen within. It's actually the metallic oxide that provides the oxidant to allow the incendiary thermite reaction to occur even underwater.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The photo came from a news article in which 9/11 cleanup worker Duane Matters shares photos of his time at ground zero. The caption below the photo says “Oct. 30, 2001, photo shows hot steel at pile”. From the article: “Fires at the site burned deep down in the rubble pile and burned for months, into early January.” “The fires were so bad that Matters went through three pairs of boots in the first month.” “One night, Matters, who wore a bicycle strobe on his hard hat, was out with an operating group, wielding a grappler. He picked up a piece of steel on the pile and exposed an area that was still hot. The spot flared up and burned for about an hour, creating a smoke cone around him, Matters said.” Eventually, scientists discovered something in the 9/11 dust that explains the source of the molten steel. See comment below ⬇️
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Did this FBI translator know the future? Sibel Edmonds is known for calling out the government’s foreknowledge of 9/11. But in this deposition, she explains how intel agencies compromise politicians - long before the Epstein scandal went viral. (1/2) https://t.co/Dz3WulKozC
Video Transcript AI Summary
A former FBI language specialist claims Turkish organizations use blackmail, in addition to money, to influence US politicians. According to the speaker, they collected compromising information on a congresswoman, who is married with children but bisexual, by sending a Turkish female agent to have a sexual relationship with her, filming the encounters in her bugged townhouse. The speaker doesn't know if the congresswoman complied with their requests, which included congressional favors and her husband's assistance with illegal operations in his high-level position within her state.
The speaker learned of this through intelligence gathering methods, including intercepted communications and surveillance. The speaker says foreign entities often use a "hooking period" to find vulnerabilities like sexual preferences or financial issues, offering small favors before resorting to blackmail to obtain sensitive information. The Turkish entities allegedly wanted the congresswoman's opposition to the Armenian genocide resolution and her influence regarding illegal businesses in her district. The speaker also mentioned that foreign entities were aware of morally questionable activities involving Mr. Hastard in a townhouse, but whether that was used for blackmail is unknown.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Turkish these Turkish organizations and operatives, if they can't do it via money, do it via blackmail. So they collect information on sexual lives and other information like that. Mhmm. And with this particular congresswoman, between 2000 and until I left, they and this individual this congresswoman is married with children, grown children, but she is bisexual. So they had sent Turkish female agents, and that Turkish female agent worked for Turkish government, and had sexual relationship with this congresswoman in her townhouse, actually in this area.
And and the entire episodes of their sexual conduct was being filmed because the entire house, this congressional woman's house is bugged was bugged. And so they had all that documented to be used for certain, things that they wanted to request, but I left. So I don't know whether she, that congress congresswoman complied and gave that's why I couldn't use her name because I don't I meant her face because I don't know if she did anything illegal afterwards. But she was there are things information was being collected for blackmail purposes and her lesbian relationship. And they the the Turkish entities wanted both congressional related favoritism from her, but also her husband was in a high position in the area in the state she was, elected from.
And the these Turkish entities ran certain illegal operations, and they wanted her husband's help. But I don't know if she provided them with with those. I left. I was terminated.
Speaker 1: Can and can you tell me how you know all that? Everything you just told me?
Speaker 0: I can't discuss the intelligence gathering method by the FBI, but in general terms, when foreign targets among themselves discuss how they were going to achieve certain goals, objectives, and if that those communications are collected and recorded, not only that you patients but, you, in some cases, the involved field office can send surveillance team to see that actually they implemented. For example, they say that somebody says at 05:00 they're gonna bug this house. Survey surveillance team would go and see that, yeah, in fact, these people broke it. And so there were various ways that things were collected.
Speaker 1: Right. So the the just to make sure I understand this, Turkish entities were at least preparing to blackmail this congresswoman.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: And is this congresswoman still a sitting member
Speaker 0: of congress? Yes.
Speaker 1: And why if you know they wanna blackmail in this congressman?
Speaker 0: I don't know what reasons they had, why they just didn't do money. They needed I was trained as a language specialist by my agent for to find pertinent information. And one of the things that we were taught in the FBI, everyone was thought in the counterintelligence, that the target US persons, whether they are congress or executive branch or whatever, first go by foreign entities through what they refer to as hooking period. And it was very common. It's a very common way of trying to find vulnerabilities, and that is sexual, financial, any other kinds of greeds, and it was done a lot.
It was being done a lot. And in some cases, certain people from Pentagon would send a list of individuals with access to sensitive data, whether weapons technology or nuclear technology, And this information would include all their sexual preference, how much they owed on their homes, if they had gambling issues. And the department, high level state department person would provide it to these foreign operatives. And those foreign operatives then would go and hook those Pentagon people whether they were at Rand or some other Air Force base. And then the hooking period would take sometimes six months, sometimes one year.
They would ask for a small favor. But eventually, after they would do the targets, the US person some small favor, then they would go blackmail and then that person would give them everything. Nuclear related information, weapons related information, it always worked for them. So it was not always money.
Speaker 1: If if you know, what was it that the these Turkish entities wanted from this congresswoman?
Speaker 0: I know for sure that Armenian genocide was won, but also where she came from, that city, where she the district where she came from is where certain Turkish operatives, lobby groups run illegal businesses for fundraising for themselves to to to generate money. And for laundering that money, they needed her influence in that is from and also her husband because her husband was also involved at some high level position of an elected person with where she came from. And they had another representative who was making it possible, but supposedly she at that point was kind of was an obstacle. That's all I know.
Speaker 1: In in your experience, I mean, was this hooking technique used with other members of congress by Tucker Sanders?
Speaker 0: Well, when I work for the FBI, I I work on operations that were not only current but a specific period of 1996 till February, February. So there were a lot of things that a certain field office had provided me to go over and some of that I didn't complete. But one example would be with regard to mister Hastard. For example, he used a townhouse that was not his residence and for certain not very morally accepted activities. Now whether that was being used as blackmail, I don't know.
But the fact that foreign entities knew about this, in fact, they sometimes participated in some of those, not maybe morally. While activities in that particular townhouse that was supposed to be an office, not a house, residence, a certain hour, certain days, evenings of the week. So I can't say if that was used as blackmail or not, but certain activities, they were they were shared. They were known.
Speaker 1: The when when with respect to the congresswoman, who they were, you don't know you don't know what happened ultimately because you left. Right? Or you were Correct. But with respect to that congresswoman, you said one of the things that they wanted was, you said, Armenian genocide. I assume you were referring to the fact they wanted her support to oppose the Armenian genocide resolution.
Speaker 0: Yes.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] What made Tucker Carlson turn against the Republican establishment? Ted Cruz probably doesn’t know… but we do. It had something to do with 9/11… https://t.co/QHTgkmVdhv
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane. A video clip shows the building's collapse, described as reminiscent of a controlled demolition.
One speaker recalls news reports announcing the building's collapse before it happened. Another speaker, with a background in fire protection and insurance, states that a 47-story building doesn't typically collapse due to fire.
One speaker admits to previously attacking 9/11 conspiracy theorists but now questions the official narrative, particularly regarding Building 7. An Alaskan structural engineering professor's four-year study allegedly debunks the NIST analysis of the collapse. Molten steel was reportedly present in the Twin Towers. The symmetrical nature of Building 7's collapse is questioned, with one speaker suggesting it resembles a controlled demolition.
One speaker suggests they broadened the Overton window on the topic because they were part of the cover-up and feel guilty.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alleging not simply a cover up by the US government, but by the entire American media. It's totally implausible. Like, we would report that if that were true. Tucker, not quite entire. One thing to hold on to.
How you make this these claims or appear to make these claims. Do you have any
Speaker 1: Let's go to the top here. Sure. Sure. Let's start with the collapse of Building 7. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm not sure if we can. Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. No. I've seen conveniently.
I know. And if there's any evidence that the government's behind 911, what's I I believe anything if there's evidence, but there isn't evidence. So knock it off.
Speaker 2: That's seen Building 7 collapse, the Solomon Brothers Building?
Speaker 0: No. I wanna show you that right now.
Speaker 3: Now here, we're gonna show you a videotape of the collapse itself. Describe that feeling. Go to videotape the collapse of this building. It's amazing. Amazing.
Incredible. Pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately store destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.
Speaker 0: Was this after the collapse of the other two?
Speaker 2: Yes. So she's saying it's fallen, Building 7.
Speaker 4: Familiar New York skyline, a symbol on by the mayor Rudy Giuliani, much earlier today, because of the course, the dreadful collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. But, New York very much a city still in chaos. The phones are not working properly.
Speaker 2: They announced Building 7 fell twenty five minutes before it did, and then Lyden said this wasn't real and later admitted it. And we have the up close footage of CNN. Police saying, get back. They're gonna bring it down.
Speaker 0: Walking back to the building about to blow here. Alright, guys? We are walking about to up. We're
Speaker 3: It's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by world place dynamite in Michael Brown.
Speaker 2: What do you think of that?
Speaker 0: You know, I'm not a structural engineer. I think it's upsetting to watch it. I remember when that happened. I mean, look, I have no idea. I I don't know any I mean, I I don't understand how buildings collapse.
I don't understand how Building 7 collapsed. What what actually happened with Building 7? Like, that is weird, right? It doesn't
Speaker 5: what is
Speaker 0: that? If you were to say something like that on television, they'd flip out. They would flip out. You should, like, lose your job over that. Why?
Why? But it's an entirely fair question. It is not crazy to ask how did those buildings collapse in the way they did, particularly the building that was not hit by a plane. Like, what was that? And you get to a certain point where you realize people are lying right to your face.
What began to make me wonder, and I have no idea what happened to nine eleven, but it's very clear that there's a lot of lying around it, was the collapse of Building 7. And all the wackos would be like, Building 7, Building 7. I'd be like, shut up, wackos. And then if you just sort of look at it, you're like, well, that is very weird, actually. No plane hit that building, and it does this happen a lot when buildings catch fire?
Right. Okay.
Speaker 5: Besides being a firefighter, I worked for the INA, largest insurance company in North America. I was responsible for training their fire protection arson people for eighteen years. That doesn't happen. You never have a 47 story building just collapse, which this is. By the way, I never
Speaker 0: questioned anything about nine eleven, and I actively attacked people who did. I'm ashamed of that, but that's a fact. I did it on tape more than once. Because my feeling was, well, you know, like, that's divisive or whatever. I was a child and an idiot.
Now that you've looked into it and you said you don't have a coherent theory as to what it was, but you've got a lot of questions, which questions trouble you the most?
Speaker 6: Well, starts with Building seven. Yes. Where you look at that and it just yeah. I mean, this this is really weird. You know, it it does come down just like a, you know, building demolition type of project.
You you get a documentary of this Alaskan structural engineering professor that does a four year study on it. Pretty well debunks NIST analysis. Again, you don't have to be a structural engineer to say this really doesn't make sense. When you start putting together at what temperature steel melts, They had molten steel in the the Twin Towers, and I'm not sure we had a number seven. But if if one column said in one column expanded, went off kilter, and that's what brought the whole thing down, well, it wouldn't come down so symmetrically.
You wouldn't have a free fall. You know, why have you been so instrumental in broadening the Overton window on some of these things? And and, of course, the Overton window is is is all is all about this is what you can discuss without threat or without, you know, risk. And but you gotta go beyond that. So
Speaker 0: because I was part of the cover up, and I feel guilty about it. That's why. And I'm trying to atone for my previous sense. That's the real reason.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Iran’s leaders knew the official 9/11 story was bogus and dared to say it. Now a 9/11-style false flag could be launched to bring the US into full war with Iran. Will the truth prevent this from happening again? https://t.co/dUuiHKePQy
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are three viewpoints regarding responsibility for the September 11 attack. The prevalent view, supported by American statesmen, is that a powerful terrorist group carried out the attack. Another viewpoint is that segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, maintain its hold on the Middle East, and save the Zionist regime; the majority of Americans and most nations agree with this view. A third viewpoint, with fewer proponents, is that a terrorist group carried out the attack, but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Evidence includes recovered passports and a video of an individual involved in oil deals with American officials. Questions remain about why a thorough investigation by independent groups was not conducted to identify those involved and create a rational plan of action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In identifying those responsible behind the September 11 attack, there were three viewpoints. that a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security carried out the attack. This is the prevalent viewpoint which has been supported mainly and advocated by American statesmen that some segments within the U. S. Government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime.
The majority of the American people, as well as most nations and politicians around the world, agree with this view. it was carried out by a terrorist group, but that the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence for this viewpoint links the incident with a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown, but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire, no trace of suicide attackers was found.
Regardless of each of these three viewpoints, there remain a few questions to be answered. would it not have been sensible that a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them.
reSee.it AI Summary
I noticed that what initially appears to be an apocalypse film is actually a color video of a 9/11 survivor fleeing the Twin Towers. Upon closer inspection, scientists analyzed the dust from that day and discovered tiny particles with incendiary properties capable of melting steel and causing skyscrapers to collapse—this is known as nanothermite. This advanced military technology, developed for destructive purposes, generates heat energy significantly faster and can be combined with other compounds for explosive effects.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] What do you notice in this apocalypse film? Look closer, and you’ll realize it’s not an apocalypse film. It’s color video of a 9/11 survivor driving away from the Twin Towers after they came down. Zoom in, and you’ll find something shocking in the dust. (1/3) ⬇️ https://t.co/jnPweGfgKj
Video Transcript AI Summary
Most or all of the staff have been evacuated from the building. It's unclear if this is routine. Calls into the building are not going through. The police began yelling "run, run," and thousands of people started running away from the building just as they were falling, possibly from as low as the Thirtieth Floor. The speaker is in Downtown Manhattan. There is coordinated leadership of police, fire, health, and all city agencies responding to the emergency. They plan for this kind of event, and it is not a unique occurrence in New York City or the country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's go, man. They have stated that it's unclear. We know in the past that would be the routine. We do not have a direct answer as yet. But the most of the staff is if not all of the staff has been evacuated from the Well, again, here is something.
If they're not able to get any calls into the building right now tells me because she was a little closer to the building that the police began yelling run, run, and thousands of people started running away from the building just as they were falling. That was, of course, have fallen away, maybe down as low as the Thirtieth Floor. And, again, just because we lost a little bit at the beginning, where are you physically now? This is I'm just down in Downtown Manhattan. Uh-huh.
10 to 15 coordinated leadership of police, fire, health, all the city agencies responding to that emergency. We plan for this kind of event. Unfortunately, this is not a unique occurrence in the life of New York City or our country. I'm trying to use We have Do you need to confirm?
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] A team of scientists put the 9/11 dust under a microscope and found tiny particles that possess extremely powerful incendiary properties when ignited - the kind that can melt steel instantly and bring down a skyscraper. Welcome to nanothermite. (2/3) ⬇️ https://t.co/S6l6zlMuym
Video Transcript AI Summary
Unreacted thermitic material, in the shape of tiny red/gray chips, was found. The reaction produces molten iron, indicating a thermitic reaction that can destroy steel structures. This is a modern version of thermite, called nanothermite, produced through a bottom-up procedure at the atom scale, a process used in nanotechnology.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The dust, found what we characterize as unreacted thermitic material, in the shape of some very tiny red, gray chips. And, in the reaction they produce molten iron, which is the prime indication of a thermitic reaction. And such a reaction can be used to destroy steel structures. What we have found is a modern version of thermite, which we call nanothermite, which is produced in a different way. It is not just two powders being mixed.
The material is actually built from the atom scale up. We call it the bottom up procedure, which is what you do in nanotechnology.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Nanothermite is not science fiction. It’s an advanced military technology developed for destructive applications. Not only does it generate heat energy much higher and faster than thermite, it can be mixed with other compounds to gain explosive power. (3/3) https://t.co/dsX8bown0L
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Thanks @bennyjohnson for bringing attention to this crucial issue. The truth of 9/11 may be disturbing, but it contains the key to dismantling the Deep State. https://t.co/eGGpXYwGXQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Firefighters and other witnesses reported explosions at the World Trade Center on September 11th. One firefighter described a "heavy duty explosion" as they entered the lobby, causing the building to collapse. Others reported a second explosion and rumble, or a "big explosion" much lower in the building. Some believe these were secondary explosions from devices planted before or on the aircraft. One theory suggests a car or truck packed with explosives detonated under the buildings. According to one speaker, 118 firefighters testified to witnessing explosions inside and outside the buildings. This testimony has allegedly been buried or ignored. Explosions were reportedly part of the events at all three towers in New York.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you really want a black pill, then you'll go and listen to the firefighters, the people who are in the buildings themselves, and you'll give the respect to the people who most likely suffered greatly, died of cancer, carcinomas, and so on that happened to all of these people that inhaled everything after these buildings collapsed, you'll listen to them. And here's what they had to say.
Speaker 1: As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway Give me your phone number. There was an, heavy duty explosion. The whole building just collapsed on us inside the lobby. Is that a secondary explosion? Yes.
It was. That was the plan in front
Speaker 2: of you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Definitely a secondary explosion.
Speaker 3: Heard a second explosion and another rumble.
Speaker 2: An hour later than that, we had that big explosion from much, much lower.
Speaker 3: It just went, ba boom. It was like a bomb went off. And another explosion came right behind my desk. Everyone flying.
Speaker 1: There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building. It was con there were continuous explosions.
Speaker 3: No. The first the first explosion, and there was a second explosion in the same building. There were two explosions.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Federal agencies that were down there do believe that there was some sort of explosive device somewhere else besides the planes hitting.
Speaker 4: There was another explosion that took place, in one of the towers here. So, obviously, he according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
Speaker 1: It was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later. Then there was a secondary explosions and then the subsequent collapses.
Speaker 5: That the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.
Speaker 3: Now that's the first time we're hearing that. So two planes and explosives that were in the building. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: That is the working theory at this point.
Speaker 0: Did you know that 118 different firefighters gave testimony that they witnessed explosions inside and outside of the building on September 11. Much of this testimony has either been buried or ignored. Explosions were part of the three towers in New York.
reSee.it AI Summary
Curt Weldon, former congressman, claims the Bush administration retaliated against him for questioning the 9/11 report by targeting his family and ending his political career. At 77, he aims to reveal the truth about the events of September 11, 2001. The discussion touches on various topics, including the CIA's potential role in preventing the attacks, the legitimacy of the 9/11 Commission, and the implications of declassifying related documents. Participants also debate the circumstances surrounding the South Tower's collapse and the actions of those inside the buildings.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
After twenty years in congress, Curt Weldon was about to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee when he publicly questioned the accuracy of the 9-11 report. In retaliation, the Bush administration sent federal agents to his daughter’s house and ended his political career. At 77, Weldon has decided to tell the truth about what actually happened on September 11, 2001. (0:00) Introduction (2:33) Why Did They Oust Weldon? (7:12) Could the CIA Have Prevented 9-11? (16:00) How the FBI Tried to Intimidate Weldon (19:23) Did the CIA Lie About Osama bin Laden’s Location? (25:47) The Real Culprit Behind America’s Wars in the Middle East (31:27) Trump’s Biggest Challenge Right Now (33:11) How the Deep State Undermined Weldon’s Political Career (43:16) Will Weldon Be Killed for Speaking Out? (48:04) Why Hillary Clinton Had to Take Down Gaddafi (49:31) The 9-11 Commission Was a Scam (55:17) The Mysterious Collapse of Building 7 (1:05:13) How Will This Revelation Impact America’s Future? (1:07:56) The Bush Administration and China (1:14:32) Why Politicians Are So Scared of Declassifying 9-11 Documents (1:20:14) Where Can Americans Find the Truth About 9-11? Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kurt Weldon, a former congressman, claims the official 9/11 story is a cover-up. He alleges that prior to 9/11, an intelligence team called Able Danger identified Al Qaeda cells, including the New York cell, but were blocked from sharing this information with the FBI. Weldon states that former FBI Director Louie Free believed this information could have prevented 9/11.
Weldon says that after 9/11, he received information that Bin Laden was in Iran, not Afghanistan, and that the CIA refused to confirm or deny these reports. He also claims that the Bush administration hid this fact. According to Weldon, the 9/11 Commission, led by Philip Zelikow, was part of the cover-up. He says Zelikow was briefed in advance about Able Danger's findings.
Weldon believes elements within the US government allowed 9/11 to happen. He says that after he began questioning the official narrative, the FBI raided his daughter's house, an act he sees as politically motivated. Weldon also alleges that Building 7's collapse suggests controlled demolition. He calls for a new presidential commission to investigate 9/11.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We recorded the interview you're about to watch five days ago, and I've been thinking about it ever since. It's with a former congressman from Pennsylvania called Kurt Weldon. Kurt Weldon was a very significant figure in Washington twenty years ago. He was not some obscure backbencher. He was one of the most powerful Republicans in the congress about to take over the armed services committee until he asked questions about the official story on 09:11.
At which point, the Bush administration sent the FBI to his daughter's house, destroyed her life, never charged her with a crime, and effectively got Kurt Weldon bounced out of congress. I haven't talked to him in twenty years. I didn't know exactly what to expect, but this conversation, the one you're about to see, raises far more questions than I ever anticipated. This is not a crazy person. These are not crazy questions.
He makes no claims he doesn't have personal firsthand evidence of. When it ended, I asked him how many other officials who were in and around Washington during nine eleven have similar questions. And he said to me, as far as I know, all of them, and he's still in touch with a lot of those people. After this conversation, which again we've been thinking about ever since, I thought it might be time to look a little more deeply into the nine eleven commission report. Was it accurate?
Nine eleven changed The United States forever. Those of us who remember it, who lived through it, can tell you this was a different country afterward, completely different, and not a better country. And so there is no more significant historical event in the lifetimes of any living American than nine eleven. And the fact that there are still outstanding questions about what exactly happened and why is troubling. Up until this point, most of the people who've addressed these questions are either crazy or seem slightly crazy.
Now is the time for a sober look, not a wild eyed speculative look, but an honest look and honest conversations with people who participated in the response to that day, government officials. And so we're gonna do that. We are planning right now a multipart documentary series on 09:11, and we hope to bring that to you as soon as we possibly can. And now former congressman Kurt Weldon. Congressman, thank you so much for doing this.
I haven't seen you in twenty years. I one of the last times I thought about you was right around 02/2006, and I'm you had been a frequent guest on the show that I was hosting then, and I read that the FBI had raided your daughter's house. And I thought, man, I was like Kirtweld, and I guess he's corrupt. And then I never heard never heard anything about it, and then you lost that election to a guy who I was that was kind of repulsive. And then probably fifteen years passed, and I thought to myself, wait a second.
Kurt Weldon was the only Republican I'm aware of who criticized The US response, the intel agency's response to nine eleven, who wrote a book blaming elements of the US government for allowing nine eleven to happen and then covering it up. And then right on the cusp of becoming tell me if I'm getting this wrong, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the FBI raids your daughter's house, and you lose an election in which your opponent has funding from all over The United States. Never no one's ever heard of this guy. He's got more money, and you're out of congress. And I began to think maybe this was a setup, so I thought I would ask you.
Speaker 1: Well, it definitely was, and you're always one of my heroes. I enjoyed your show with Paul Begala and Thanks. When I did had it many
Speaker 0: years ago.
Speaker 1: All the others and enjoyed and and I was always I took my work very seriously. I'm a teacher by profession, youngest of nine kids, firefighter as a volunteer all my life, and that's my devotion even to this day. I don't get any money for it, but it's what I'm committed to and why I care about nine eleven so much. I was at 09:11 I was not 09:11. I was at Trade Center in '93 at the invitation of fire commissioner Howard Safer to go up there and learn about what had occurred the first time they attacked us.
And they introduced me to a young fire officer, former marine, five kids named Ray Downey. He became one of my best friends. Ray told me what he thought we should do. I took his advice seriously and wrote the legislation to create the Gilmore Commission. The Gilmore Commission was chaired by Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, a a man of integrity.
I had him on a podcast last September for twenty minutes, and the Gilmore commission's recommendations were largely what the nine eleven commission took credit for after the fact. One of those recommendations was to have a fusion center of intelligence be put together. At the time I was doing this on behalf of the firefighters to deal with disasters, I was in the position to oversee the funding as the chairman of all military research and technology funding, about a hundred and $80,000,000,000. The services were building information dominant centers. The armies was at Fort Belvoir, and I would get down there regularly and meet with them, and we became good friends.
I didn't bother getting ready into the program. I didn't need to, but I knew what they were using with new software like Starlight Inspires and Fusion and data mining and analysis and and LinkAnalysis. This is gonna be important to prevent what happened in '93. Yes. So I supported
Speaker 0: Which was the first bombing of the world's
Speaker 1: bombing. Right. And as a result, I went to John Hamry, deputy secretary of defense under Clinton, and I said, John, you have to go see what they're doing down there. He did. He called me, said, you're right, mister chairman.
And by the way, John Hamry had endorsed me for chairman of the committee in February as did as did Rumsfeld. Yeah. This is before 09/11, obviously. Both endorsed me publicly. I had their letters.
And he said, but you've gotta convince the CIA and the FBI to let us use their raw data because there are 33 classified systems. And if they don't allow us to use their data, this won't succeed. On November the fourth of nineteen ninety nine, in my office in the Rayburn Building, I had John Hamrae, deputy secretary of defense. I had the deputy director of the FBI, and I had their names, and the deputy director of the CIA. And we talked about the NOAA, National Operation Analysis Hub, policymaker, and warfighters tool to deal with emerging transnational terrorist threats, the fusion center.
Hammery said, we need this. I'll I'll manage it. I said, I'll get it funded. The FBI said, great. We're all in.
And the CIA said, we don't want it. We're not supporting it. We're doing something called c I twenty one on our own. I spent two years traveling around the country giving speeches at intelligence forums calling for a fusion center. I put language in two successive defense bills calling for a fusion center.
Nine eleven happens. I get frantic calls from four of those professional staffers at the Able Danger team, which I later learned was the name of this group at Fort Belvoir. We have to see you right away, mister chairman. Scott Philpot, Annapolis grad, navy career, officer, commander of four ships, pleading with me to meet Tony Schaefer, lieutenant colonel, Bronze Star recipient, spy for the military, Aileen Pryce, lieutenant, air force career intelligence officer, expert on computers, and Eric Klein Smith. I met with each of them privately.
They all told me the same story, and they rolled out the charts that I just showed you. Those charts I will make public now because they're not classified. I showed them when I testified before the senate hearing. We identified every cell of Al Qaeda in the world the year before nine eleven. We identified the New York cell, a year before nine eleven.
We knew there was gonna be a problem. The AbleDanger team tried to go to the FBI in just about three times. We have the names. All three times they were stopped. We have the names of the person in the FBI that was told to deny the meetings.
They were not allowed to transfer the information. That information, when I came out with my book, Louie Free, former FBI director, wrote in an op ed in the Wall Street Journal and said on Good Morning America could have prevented nine eleven from happening. That's not me saying that. That's Louie Free. And general Keith Lambert, our general in charge of special operations on horseback, was asked in this award winning book, became a movie, on page 27.
General, what were your thoughts when nine eleven happened? And he said, within seconds, I knew who had done the attack, and I knew it would involve Muhammad Ada. Thirdly, after this all broke and I came out with my book criticizing the agency and started really going crazy protecting these brave heroes that were being abused by defense intelligence. The inspector general for the Pentagon files a whistleblower paper. I have a copy of it.
I'll give it to you. His name is John Crane. He asked for protection because his bosses in DIA refused to allow him to become a whistleblower when he told them that he was told to lie to the congress. He was told to misinform the congress. I have that in writing, Tucker.
The nine eleven commission is a cover up, 1000% cover up. Zelikow was the lead of the cover up.
Speaker 0: Philip Zelikow was
Speaker 1: the Zelikow. He was handpicked by Condoleezza Rice. When when Tony Schaeffer met Zelikow over in Afghanistan, because Zelicow took a team through to see if there were soldiers who had maybe encountered some information about nine eleven in advance. Tony Schafer had been back deployed in Afghanistan at the time, so he told his commanding officer I should talk to them because I was a part of a special team. He met with Zelicow.
They exchanged business cards and Kabul. And Zelicow said to him, lieutenant colonel, you've gotta see me as as soon as you get back to America. It's very important. When Tony went back to The States, they had shut down his office, locked his office, secured all his files, and they then worked to destroy his personal, reputation. They tried to destroy his career.
I went to the floor and did a one hour special order calling it a scandal bigger than Watergate. You can watch the footage. It's available online. I said this is outrageous that the Defense Intelligence Agency is screwing a lieutenant colonel because he's telling the truth about what he was told to talk about when he came back from Afghanistan. Tony Schaeffer then went to work in the reserves because he had been basically harassed by the regular army because of what Zelicow did.
Speaker 0: So so I just wanna back up a couple steps. So you're saying what others have said before, which is that elements of the US government worked really, really hard to hide the fact that they could have prevented nine eleven, that they had all the relevant information and for whatever reason ignored it. But motive really matters here. Do you believe that there were people in The US Government who made a bunch of mistakes or were too territorial and didn't share information with other agencies, therefore nine eleven happened, which is basically the conclusion of the nine eleven report, I think? Or do you believe that there were people in the US government who knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen on purpose?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, the nine eleven report has no credibility.
Speaker 0: I I
Speaker 1: don't believe anything that is in that. It's a bunch of garbage. It's a lot of paper that has no substance. And I tend not to want to speculate on things that I can't prove 100% myself Yes. Or I'm not willing to take a polygraph.
What I can tell you unequivocally is there was a cover up. And before I answer your question, I would state one more fact. Tony Schaeffer got approval from his commanding general after this whole whole thing happened to read his memoirs. His memoirs are called Dark Heart. So he wrote the book.
He had a publisher. The publishers he went to his commanding general to review the book as his protocol. His commanding general said, fine, Tony. There's nothing there that's a problem. Publish it.
Tony publishes the book. Our deep state finds out he's publishing the book. A cease and desist order is issued against the publisher. Stop publishing the book. It's too late.
Our government our government buys all 10,000 copies of the first edition of Dark Heart with taxpayer money, and they destroy them. So I asked Tony on a show last September as I've done many times. Tony, you have the original version of the book. Right? Yes.
Here it is, congressman. You have the redacted version. Right? Yes. Here it is.
What did they want out of your book that was so sensitive? What secret information were you giving, Tony? What classified information did your boss not see? He said, congressman, the only thing they wanted out of my book was the fact that I named Zellekow and that I briefed him in advance. That, Tucker, is treason.
That means our agencies our agencies use their position not for something involving our national security, but for involving a a cover up of a person's identity who was publicly approved by the congress of the United States appointed by the security adviser to president Bush. It's a massive cover up.
Speaker 0: At what point following nine eleven, since I just wanna restate, you served in congress for about twenty years, I Yep. And you really were at the heart of these questions, national security questions in the congress. You were about to become chairman of farm services. So you're at the top of the pyramid for for receiving relevant intelligence. At what point because you weren't just some random guy at all.
At what point after nine eleven, the attacks of that day, did you realize there's something bad going on here?
Speaker 1: Well, it it started before 09:11 when I realized that the intelligence I was getting as the vice chairman of the committee was not really solid intelligence. I would get better information from Bill Gertz, a reporter that you know Yes. Coming to me with anonymous sources leaking to him Yes. About intel matters. And I would then go to the CIA and say, why am I getting this information from a reporter that I know you're leaking from classified sources that I'm not getting as a member of congress who's the vice chairman of the defense committee?
Are you playing games with me? And they wouldn't answer that. And that's what they do. They play games by manipulating the media to put out a narrative, and then we have to deal with that narrative. So, Tucker, what I did, there's a group in Washington that was known as the cockroaches.
They're a group of people that work for the intelligence agencies that get along socially, and I knew them all. They trusted me. I formed a loose net network of about 15 or 20. We met for breakfast every week in the member's dining room in the capital, and they would feed me raw data. They would feed me raw data, then I would go to the classified briefings using that raw data, and I would ask questions of the CIA in front of the entire committee.
And in many cases, I was the acting chairman because the the chairman wasn't there. So here I am, the acting chairman of the entire committee of armed services that fully embarrassed the, the intelligence agencies. I'll get into that when we talk about the 09:11 information, and post 09:11 where they put Bin Laden. The point is that the agency plays games with congress. The congress thinks it's getting good information, and it's not.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The agency wants members fighting with each other over stupid things so they can do what they want. And it's not all. There are good people in the agencies Yes. That I worked with, and I would go to go to war over. But there are some scumbags.
I know those scumbags. At the appropriate time, I'll name those scumbags who have made millions and millions of dollars and are making millions and millions of dollars today. They're making it in Ukraine. They're making it around the world because of context they established. And all that ties back to their positions that they got supposedly working intelligence for The US.
That's not what this country's all about. And you asked about my daughter.
Speaker 0: What happened? So give us the timeline. So you 09/11 happens. You keep ascending in congress, and you really and I remember this well because I interviewed you on these topics at the time twenty years ago when your book came out. And you start saying, wait a second, the US government really blew this.
There are people who knew this was happening, was going to happen, and for whatever reason didn't stop it. And you're really the only Republican who's saying this. And then 02/2006, you're up for reelection. It's an even year, of course, and and you're from your district in Pennsylvania after twenty years. And out of nowhere, the FBI raids your daughter's house, and we're all told it's because she's corrupt, you're corrupt, etcetera, etcetera.
And then you lose, and we kind of lose track of you, and Washington goes on as it does, and no one talks about nine eleven again. I think that's fair to say. I mean, I was there. I I remember when all this happened, though. Didn't it all.
I didn't put it together in my head at all until about a year ago. Was thinking about this in the shower. Whatever happened to Kurt Weldon and his daughter? So I go on the Internet. I'm like, is Kurt Weldon's daughter in prison because she's so corrupt?
Like Never talked to. So so what happened?
Speaker 1: So Okay. Well, here's what
Speaker 0: happened. Thousand six.
Speaker 1: In in in 1999 and February, they wanted me to run for chairman of the committee to jump over four or
Speaker 0: five Which committee? The armed services. Yes.
Speaker 1: But in congress, the protocol is you wait few times. So I have letters, which I can show you, Tucker, from Donald Rumsfeld endorsing me to become chairman of the Armed Services Committee in February.
Speaker 0: Yes. I have
Speaker 1: a letter from from deputy secretary of defense John Hamry endorsing me to become chairman of the committee in February. Dozens and dozens of letters. Then nine eleven happens. I felt personally responsible because I knew that we could have prevented it by the information that the Able Danger team established by general Hugh Shelton had gathered and tried to transfer three times and were blocked. So I said, uh-uh.
I got I owe this to Ray Downey. I'm wearing his jacket today. I owe this to the firefighters in New York and around the country to get to the truth if it's the last thing I do. And I owe it to all those soldiers that we're now sending overseas.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: So what I did, Tucker, I supported George Bush when he said we're going to send our troops over to Afghanistan. He made those heroic comments about we're gonna get them. I took that as a patriotic American and said, yes. We're gonna get them. But I was worried about what the Afghans might do as they did the Russian troops when they were in Afghanistan.
So, Tucker, with Al Santoli, whom you know Yep. And two other members of congress, I privately, without the knowledge of our government or the CIA, I went to, Paris. We met with king Zahir Shah, the king of Afghanistan who was living in exile with his family in Paris. We met with him to convince him to go back to Kabul to convene a lawyer Georgia of all the tribes, to to convince them to accept the American troops before they went in so it wouldn't be like they did with Russia. King Zahir Shah agreed to that.
I'll give you the photographs, Tucker. And I had two members of congress and Al Santoli with me, decorated Vietnam Veteran. Zahir Shah went back. I did all I could to protect our American troops, not the CIA, our troops. Then I find out, my intel team, those 20 people that were feeding me raw data, give me data within months after nine eleven, that Bin Laden's been sited in a town called Ladiz.
I have nowhere no idea where Ladiz is, so I grew up Pennsylvania Avenue to a bookstore and buy a map. I just gave you the map here today, Tucker. You can show it. And I found Ladiz. It's not in Afghanistan.
It's not in Pakistan. It's in Iran, in an area called Balochistan. So I go to the next classified briefing for the full committee. Now I'm the vice chairman of full committee. There are 60 members.
I'm the acting chairman at this time. So I said to the CIA, I have information of bin Laden's in Ladiz. This is their response to me. Mister chairman, we've heard similar reports. We could either confirm or deny them.
I was in shock. I was in shock. We're sending kids to die in Afghanistan, and we can't confirm or deny whether or not Bin Laden's in Ladiz? Three Months go by. I'm still supporting the president.
My intel team comes back to me and say, Kurt, he's being treated at a military hospital outside of Tehran. I go back to the classified briefing, and I ask the question in front of the full committee. And the answer from the CIA is, mister chairman, we've heard similar reports. We can either confirm or deny that Bin Laden is being treated at a military hospital outside of Tehran while we're sending kids to die in Afghanistan. I said, this is outrageous.
And then, Tucker, I get a call from Jack Murtha, the most respected democrat in the house, former marine, who I worked with closely. And he says to me, I want you to meet with Ron Klink, democrat from Pittsburgh. And Ron Klink's still alive. He'll verify this, Tucker. Jack's dead, but Ron's alive.
He said, Jack has a person who used to work for the agency that has information about Iran. And you investigate this kind of stuff, Kurt. Will you meet with him? I said, sure. Ron Klint comes to my office and brings this very tall man who's a former person from the the Swedish area, but he's a US citizen.
And I said, how can I help you? You know, congressman Murphy asked me to help. Ron Klink wants me to help. He said, congressman, I want you to help me get into Iran. I said, why do you wanna go to Iran?
He said, that's where bin Laden is. I said, why would you tell me that bin Laden's in Iran? He said, I was a knock for the agency. Do know what a knock is?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Nonofficial cover.
Speaker 1: That's right. He said, I was a knock for the agency, and I worked that area. And my friends are seeing Bin Laden in Iran. If you help me get to Tehran, I'll leave my identity there. I'll get a piece of him dead or alive, and I'll bring it back.
At the time, there was a $25,000,000 reward for Bin Laden. I said, can't help you right now because I'm in a battle over this follow-up to 09:11. Then I get another call, Tucker, from the interior department, totally separate. They wanna bring in their top bird man, their bird expert. I didn't think that was unusual because I was a Republican on the migratory bird commission.
The migratory bird commission No. There was a migratory oversees all the flyways for all the refuges up and down the coast. I was a Republican. John Conner's
Speaker 0: like me. Thank you, by the way.
Speaker 1: John John Dingle was a Democrat. Of
Speaker 0: course. I've duck hunted with him. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Two senators and three cabinet members. So I figured they wanna talk about birds. I'm on the bird commission. I'll meet with them. So this interior department bird expert brings in a US citizen from Maine who's a Sikh, but he's a US citizen, very wealthy family.
And he's got two falcons on his shoulders, million dollar birds with the blinders on, beautiful, into my office. I said, good boy. They're gorgeous. How can I be? He said, well, congressman, I've devoted my life to falcons.
He said, I helped write the UN protection treaties on falconry. He said, I trained all the children of the royal families in the sport of falconry Yes. Because that's their sport. He said, they all know me. They all trust me.
They all
Speaker 0: In the Arab world. It's huge. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: He said, so and I wanna help the country, and there's a reward for bin I said, yeah. I know that. He said, I want you to help me go to Iran. I said, why do you wanna go to Iran? Now he knows nothing about anything else I'm doing.
My my falconers are seeing Bin Laden's birds flying in Iran. You help me go to Iran. They'll accept me there because they know me. I'll tag his birds, and I'll take The US to exactly where he is. That's four four full source identities that Bin Laden was exactly where my intel people said he was.
Over the course of time, Tucker, I developed 10 silver bullets. They want to do a movie about me after they took me out, and I'll get to when they took me out. I got a call from Michael Scheuer. Michael was career CIA. After I was taken out of office, he called my home.
He said, congressman, do you remember me? I said vaguely, Michael. He said, well, I was the chairman of the Bin Laden task force in the CIA, and these people that you've that have met with you have shown me documents I never saw when I was working in the agency, and I was the Bin Laden task force director. He said, we want you to work with us. We want you to be involved in a movie we're doing.
I said, Michael, after what they did to my family, I can't do it right now. I hung up the phone. I get a call from general McInerney. About three months later, Tom McInerney. He said, congressman, you remember?
I said, yes, general. I remember you. He said, I'd I'd like you to work with us, congressman. I'm working with Michael Scheuer and and the Falconer, and we want you to be I said, I'm not getting involved after what they did to my family. They all had the same story, Tucker.
So what was happening in 02/2006? All my elections were landslides.
Speaker 0: It's one of the saddest things about this country. The country's getting sicker despite all of our wealth and technology. Americans aren't doing well overall. Obesity, heart disease, autoimmune conditions, all kinds of horrible chronic illnesses, weird cancers are all on the rise. Probably a lot of reasons for this, but one of them definitely is Americans don't eat very well anymore.
They don't eat real food. Instead, they eat industrial substitutes, and it's not good. It's time for something new, and that's where masa chips come in. Masa has decided to revive real food by creating snacks how they used to be made, how they're supposed to be made. A masa chip has just three simple ingredients, not a 17.
Three. No seed oils, no artificial additives, just real delicious food. And I know this because we eat a ton of them in my house. And by the way, I feel great. So you can still continue to snack, but you can do it in a healthy way with chips without feeling guilty about it.
Masa chips are delicious. They taste how a tortilla chip is supposed to taste. But the thing is you can hit them really, really hard, and I have, and not feel bloated or sluggish after you feel like you've done something decent for your body. You don't feel like you got a head injury or you don't feel filled with guilt. You feel light and energetic.
It's the kind of snack your grandparents ate. Worth bringing back. So you can go to MasaChips.com. Masa's m a s a, by the way. MasaChips.com/Tucker to start snacking.
Get 25 off. We enjoy them. You will too. Can I just ask you to pause for one second? So you had a lot of evidence, it sounds like Absolute evidence.
That Bin Laden was not in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Right. He was supposedly ultimately killed. Not in Iraq. He was in Iran.
But Iran was also in the crosshairs of the Bush administration. It was part of the so called axis of evil at the time. People were talking about invading Iran then. Why would the Bush administration hide the fact that
Speaker 1: It wasn't the Bush administration. Oh. Let me explain to you. And this is what Trump needs to understand. It started under Clinton when the Clinton administration Bill and Hillary Clinton, I have no respect for, were allowed to be themselves to be used so they could make money.
Tens and tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars because they allowed people, unscrupulous people, to control the agenda in Russia and around the world. And you've been going after some of this involving Russia. I can give you dozens of hard examples.
Speaker 0: I believe it. We've we've talked about this off camera, but I just wanna get to specifically Continued? Who was hiding the fact that Bin Laden was in Iran and why?
Speaker 1: Okay. It continued under Bush junior. Yep. And as I said, up until February, they wanted me to be chairman. All of a sudden, when I started questioning nine eleven, all of a sudden, the Bush people said, woah.
Yeah. I bet. John Sununu, after I was out of office, I had a lot of respect for it was Bush's chief.
Speaker 0: Smart man.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I know. I was in his office, and he's they said this to me. He said, you know, congressman, you were a great member. Everyone respected you, but you made one fundamental mistake.
I said, what was that, John? He said, when you come to the city, you're either on one rail or the other rail, and you went down the middle and took on both rails. I said, well, John, I didn't pledge allegiance to the Republican Party.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I pledged allegiance to the constitution. You guys were ecstatic when I took on the Clintons, when I took on Sandy Berger, when I took on the scumbags and what they did with China and Russia. You were ecstatic. But then when I saw things happening at 09:11, all of us he said, well, that's why you're not here. I said, you know what, John?
So be it. It's not the end of my life. And one day I'll tell the story, John. One day I'll tell the story because that's what America needs to hear. They need members of congress who don't become duped by scumbags and the intelligence agency making money for themselves.
And you know what, Tucker? I challenge them. I'll name them, and I'll give their dollar amounts of where they're making money today in the countries that we're at war with. They care about themselves and their power. They don't care about the lives of the kids that we send to war.
I saw it in Libya. I saw it in North Korea. I led delegations that were bipartisan to all of those places. They took it out on my daughter.
Speaker 0: So I I just wanna get one more time to the question of why who was hiding the fact that Bin Laden was actually in Iran? Our our intelligence agencies. They they have plausible deniability. In the end, I have 10
Speaker 1: silver bullets including two royal family members from two different royal families from two different countries, including in the end, the person that was in the room who was a knock for our government for fifty years. He's not from The US. He's become a friend of mine. He's been to my home. We've met dozens of times.
And on one of my trips to The Middle East, he said to me, you know, he calls you my my dear. You were right. I said, about what? He said, about a lot of things. But you're right about Bin Laden.
I said, what do you mean? He said, well, he was placed in Iran, in Balochistan. He said, I said, well he said I said, you know? He said, yes. I know that.
He said, I was in the room when the deal was cut. The US has plausible deniability. They weren't in the room. Was the point to get to Iraq? The point was to the the point was to manipulate, to get our troops committed, to go over to fight the battles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and that whole region of the world.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And they had to have the justification to do that.
Speaker 0: I believe it.
Speaker 1: But in the end, when five years ago, and even Trump doesn't know this, I'm sure, we killed someone that Trump took great credit for, and I applaud him for it.
Speaker 0: And he said, we killed this guy. Soleimani.
Speaker 1: That's right. Soleimani was the guy the deal was cut with. The deal was not cut with the Iranian government, and we need to understand that. And this is the heart of what we have to get to. The Iranian people are not our enemy.
I wrote this book in 02/2005, Countdown to Tear. It's all about Iran. It says that the people of Iran are not our enemy. And this book was endorsed by Jim Woolsey with a three page letter.
Speaker 0: Former CIA director.
Speaker 1: Former CIA director. This book was endorsed by Al Caravelli, Jack Caravelli, Gore CIA adviser. They both endorsed my book. The book was so popular that the people of Iran published it in Farsi. There it is.
And they published the book. Without my approval, they published my book. It became a bestseller in Iran because it said, you're not the enemy of the American people. Here's what happened, Tucker. When the Shah was in power think back.
We were best friends with Iran. Of course. Our intelligence people trained the Iranian intelligence people. We trained them. They're our people.
When the radical Ayatollahs and the mullahs took over Iran, they did not bring a new intelligence service. They did not change the agency. The IRG stayed the same. The deal to place bin Laden in Iran wasn't cut with the Iranian government. It was cut with Soleimani, and that's why we killed him.
Our intelligence agency has tentacles around the world, and they're not answering to anybody. And that's the problem right now. That's the problem Trump has. Yeah. He can cut off the security clearance of 51, but those that network extends far and wide around the world, and they can play all the games they want in Ukraine, in other countries.
And until we go after that, this is not gonna stop.
Speaker 0: That's consistent all consistent with what I've seen.
Speaker 1: And I
Speaker 0: would say. And that's I don't figure That's not a crazy statement.
Speaker 1: That's the challenge that Trump has right now. I still think he's at risk. Last May, I went on a TV show locally in the Philadelphia area, and I said my greatest challenge is they're gonna try to take Trump out. A month later Yeah. They they did the attack.
You know, it goes back to when Trump first when I kept quiet because I couldn't trust any of the administrations after I left, including the Bush administration, because Bush wasn't in control. And I can give you example after example
Speaker 0: I I saw that.
Speaker 1: Bush not being in control. I knew who was in control. When Trump was going in, I met with Rudy Giuliani. I had two private dinners with him up in New York. I had not known Rudy that well.
I said, Rudy, this is what's gonna happen. The deep state's gonna undermine Trump. They don't want him. They will undermine him by removing his ability to understand how they operate. Before he took office, they took out general Mike Flynn.
Yep. When they took out Flynn, Trump was like a baby in the woods. And for four years, they used the congress and they used their connections to derail this country. That's the problem that occurred in the first Trump four years. This time, I'm trying to get Trump to realize he's he's got a great start, but the people around him don't know what they don't know.
They don't have that historical understanding of what this just didn't happen with Trump. I mean, they took me out in 02/2006.
Speaker 0: So let's get to that. They took you out in 02/2006, and that's kind of where this conversation began. I I remember that very well, and it was like there were pictures on TV. I worked then at CNN. There were pictures of, you know, FBI and their blue jackets outside your daughter's house, and it's like, Kurt Weldon corruption scandal.
And then you lost to Sestak. Is it Sestak who was like a former general and just like a
Speaker 1: He got demoted. He was a three star demoted to a two star. His wife worked on the Clinton Security Council. She had intelligence ties. She still does.
Her name was, I think, Clark. And so he and he was on the NFC
Speaker 0: for But he was, like, the ultimate deep stater.
Speaker 1: Like, on every district. He doesn't live there now. Right. He came into the district to run. He had been in the district, and then he lost, he went back down every chain.
Speaker 0: And all of a sudden I mean, I remember all this really well thinking like
Speaker 1: Well, here's what happened. And then
Speaker 0: he got, you know, massive funding from around the country.
Speaker 1: You know who ran his campaign? His his campaign was managed by the staff director of Sandy Berger's company. Sandy Berger sent his woman to run the Sestac campaign. And I I did a one hour floor speech about Sandy Berger calling him a traitor. Yeah.
And we could talk about really, we
Speaker 0: just I'd like to. I'm I'm just getting far field once again, and my my apologies for that. But okay. So to your daughter and the FBI raid, did you have warning? Like, what No advance what happened?
Speaker 1: No advance warning. We we, you know, the we would have won the election. The polls were in October were showing that we were up by about six or eight points. All my elections have been landslides because I'm moderate Republican. And this one, I would have become chairman of the committee.
No doubts about that. You know, for some reason, the the Sestac campaign was maxed out every week in a TV buy. You know? And three weeks before my election, I get a call on a Monday morning that agents had appeared at my daughter's home at 7AM. And I didn't know what's that all about.
And so I immediately said, cancel the TV ads. My daughter's more important than some TV ads for a campaign, and I didn't know whether she might have done something wrong. I didn't think she would have. And and so we stopped the campaign. But something that I haven't talked about in the past, Tucker, the same time they raided my daughter's house, they raided a lawyer in my district who's a democrat who, interestingly enough, they shut down his Philadelphia office.
They brought dogs and helicopters and all to downtown Philly, same time. At the time they raided his office, he had been working for FBI counterintelligence against Russia for two years that I had arranged two years earlier. I had arranged two years earlier. Under oath. So the counterintell people handling him went to his office and were sitting with him while these agents from DC come in, and you had two sets of agents in the same office at the same time.
And the counter intel people are saying, don't answer any questions. We don't know what this is, but you're doing work for our country. The other ones don't know why they're sent there. Their first question is, mister Gallagher, isn't it true that you're related to congressman Kurt Weldon? And John starts laughing at them because congressman Walden's wife's last name is the same name as mine, and you're from the FBI?
I know who told them that, Tucker. Wait. So what but what
Speaker 0: was the pretext for raiding your daughter's house?
Speaker 1: There was none. They never talked to her.
Speaker 0: So what was she charged with? What did she go
Speaker 1: They never charged her they never charged her with anything. They never talked to her. There was no charge.
Speaker 0: So the FBI just shows up.
Speaker 1: Shows up, raids, takes boxes out, and then gives her the boxes back unopened, still taped. Nothing. Did when did
Speaker 0: they give the boxes back?
Speaker 1: That was months later.
Speaker 0: After you'd lost?
Speaker 1: Yeah. The and not only that, three months after the election, the annual fire dinner in Washington, which I started, 2,000 people attend, members of congress, house and senate, George Bush, the father, former CIA director, does a tribute to me, which you can I sent it to your staffer? Yeah. You can play it. And he says in the tribute, congressman Walden, you're the kind of leader that America needs.
You're the kind of leader that leaves the country safer, stronger. Those aren't my words. Those are George Bush senior's words to 2,000 people after they raided my daughter's house.
Speaker 0: After you'd already been neutralized. After I've not gonna be
Speaker 1: It was all about
Speaker 0: getting me out. So did you what? So the the raid comes. You must be completely confused. You call your daughter and say, like, what's going on?
Speaker 1: She she was totally devastated. Ruined her life. What do you how do you deal with that?
Speaker 0: I don't know. How do
Speaker 1: you deal how do you deal with your kid?
Speaker 0: I'm probably gonna find out at
Speaker 1: some point. If you wanna you wanna come after me you know? And that's what I say to them. They're scumbags.
Speaker 0: Oh, I know.
Speaker 1: You scumbag, if you wanna come after me, come after me publicly. If you're gonna hide and go do something behind somebody, which you do, none there are good people in the agency. But there are scumbags that work in our agencies, and I know them, and they're making money. They're million dollar people, and their million dollar companies are gonna be exposed if it's the last thing I do. And you'll see the ties around the world to the million dollar intel people who've made money off the backs of young American kids who have died in wars while they make money, or their companies make money.
And I'll give you example after example of that. In Russia, in Ukraine, around the world, in Libya, that's what's wrong. And until we understand that, it's not gonna stop. And Donald Trump's people need to understand that. We're not playing tiddlywinks out in the schoolyard.
We're playing with bad people.
Speaker 0: I agree. I I yeah. As I've said, I've I've I've seen it up close, so I know that you're telling the truth. What they do to my family is outrageous. So so this happens, and in the final month of a campaign with Three weeks.
Three weeks. With this challenger who doesn't live in your district who all of a sudden has I think I'm remembering this correctly, a lot of his money came from California.
Speaker 1: All of it.
Speaker 0: All of it.
Speaker 1: Then we find out, Tucker. I'll give it to you. We get a memo. My staff does some digging. What's going on?
And we find a memo that was sent to my staff in September, a month before this, from the National Republican Congressional Committee to my campaign committee saying, hey. For some reason, your opponent just cut his TV buy for one week in October by $500,000. The week was the week they raided my daughter's house.
Speaker 0: Because he wouldn't need it.
Speaker 1: So they told the Democrats the week they were gonna raid my daughter's house.
Speaker 0: I believe it.
Speaker 1: Because they didn't need
Speaker 0: the advertising that week. But what's crazy, if if you think about it and by the way, should say of of Sestek, who I always thought was just such a reptile, but he had kind of, like, the perfect views. He was very liberal socially, but on foreign policy questions, he was just a national security state He's a loser. Perfect national security state.
Speaker 1: He's an embarrassment, and I'll say it publicly. He's an embarrassment. Oh, I I And what he did to my family, I'll
Speaker 0: never forget. So but that's the Bush Justice Department. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: That's the Bush FBI. It's the it's the and I wrote a letter to Mueller, which I'll give you
Speaker 0: Mueller was FBI director there?
Speaker 1: Yes. I wrote a personal memo to him on LinkedIn, right to his personal self. And I said, mister Mueller, I respect you personally for being a marine, but you're a scumbag for what you did to my family.
Speaker 0: So did you call over to the White House and say, like, what the hell is going on?
Speaker 1: I called Karl Rove. He said, get a good lawyer. I have no respect for Karl Rove.
Speaker 0: Well, no one does.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you that story on another show.
Speaker 0: Wait. So but your daughter's house gets raided. She doesn't get charged with anything. The FBI never even
Speaker 1: Not isn't talked to. Not charged. Doesn't even get talked to. No one.
Speaker 0: And CNN were all admitted. I then worked.
Speaker 1: You know the the only person that defended me?
Speaker 0: Who? You're gonna laugh. No. Probably not.
Speaker 1: Joe Scarborough.
Speaker 0: I believe that.
Speaker 1: He was on my committee. Joe Scarborough, I'll give you the article, defended me and said, congressman Walt will never do anything like this. And the stupid jerk reporter said, oh, Scarborough, I don't know what he's talking about. Joe Scarborough was the only one at that time who really publicly aggressively defended.
Speaker 0: I believe that, and I knew Joe very well very well then. And
Speaker 1: He was on my committee on
Speaker 0: He's not a stupid person, by the way, whatever Joe's many faults. He's not dumb, and he gets how politics work.
Speaker 1: But he
Speaker 0: won't talk to me now. Of course not. Okay. So you call Karl Rove, and you say, what the hell, Karl Rove? What is going on here?
And he just says He's
Speaker 1: to get a good lawyer.
Speaker 0: That was it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. He's the same scumbag that when I told him that I told this company in Florida that was being harassed to hire lobbies, I told him to hire Bob Dole, he starts screaming at me on the phone. He said, who are you to tell anybody to hire Bob Dole's law firm? I said, Bob Dole's a war hero. He's a credible person.
He said, don't you know who his partner is? I said, I have no idea who his partner is. Well, his partner was Ian Richards from Texas. What does that have to do with somebody doing national security issues? Because Karl Roeb was from Texas and his nemesis in Texas was Bob Dole's partner, he didn't want them to benefit?
Speaker 0: That's what he's like.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what he's like. He's a small
Speaker 0: fat man. There's no doubt about that. Very small. So we're not positive if cryptocurrency is the future of finance, but we do know that what we have now is broken and dangerous. Debt has never been higher in this country.
Many of our so called leaders are getting rich serving you. It's a scam. So where does it go? Well, thankfully, there are options. Donald Trump has said repeatedly he wants The United States to be the crypto capital of the world.
He's already created the Crypto Advisory Council and recently signed an executive order to establish a Bitcoin strategic reserve. This could give normal people an alternative to the government's failing system, and frankly to the US dollar. I'm not saying put all your money outside the US dollar, but like don't be crazy, don't be stupid here, you can see where it's going. So the people at I Trust Capital can help you get in to this. It's complicated for people who aren't following it.
They make it easy. They're based a % in The United States Of America. We looked into this. They service only American investors, and they operate the only platform that allows you to buy and sell crypto twenty four seven both inside and outside of your tax advantaged IRA, and it all happens on one easy to use dashboard. They also operate a closed loop system, meaning that bad actors can't access your account and steal your money.
So if you're considering adding Bitcoin if you want to or some other cryptocurrency to your portfolio, iTrust can be trusted, and it's easy to understand. ITrustCapital.com or click the link below. Wow. Okay. So that's kind of that's the end of your political career.
Speaker 1: Well, it's the end of my public career, but I have a lot of friends.
Speaker 0: I know. I I got that.
Speaker 1: Lot of people that support. Now people want me to talk, and I am talking because Trump's in power. And the only thing they can do is they can kill me. Now two of my friends were killed, or I think they were killed. One was threatened by a a guy that was running to be the head of the CIA.
He got a call. This guy that was live was in Florida, John Quirk, was career intelligence for the CIA, and he helped me. He gave me all the internal stuff of what they were doing to try to they try to portray me as a Russian spy of all this stupidity. Right. Been there.
So so right. So Quirk called me. He said, you won't believe who I got a call from. Uh-huh. He told me the guy's name.
He said, the guy said to me, why are you helping Kurt Weldon and and Jaw Jaw. Quirk said, because Kurt Weldon's a patriot. The guy slammed down the phone. That guy's a multimillionaire in New York right now. Multimillionaire.
Get his money off the backs of the American people.
Speaker 0: What happened to your friend? You think he was murdered?
Speaker 1: I think he was given a they both had fast moving cancer, and that's a typical process that the agency uses overseas when they wanna get rid of somebody.
Speaker 0: I'm aware of that. Most people are not aware of that. But do do you know that to be true that that is a I
Speaker 1: don't I don't I can't prove it.
Speaker 0: No. But do you know that
Speaker 1: I know that they both died suddenly.
Speaker 0: The the US government has the technology
Speaker 1: to Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Infect people with fast moving cancer. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: As they do with the you know, in 1997, I did the first hearing on asymmetric threats. I was the chairman of the research committee, and I focused on four threats that and you can read about them. The first threat was the use of drones, which nobody was using then. The second was cyberattacks, which is now a big deal. The third was EMP.
People don't even know what EMP is. I was the leader
Speaker 0: of that.
Speaker 1: I wrote the EMP legislation. And the fourth was cognitive warfare. People don't understand cognitive warfare. And today, our intelligence agency is trying to pretend they don't know what it is. Like, oh, we don't know what that is.
It's because the the Russians have used it, and the Chinese, they call it Havana syndrome. Right. We know what it is.
Speaker 0: Directed energy weapons.
Speaker 1: Directed energy weapons.
Speaker 0: But you believe that and the only reason I'm pushing on this is because I know for a fact that highly informed people in other countries with, you know, real intel services who are not crazy or sophisticated take it as a matter of fact that it is possible to transmit fatal cancer from one person to another or from a machine to a person. And you know that that's true?
Speaker 1: I don't know that the details. I know the research that was being done when I was chairman of the oversight committee for research was very provocative, and we need members of congress that are unafraid to get fully immersed in understanding what we're doing and why we're doing it. The problem with the members of congress is that there are good members in both parties, but they get staffers who have career goals. And their career goal might be to go work at the Pentagon or go work for the agency. Yes.
So they get compromised midway through. You can't have that. You gotta have people to understand their loyalty has gotta be for the country and for what their original goal. And that's why it's so important that we and and the old the ultimate goal here is to have this presidential commission on 09/11 to hold people accountable and to let the president appoint a commission that asked the questions of what really happened, both intelligence wise and with the actual structure so that we understand, and then we make those people accountable. Believe me, when we do that, then you shake the system up.
Speaker 0: I agree with that, and and I think it's really important to begin declassifying a lot of things that the US government has done with our money and our name over the past sixty years. You know, starting with the Kennedy assassination, which the president, you know, has issued an executive order on January 23 to declassify it hasn't hasn't happened. MLK, RFK, etcetera, etcetera. We should know what happened in the in Butler Township in July. But I think the big the big story is nine eleven and every
Speaker 1: The reason is all those happened decades ago, and I agree with you. Nine eleven is only 24 ago, and I have all the information. I have the firefighters ready to go. I have the tapes of the firefighters and what they saw and heard. I have all the architects and engineers and all their 3,000 of them risking their careers.
I have the lawyers. I have the families. Everybody's ready to go. All Trump has to do is name a new presidential commission. Let them do the investigation.
We'll give them all the material, and then we'll show the country that we cannot we will not allow these people to to commit these kinds of out they're not even unscrupulous. They're outrageous and scandalous and treacherous acts against our nation. Imagine planning to kill American people. I can't begin to think of that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So but you've also just said that two friends of yours died of fast moving cancers.
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I
Speaker 0: my Well, they died of cancer. Of cancer. Right. But you think that the the people who are hiding the truth about nine eleven are capable of murder?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Well, I guess that would be obvious since 3,000 people were murdered that day.
Speaker 1: Just like Libya. We we were the ones that caused Qaddafi's death because Hillary Clinton played a game over there, and I I was the one that went over there during the war. Qaddafi asked me to come over. I took a Biden staffer and a Bush staffer and a film crew leader from ABC one in New York, Larry Mendy with me and a cameraman, because I didn't want the CA to set me up. I hand carried the letter back from Gaddafi offering to resign.
The US didn't want him to resign. They want to kill him. Why? Because Gaddafi and I met him three times. I took Biden on my second trip to Libya, by the way.
He went with me when I spoke to the whole country. At every meeting I had with Gaddafi, he wanted two things. He wanted to unite the African continent into into a group of nations economically, like European stand goal like the European economy. He wanted to base it on the gold standard, and the The US and Europe didn't want that. For and the other thing is they wanted control of his oil, and they wanted control of his sovereign wealth.
So Gaddafi had to go. That's outrageous, and it's wrong.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But that, I think, sounds right to me.
Speaker 1: I mean, but we've allowed so many of our kids to be drawn into conflicts to be killed. And these people doing this are they've never served in any capacity in our country. They've never been in the military. They've never served on a fire ground, and it's outrageous that they think they can get away with us and sit back and make all this money. It's outrageous.
Speaker 0: I couldn't agree more. So what let's get to nine eleven itself, and and you were so deeply involved in so many parts of this personally that it's I think it's easy to go off on different tangents, but just to the extent that you can describe what you know to be true, you said don't want to speculate as to motive, for example, but what you know to be true, what do you think the core truth of nine eleven, September eleventh two thousand and one is?
Speaker 1: I I I don't at this point in time, I have my own perceptions. I don't have something I can give a % I can't swear on, but I what I'm seeing bothers me to the core of my body that nine eleven did not happen because a group of hijackers got control of some planes. First of all, I have confirmed that two of the hijackers that were on one of the planes in New York were working for the CIA. They were on the CIA payroll, and that was confirmed to me by someone in writing from one of our agencies, and I have that letter. So two of the people involved were actually working for the CIA in one of the planes.
I know that, and they lost control of them. And there were reprimands against those agency people after the fact. Second, I know the intelligence, they tried three times to transfer the information about information that could have prevented nine eleven. That's fact.
Speaker 0: To the justice department.
Speaker 1: And I have the name of the person that at the justice department they contacted, and she was told to cancel the meetings. They couldn't have the meetings.
Speaker 0: Who who did that order come from?
Speaker 1: Who That's that that's what needs to be investigated. Okay. And then we have John Crane, the inspector general of the Pentagon, who went to the extent of issuing a, request, for whistleblower status because he was told to lie to the congress and lie about pre nine eleven intelligence and able danger. And then we have general, the the book by the general and his comments that he knew within seconds of none of this is in the nine eleven commission report. The nine eleven commission report is a piece of garbage.
Speaker 0: Well, then you also have it. I don't I mean, this is just a fact. I don't know what to make of it, but you have a guy called Alex Jones, who's a broadcaster, who said that summer that the World Trade Centers are getting hit by planes and a guy called Osama Bin Laden is gonna be blamed. He said that on tape with a time stamp, so we know that that actually happened. That's not not making it up.
It's not a conspiracy theory. He said that, and it's like, how would he know that? That's so far out of the realm of what anyone was thinking in Washington where I lived at the time that so then my question is, okay. If I'm Philip Zellico, the guy running the nine eleven commission, I'm calling Alex Jones immediately, saying, come on in under oath, and we're gonna find out how did you know that. And instead, the US government, the FBI in particular, set about to destroy Alex Jones and and almost succeeded.
I mean, they engineered a billion dollar judgment against him, etcetera, etcetera, but they really have, like, tried to to to kill him for saying that. And it's like if you wanted to get to the truth, why would you act that way? Why would you knock you out of congress?
Speaker 1: At the time of 09/11, I had been to the World Trade Center in '93. The governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, called my office, talked to me personally, thanked me for coming up. He watched my one hour presentation. I was back up there with Ray Downey. I brought Ray Downey's widow and five kids down in my district after 09:11 to honor him as a hero.
I, I was up all during the 09:11 incident at Ground 0, and I did everything I could to and I felt responsible. Do you know the nine eleven commission would not let me testify before the commission? Now I'm a firefighter. I'm a fire chief. I'm a state fire instructor.
I spent my whole career helping protect people from disasters. The nine eleven commission, even though my experience as a member of congress, vice chairman of defense and homeland security, would not call me to testify, would not call me to go in and speak before the line because they knew what I would say. So when the commission said it's gonna issue its report,
Speaker 0: which was when Pardon me. What year was that?
Speaker 1: It was when the report was released. I think it was 02/2005. So what I did, the the report was being released in the ways and means room of the Cannon Building. I went over. I sat in the front row to be the first one.
Lee Hamilton and Tom Keene were up there. Good people. I don't blame them. Yeah. It wasn't them.
It was the staffers that controlled this. It wasn't the commissioners.
Speaker 0: It's a Zellekow guy.
Speaker 1: That's right. Zelicow and Gurelik and Dieter Snell. Dieter Snell was a staffer working for them.
Speaker 0: Jay Jamie Gurelik, who was a Clinton DOJ
Speaker 1: who wrote the firewall memo that said you can't transfer military intelligence to civilian law enforcement.
Speaker 0: Think Bill Crystal's cousin too, unless I'm misremembering him.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's the case.
Speaker 0: I So
Speaker 1: I sat in the front row and I said, Lee, why did you not allow me to testify? And he said to me, well, congressman, you know, we had a lot of people that wanted to testify. Now I'm the representative of all the firefighters in the country. I'm the point person for the firefighters. Yes.
I'm a firefighter and a fire chief. I had been at the Trade Center in '93. I had been there in in 09/11, and they would not let me testify because they didn't wanna hear what I had to say.
Speaker 0: What would you have said?
Speaker 1: I would have said that is that we caused this. What do you mean? With the intelligence, the the I had the evidence that we we could have stopped this? Not me. Louie Free said that.
Based upon what I came out with, Louie Free's op ed in the Wall Street Journal, which I can give you a copy of, said the the, nine eleven commission was an incomplete investigation. And he also went on Good Morning America and said the same thing. They tried to blame Louie Free because Louie Free had left, the FBI the year before nine eleven happened. So he was their scapegoat. And I to this day, I think Louie's very upset over that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. I believe that.
Speaker 1: So the only way around this is to have a new for the firefighters of America and for our country to have an independent commission be appointed and give that commission full authority to take this wherever it goes, including the end result. And the end result may be very ugly.
Speaker 0: I I there's this a sense in which that's pretty obvious. I mean, like, why why is anything from 09/11 still classified? It's our country. It happened to 3,000 of our fellow Americans. We have an absolute right to know what happened.
There's not even a question, and it was almost twenty five years ago. So, like, spare me your lectures about national security. But can I ask you this? So, by the way, I never questioned anything about nine eleven, and I actively attacked people who did. I'm ashamed of that, but that's a fact.
I did it on tape more than once. Because my feeling was, well, you know, like, that's divisive or whatever. I was a child and an idiot. But the what began to make me wonder, and I have no idea what happened in nine eleven, but it's very clear that there's a lot of lying around it, was the collapse of Building 7. And all the wackos would be like, Building 7, Building 7.
I'd like, shut up, wackos. And then if you just sort of look at it, you're like, well, that is very weird, actually. No plane hit that building, and it does this happen a lot when buildings catch fire? Right. Okay.
Speaker 1: Besides being a firefighter, I worked for the INA, largest insurance company in North America. I was responsible for training their fire protection arson people for eighteen years. That doesn't happen. You never have a 47 story building just collapse, which this is. Even Donald Trump, I have a tape of him speaking on 09:11, and Donald Trump, which I'll give you a copy
Speaker 0: I've seen it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In his own words says, that's controlled demolition.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, it it certainly looks that way. I mean, look. I don't know.
Speaker 1: See, here's what they did. They brought in NIST. They brought in NIST to do a report.
Speaker 0: Can you tell us what NIST is?
Speaker 1: NIST is the the National Institute for Standards and Technology to do an assessment. Now they're like any other federal agency, and there are good people there, but there are people that want their jobs and want their careers, and they're not gonna rock the boat. And they came out with a report that's hogwash. University of Alaska, which is an ex very credible engineering department, did a full reputation of the NIST report, saying it's full with gaps and full with inaccuracies and areas where they did not get the right information. Let me just say this to you.
People say, well, you can't question NIST. NIST always does the right thing. When I went to congress, Tucker, in my first term, I'm two doors from the speaker's office, speaker Jim Wright. His office catches on fire at 07:00 at night. As a firefighter, I go up, punch the door open, get down on my hands, and he's crawling.
The kitchen's fully involved. This is all documented. You can read about it. And, said to my staffer, go get me the portable extinguishers. Three of the five weren't charged.
I said, go get me the hose in the hose station. There was no hose in the hose station. I come back out, and I say, gotta evacuate the building. Now I'm in my first term. It's a seven story building above ground.
No sprinklers, no detectors, no alarms. Here is the building, one of the seven six office buildings whole held holding the house and the senate in violation of every building code and fire code in America. Now I'm an expert on NFPA one zero one, the life safety code, and the BOCA codes. This building, if NIST did its job, NIST would have said, if you're gonna be in congress, you're gonna work in a building where your constituents who are blind and handicapped are not gonna feel threatened. Seven stories above ground.
No alarm system. No detection system. So a fire's occurring, and the police are running through the building yelling fire, get out. That's the you cannot trust the federal agencies.
Speaker 0: Obviously. I of course, that's obvious now. But tell us, like, from an engineering perspective, like, you had three buildings come down, sort of collapse in on themselves, implode, it looked like. And, like, a lot of people have said, many credible, non crazy people have said that was controlled demolition. Was it?
Speaker 1: Well, when I got up there the day after, I I I had been in the trade center at the restaurant on the top several times. There's no way those two buildings could have collapsed into what they were there. Something had to happen.
Speaker 0: Was that obvious to you immediately?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. Because, know and they were looking for other firefighters like Ray Downey and the 342 others that were trapped and eventually vaporized. So something happened. Whether there was there there's a there's a a high explosive material, I think it's called fermite, that is used to explode metal and steel and vaporize it.
Those tests were never done on that. There were some limited tests that found that there was some evidence of that, but that the whole thing never was subjected to the kind of investigation that would be warranted when three thousand people die. I mean, you have three thousand people die, you would think it would be a full massive investigation, not going after nine eleven, obviously, but what happened to the buildings and why they come down? They are the only high rise buildings in the world that have ever come down from an airplane hitting them. And those buildings, I read the report from the architect who designed them.
They were designed to withstand an airplane hitting the building and standing tall.
Speaker 0: And especially Building 7, which had no plane hit it. Right.
Speaker 1: No plane hit it, and the building just you could see it. When you watch it on TV, it just implodes straight down. And what really got got me again was Oriole Palmer, that the battalion chief arising on the
Speaker 0: Well, tell tell us who he was. What is
Speaker 1: Oriole Palmer was one of the most inspirational battalion chiefs in New York. FDNY. FDNY, who immediately, in very good shape, had a family, a couple of kids, went in the building as soon as Lee got on the scene, took the elevator up to the Fortieth Floor, got off the elevator, and you could hear him on the comms system say, I'm here, Fortieth Floor. We're gonna start walking up the stairwells. Every five floors, he radios back to communication.
I'm on the Fiftieth Floor. Everything's okay. We're on Floor 60. Everything's okay. He's going up.
Every so many floors, he gives a report. He reaches the 70 Eighth Floor, The Floor Of Impact. He comes out of the stair tower, and as clear as you listening to me here, and I know I get passionate and I apologize
Speaker 0: to the
Speaker 1: ministers for that, he says, we're on Floor 78, The Floor Of Impact. We've got two fires, and we can handle them. One minute later, the whole building collapses. That's not normal. That is not acceptable.
That is not what happened. And this is on tape? It's on tape. The film is called Bravo seven. And if your viewers want it, if they contact you, I'll give it to you.
It's free. It was produced not by Hollywood. It was produced by firefighters. And it includes the footage including the firefighter of the the footage of the firefighter communication between him and the command center. You can hear him as plain as day saying, I'm on the Impact Floor, Floor 70 8.
We have two fires here. We can control them. And he's comfortable. He's not worrying about the building collapsing. He just walked up 38 floors, and the whole building collapses.
Tucker, it's a big lie. Can can
Speaker 0: I like, what okay. Two things. What percentage of firefighters who were there that day are knowledgeable about building fires agree with you on this?
Speaker 1: The I have the utmost respect for the fire department in New York when I wrote the manuscript, Able Danger, which I didn't publish because my lawyer said they would kill me back in 02/2006. I never published it. I'm gonna publish it this year. Last summer in July, I took a copy up, a draft copy of the manuscript, and I met for two hours with John Esposito. He's the chief.
He's a great man. I have total respect for him. And, John knows me. And I said, John, you know my respect for the department. And I said, yes, congressman.
We know that. I said, I wanna give you this copy of my manuscript, and I'm signing it in honor of Ray Downey for you to keep in your archives. This is what really happened. He took it. I felt I owed it to the fire department of New York and their members.
There has been this subtle pressure to the firefighters and to the officers not to talk for obvious reasons. You you know what this involves politically. And look what happened to the chief of LA. The female chief of LA comes out and says that the resources were taken away from her for the field forest fires. And what does the mayor do?
She fires her. That was just a few weeks ago. The firefighters are always a scapegoat. That's why, Tucker, I'm done with this. If it's the last thing I do, firefighters are not gonna be taken for granted anymore.
We're gonna rise up. We're gonna shake the country to its roots. Super. Firefighters are not second class citizens.
Speaker 0: Well, should certainly shouldn't be.
Speaker 1: But if they talk, they'll they'll be they'll get sidelined. They'll be get called crazies. Even though they heard explosions, they can't be they can't be allowed to say that.
Speaker 0: They heard explosions?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. It's on tape. We have people coming out of the buildings that heard explosions. We have film footage of people that talked to Fox News that was taken off the air, and then then now it was brought back by X.
That's all available. That's why you need a commission to go back and look at all the Wait.
Speaker 0: So there are and pardon my ignorance, but there are people on tape saying I heard explosions.
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. 100%. Multiple people. So the counter
Speaker 0: to this, which is also kind of rooted in common sense is, wow, that would require a lot of people to be involved in a vast conspiracy and to stay silent for twenty four years, and that's just impossible because people talk.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of people. Not a lot of people. It will involve a very, very precise action of planning and, you know, taking steps to control the situation. And I again, I I have no firsthand evidence of this. That's why and this is the most important thing.
If there's one thing that you have the ability to do because you're very well respected and deservedly so, you coming out and showing that report, that request put out by the firefighters of America and by the people who are excuse me for doing that.
Speaker 0: No problem.
Speaker 1: The people who were the most impacted by this. Yes. I've helped them now. I'm not I'm not there's no money in this for me. I'm everything I'm doing pro bono.
Yeah. Pro bono. A new presidential commission. There was no presidential commission before. This would be the first presidential commission.
Speaker 0: We recommend you take this moment to do what we're about to do, which is enjoy an ALP. Wait. Can I ask though, like, if we find out I mean, one of the reasons I became so upset was actually an Alex Jones guy years ago at some campaign event I was covering? You know, 911, Building 7. I was like, shut up, asshole.
You know, I don't no one wants to hear that. And I was being a child and ignorant as I have admitted many times, and I was wrong because you should always be for the truth no matter what. On the other hand, I think my instinct was informed by the feeling that, wow. If we find out that US Government Officials or foreign officials or or anybody is hiding the truth about an event that murdered 3,000 America totally innocent people. Like, that's how could your country continue if you found out?
Speaker 1: It would be almost as bad as if there were people in our country who planned to allow Bin Laden to stay in Iran while we sent kids to Afghanistan and 2,500 came back in body bags. It would be almost as bad.
Speaker 0: No. You're right. No. You're right. Tucker,
Speaker 1: the American people don't understand. I was in decisions as vice chairman of the committee where I heard conversations talk about acceptable casualties. There are no acceptable casualties. If I have a son or a daughter, I'm the youngest of nine, my brothers and sisters served in every branch of the military, none of them would be acceptable casualties. And if we had people that made the decision that we can afford to get people over in Afghanistan knowing that several thousand are gonna come back dead, if there's no then we've gotta find an alternative to that.
And if we didn't do it there, then we shouldn't do it in The US. Do I think nine eleven is going to be the biggest scandal in our lifetime and beyond? Yes. I think it's gonna be the biggest scandal in the history of America because it occurred on US soil and because it is so recent that we have relevant information still available.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: We have recorded information. We have personal information. Once people realize they can talk and not be afraid of being killed or not being afraid of being ostracized. And you know what gets me is reporters who call people conspiracy theorists. Well, that's all the agency does.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that create the conspiracies.
Speaker 0: I'm aware. I mean, cut me a break.
Speaker 1: I'm aware. They have whole courses for their agents on how to make people look like they're conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 0: And the propaganda operations designed to discredit. Exactly. Right.
Speaker 1: And So all we want is the truth. Of course. So Trump, appoint people of impeccable integrity. Let them study the facts. I will testify under oath everything I know about intelligence.
Let these 3,000 architects who are risking their careers, making nothing, let them testify under oath. So let me
Speaker 0: ask you a very dark question. I don't even know if I want the answer, but flight 93, which crashed in your state in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, became a kind of and you feel obviously so crushed for the people, Todd Beamer and the rest on that flight, and they sound like they acted bravely and all that. But, you know, Dick Cheney the president Bush was hiding at Offutt Air Force Base, refused to come back to DC because of cowardice. And so Cheney was kind of running everything on that day on September 11, and he said it's been reported. You know, he gave the orders to shoot down that plane, but then they told us, no.
It wasn't shut down. The hijackers were under assault by the passengers, and so they drove it into the ground. Do you think that plane was shut down by the US government?
Speaker 1: I I don't have any evidence of that, but I I've seen other speculation that that plane may have been heading for the Chicago Tower. And if it wasn't for the people on the plane that diverted it and turned it around, that's where it was heading.
Speaker 0: For sure. Well, clearly, it was it was that plane was gonna be used to kill Americans, no doubt.
Speaker 1: And I lost a constituent that was a pilot on one of the planes, Michael Horrocks, who went to Westchester, the same school I went to, and I immediately contacted his widow and raised the funds to build a playground in his honor at the elementary school for his kids. So I felt it personally. The the the story is is a story that America has to come to grips with this because if there's any one story that's gonna determine whether or not we are a country of what we all claim to be, then as painful as it is, we have to learn the lessons from that. If we don't and we allow these people that were involved in these cover ups and in my case, I the people I'm talking about are covering up without any hesitation the intelligence side of it. If we don't do that, then this is just inviting this to happen again and again.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And it's and it's gonna continue. You can't have that in a country like ours. We're supposed to be the symbol around the world, and we get laughed at by people. The people in Libya know what we did and why we did Gaddafi. North Korea.
We had a solution from North Korea that Colin Powell endorsed that I worked on, with with a bipartisan delegation that the White House under Bush didn't want. And and look at now, North Korea is threatening an attack. All of these things we create. And if the American people don't have access to know the truth, then we're not really what we say we are.
Speaker 0: Who are the darkest actors in the Bush administration, do you think?
Speaker 1: I I can't name any one. I mean, Sandy Berger, in my opinion, should have been tried for treason. So Sandy
Speaker 0: Berger was I agree. Well, he committed treason, so he should have been. He's passed now. I knew him. He was national security adviser for Bill Clinton.
So tell us tell us you've made reference to him, for those who don't remember or getting their history from Wikipedia, who is Sandy Berger, and and why do you think he committed treason?
Speaker 1: And Wikipedia, by the way, has no credibility.
Speaker 0: I'm very aware
Speaker 1: of They are basically it's a controlled I'm aware. Process to manipulate And and you you don't really
Speaker 0: know that until I know it. Just because, you know, you get older and, like, there are some things in Wikipedia. Like, wait. I was there. I I know that that's not true.
Speaker 1: About Sandy and Sandy Berger. She Sandy Berger was when this all started. He was security adviser for Clinton in the nineties. And as a member of the Cox Commission, which was a formal commission established by the congress made up of nine members.
Speaker 0: Headed by congressman Chris Cox of California.
Speaker 1: That's right. Five Republicans, four Democrats, all committee chairs except me. I was appointed by Newt, and we spent six months behind closed doors looking at all the data about why China stole our technology. And what we ended up with was a nine to zero vote. Our security was severely harmed by China's acquisition of technology.
And Chris Cox warned a nine to zero vote. I went beyond that. And working with the people that I had befriended that were doing the able danger stuff, I said, why did this happen? And they produced charts for me, which I have given to you, to show the process that China established. And China did what we do.
We try to spy on other countries. That's part the game. That's legitimate. Yes. But if you get caught by that, that's your fault.
China set up a process using money through their central military commission, the People's Liberation Army, to set up front companies to deliberately acquire selected technology in The US by using campaign donations, primarily to the Clinton campaign in the mid nineties. The charts show that. You have those charts. Those donations resulted in waivers of arms control agreements. Those, donations involved in waivers of controls over technology, and all the technologies are listed.
Those charts show that four Chinese nationals who had no citizenship rights here gained access to the White House, in some cases, 49 times in one year. They were raising money for the Democratic National Party and Clinton. All of that was, orchestrated by Sandy Berger politically. In the end, what happened was we basically empowered China to acquire our technology by allowing them to use campaign donations. And the best example I can give you of this is there was a very specific inquiry done by the justice department of the L'Oreal Corporation in California.
L'Oreal Corporation, very capable, space company and technology company, had been caught transferring stage separation technology to China. Stage separation technology allows you to have a multistage missile to go long distances. Yes. Which
Speaker 0: is required for to go intercontinental.
Speaker 1: And China didn't have that. They didn't have that capability, so they got it. So Larao Corporation was caught transferring that. That's a violation. So the justice department, this is public information, was about ready to indict the CEO, Bernie Schwartz.
Bernie Schwartz went to Sandy Berger and received, this is public information, a retroactive presidential waiver. Retroactive presidential waiver. The technology had already been transferred. Now they get the waiver that it's okay. And that year, Bernie Schwartz becomes one of the single biggest donors in the history of the Democrat party.
I put all the donations in the congressional record. So anyone can go back in the congressional record to that time period and look for my speech, and you'll see the donations of Sandy Berger to the Democrat National Party and Al Gore and and Bill Clinton while we were giving our technology so China didn't steal it. They outsmarted us. That's our fault, not their fault.
Speaker 0: Right. They bribed our officials to
Speaker 1: the defense. So that's the first thing with Sandy Berger. Then Sandy Berger was involved in the run up to nine eleven, and he was, still Clinton's security adviser. He was, told he had to appear before the nine eleven commission. So two weeks before he was to appear, he gets permission to go to the National Archives in Washington.
And he goes up to the Top Floor in a special room. It's a big empty room, and he didn't realize he was on camera. They bring out documents that he has to see before his testimony. He said it was to refresh his memory. He ends up stealing those documents.
In a case that many remember and laugh about, he stuffs the documents in his underwear and his socks and his shirt pocket. You you've seen the story and Of course. It's all true. He leaves the archives with those national security archives, all pre 09/11 intelligence. And by the way, none of this is in a nine eleven commission report.
None of it.
Speaker 0: That's not mentioned.
Speaker 1: No. He leaves the archives.
Speaker 0: Do we know what those documents were?
Speaker 1: Well, I'll tell you what happened. He gets caught. The inspector general for the archives contacts Berger and said, mister Berger, did you take anything while you're in the archives? And he says, no. That's a felony.
He lied to a federal agent. He then hires one of Clinton's personal lawyers. That lawyer cuts a plea bargain. Sandy Berger pleads guilty to 11 felonies, lying to a federal agent, stealing five documents, and destroying five documents. The plea bargain he gets is one misdemeanor.
No jail time. He loses security clearance for one year. In the August before my election loss, I told my staff, I wanna go to the archives to see copies of what we think Berger stole. The CIA called my office and said, tell your boss that's very sensitive information. Like, what do you have to tell me?
What I what my job is? I know what my job is. I don't need to be reminded by somebody from some agency, so I went there. The documents were all regarding pre nine eleven intelligence. The millennium millennium after action report, which was prepared by John Ashcroft, was part of the documents that they didn't want the nine eleven commission to have.
Sandy Berger stole those documents. If you stole documents that are in National Archives, you'd be in jail right now. Sandy Berger got away with it, one felony, and he leaves the administration of Clinton, he forms a company. Guess what the company's called? Stonebridge.
And he hires Madelyn Albright. Stonebridge Albright. And what do they do? They represent Chinese corporations.
Speaker 0: Disgusting people. Both now gone. Both now gone. Do we know what was in those five documents?
Speaker 1: Why I while I went down there, I looked at what we think he stole. It was Paul pre 09/11 intelligence.
Speaker 0: Suggesting that?
Speaker 1: Suggesting that
Speaker 0: we should have taken action.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, we know that Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden in the base camps many times. I mean, all of this, and there's much more intrigue that I don't know about. That's why it needs a thorough investigation, not of staffers, not of hacks, but of people of intellect and people who are willing to put the country first. That's why Trump needs a convening commission.
Speaker 0: This is all so heavy that, you know, you wonder who would take that job.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I have people who will take it. I have firefighters who will take it, fire engineers. I have people who will surprise you that will take the job.
Speaker 0: That would take true courage. Venus, why No one even mentions declassifying nine eleven. I mean, it's like, oh, the Kennedy Association, UAPs. I mean, I'm all for I'm all for disclosure because we own the government. We're shareholders.
We're not slaves. So that's my view. I always push for disclosure, and I really mean it. But on nine eleven, I don't even know anyone who wants I do, but I don't know anybody else other than you who really wants full disclosure because it's like, you can feel it glowing. You just feel like, I don't know what that is, but that's
Speaker 1: really You know why? Everybody in Washington gets caught up with their with their careers, with their consultant fees, with their you know, I'm done with that. You know? I'm still paying the mortgage on my house. Actually?
Yeah. I'm actually paying the mortgage on my house. At what age? 77.
Speaker 0: Amazing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. My my wife's a nurse. You know?
Speaker 0: We don't So you didn't get rich in congress?
Speaker 1: No. I did not get I didn't I don't know how I don't know how Biden and Obama Obama was nothing in the senate. How do you make $88,000,000 in the senate when you don't have a job? And and and Biden, who I grew up with and was a friend with, I mean, no our kids went to school together. How does he have multiple houses at the beach and and, you know, I I don't need I don't need wealth.
I don't need wealth to be successful, and that's not my gonna be my legacy. But the there are people, and it makes me sick to my stomach because I'd like to name them all right now, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Well, go go ahead. Well, I I
Speaker 1: have them there. You know my partners, Judge Sullivan, very distinguished, the former deputy director of the FBI, Buck Ravel, Jim Woolsey, former deputy former head of the CIA, Chuck Brooks, who you got a note from, former, top guy at homeland security. Admiral Jay Cohen, who was head of research. They all know what I know and a lot more people. I had lunch with Jim Jones twice last year, former security adviser to Obama.
I don't wanna upend their careers. I don't wanna cost them money, but America America needs to know the truth.
Speaker 0: But without naming specific names, I'm familiar with every person that you just mentioned, and I would say from my impression having lived in DC for years, those are good guys, I think, honest people. Yeah. But without naming anybody, like, people who and those are all very highly informed people, like, actually, for real, not not bullshit.
Speaker 1: No. They're all real. No. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: For real. Of that of those kind of people, how many that you know think, this is not right? The nine eleven report. All
Speaker 1: of them. But they're not gonna come out
Speaker 0: But everyone kinda knows.
Speaker 1: Not gonna be the lead person to come out and take it on. And many people say, you know, Kurt, you're crazy. You know, you're Of course.
Speaker 0: Well, that's how they try to describe
Speaker 1: your your discretion.
Speaker 0: The only reason that I I mean, I've never done a 09:11 show, not a single one, really, that I know maybe one in thirty years, twenty well, now twenty four years. But the only reason that I wanted to talk to you specifically is because I was there, and so I know how much you know, and you're not a fake person at all. You're, like, right at the center of it. So I think you have complete credibility on this topic, and I think it's pretty hard to dismiss you as a wacko. If you're a wacko, then why are you gonna take over the armed services committee?
Speaker 1: Like Why would Donald Rumsfeld endorse me for the armed services committee?
Speaker 0: Paying your mortgage at 77, you clearly weren't ripping anybody off.
Speaker 1: I have no secret bank account.
Speaker 0: Clearly. So I do think you've got a lot of credibility, but it's just interesting. You're obviously very focused on this. The people just to restate, the people that you talk to who are in similar positions of authority who would have access to, you know, real intel on this, they all think that the
Speaker 1: nine talk.
Speaker 0: They all think the 09:11 report was just silly. Cover up.
Speaker 1: They think that there's a lot more to what happened than what's being told. The firefighters think the same, but a firefighter who's doing their you know, the key thing and why I devote my life to firefighters, they're the most powerful people in the country. They're not driven by power nor money. But when I organized them, back in 1987 and the fire caucus became the largest in the congress, I said, are the people that make America work.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're the people that not just fight the fires and disasters. They're the people it's where you vote on election day.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: It's where you hold the boy scout and girl scout meeting room, and there are 50,000 stations run by 30,000 departments, and 85% of them are volunteers. Do you know next year as we celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of America, the fire service will be 290 years old? Yeah. The first fire department was formed by Ben Franklin in Philadelphia in 1736. It didn't take a government to get people to come together to protect each other.
It's older than America, and the 50,000 departments are in every town, every village. They're the heart and soul of our nation and the backbone
Speaker 0: of our know that for you.
Speaker 1: And that's what I'm telling Trump. If you ignite that group of people, you don't need to have MAGA people alone. You have America then. Because in every poll, firefighters are 98% supported.
Speaker 0: They're the only ones everyone likes.
Speaker 1: Totally agree. Because they're not driven by power or money.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And that's why firefighters don't wanna get involved in a political battle. Even if they know they're being shortchanged, even if they know their loved one was killed when they shouldn't have been killed, they keep quiet. Well, I'm not gonna keep quiet. I'm their voice, and I'm gonna speak out.
Speaker 0: So let me ask you one final question for people who've made it this far in the interview, and and I should just I wanna say for the record, think you've been really restrained. You haven't speculated on really anything other than things. You said, I saw this, I know this to be true, but you haven't given us some complex theory of why this happened. Oh, I can't. I won't.
Right. But for people who are are thinking, wow, this is a little more serious than I realized, and I wanna know more, and clearly, Wikipedia is a filter, not a way to actually understand history, what should peep what responsible, credible accounts of nine eleven would you recommend people read? Like, where do you get closer to the truth?
Speaker 1: There there is no one single account that I have seen. I would suggest and they can go I'm not on social media except on LinkedIn. And if you go to my LinkedIn, I'll send you a copy of Bravo seven. Bravo seven is a film one hour long done by firefighters, not done by Hollywood. And by the way, my my film based on my book's coming out next year, and all the proceeds of my film firefight are going to firefighters.
So nobody can say he's gonna make a profit off that.
Speaker 0: No. Must still be paying your mortgage.
Speaker 1: My Hollywood film is the proceeds are going to firefighters, and it's about my book. But bravo seven gives you the story of what really happened from the eyes of a firefighter, and then it has the audio comments of Oreo Palmer. And if you're a human being and you listen to that brave firefighter with two kids, I think two or three kids, who's risking his life after he went up 40 floors in the elevator, climbing up 38 floors with his team, arriving on the floor of impact, and saying I can handle it. And if we let him die there like it was just some random thing, then we're not human beings of decency.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: We owe Oreo Palmer. We owe Ray Downey. Ray Downey told us ninety three, eight years earlier, this is gonna happen again. Ray Downey told us in the Gilmore commission we needed to have this fusion center. We allowed unnamed scumbags in the CIA to block us from having a fusion center.
We allowed unnamed scumbags in the agencies to block transferring the information that Scott Philpott and Tony Schafer and Eileen Pricer and Eric Klein Smith had that they tried to transfer to the justice department. They also had information the the beef before the attack on USS Cole when they ruined the career of, of Kirk Lippold, the commander of the Cole, I defended him. If we're gonna truly be a country that really cares about other people and what we're doing, then we have to live up to that. And how can you send your kid to war or combat and all this crap about giving them a home and a place to live and help? Well, great.
Let's do it up front. Let's prevent them from needing a home. Let's prevent them from needing health care. Let's prevent them from having to to be put in a in a shelter someplace. Let's focus on the veteran before they become disabled.
Let's focus on the firefighter before they die. But see the media the media and the intel deeps, they likes to make it look like, well, we got all these charities out there. These charities allow us to give money like we really care about them. Caring about them after they're dead is not the same as preventing them from dying, and that's what this is about, preventing them from dying. And I'm not gonna stop until we until we take the necessary steps to never let this happen again.
Speaker 0: I'm grateful for your determination. And the last thing I'll say is I think when you give up the love of money, you you get filled with a holy power, and you clearly have been. So congressman, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you
Speaker 0: very much. Thank you.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
@TuckerCarlson [RG911Team] Here is FDNY Battalion Chief Orio Palmer declaring he can put out the fires inside the South Tower on 9/11. Minutes later, it collapses on him like a house of cards. Curt Weldon is fighting to expose what really happened, and so are we. https://t.co/Jrtrp8zvs4
@sonic_blue_eyes - Rusty Ryan 🇳🇴🇺🇲
@RichardGage_911 @TuckerCarlson Why can you see people willfully jumping and hanging off the building above a fire he can allegedly control then?
@SoltruthSoul - Fellerbeaur
@sonic_blue_eyes @RichardGage_911 @TuckerCarlson Most were told to stay put & did; not many knew of the one sorta safe stairwell that wasn't blocked or they were in a room whose doors were melted by a now gone out fire (that does ocurr in reg. fires) & trapped. Are you accussing him of lying, reg. what he was observing?
reSee.it AI Summary
Curt Weldon, a former congressman, claims the Bush administration retaliated against him for questioning the 9/11 report by targeting his family and ending his political career. At 77, he aims to reveal the truth about the events of September 11, 2001. Key topics discussed include the potential for CIA intervention, intimidation tactics by the FBI, the legitimacy of the 9/11 Commission, and the implications of these revelations for America's future. Richard Gage supports Weldon's efforts, referencing a firefighter's statement before the South Tower's collapse.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
After twenty years in congress, Curt Weldon was about to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee when he publicly questioned the accuracy of the 9-11 report. In retaliation, the Bush administration sent federal agents to his daughter’s house and ended his political career. At 77, Weldon has decided to tell the truth about what actually happened on September 11, 2001. (0:00) Introduction (2:33) Why Did They Oust Weldon? (7:12) Could the CIA Have Prevented 9-11? (16:00) How the FBI Tried to Intimidate Weldon (19:23) Did the CIA Lie About Osama bin Laden’s Location? (25:47) The Real Culprit Behind America’s Wars in the Middle East (31:27) Trump’s Biggest Challenge Right Now (33:11) How the Deep State Undermined Weldon’s Political Career (43:16) Will Weldon Be Killed for Speaking Out? (48:04) Why Hillary Clinton Had to Take Down Gaddafi (49:31) The 9-11 Commission Was a Scam (55:17) The Mysterious Collapse of Building 7 (1:05:13) How Will This Revelation Impact America’s Future? (1:07:56) The Bush Administration and China (1:14:32) Why Politicians Are So Scared of Declassifying 9-11 Documents (1:20:14) Where Can Americans Find the Truth About 9-11? Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Former Congressman Kurt Weldon discusses his views on 9/11, claiming the official narrative is a "cover-up." He says that prior to 9/11, he advocated for a fusion center to share intelligence, but the CIA resisted. Weldon claims the Able Danger team identified Al Qaeda cells, including the New York cell, before 9/11, but were blocked from sharing this with the FBI. He says former FBI Director Louis Free believed this information could have prevented 9/11.
Weldon alleges that after 9/11, he learned Bin Laden was in Iran, not Afghanistan, and that the Bush administration hid this fact. He claims the decision to place Bin Laden in Iran was made by Soleimani, not the Iranian government. Weldon states the 9/11 Commission refused to let him testify. He believes Building 7's collapse suggests controlled demolition. He says two 9/11 hijackers were CIA informants. Weldon says the Bush administration, the FBI, and Karl Rove targeted him after he criticized the official 9/11 narrative, leading to an FBI raid on his daughter's home and his subsequent election loss. He says many current and former officials share his concerns about the 9/11 report.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We recorded the interview you're about to watch five days ago, and I've been thinking about it ever since. It's with a former congressman from Pennsylvania called Kurt Weldon. Kurt Weldon was a very significant figure in Washington twenty years ago. He was not some obscure backbencher. He was one of the most powerful Republicans in the congress about to take over the armed services committee until he asked questions about the official story on 09:11.
At which point, the Bush administration sent the FBI to his daughter's house, destroyed her life, never charged her with a crime, and effectively got Kurt Weldon bounced out of congress. I haven't talked to him in twenty years. I didn't know exactly what to expect, but this conversation, the one you're about to see, raises far more questions than I ever anticipated. This is not a crazy person. These are not crazy questions.
He makes no claims he doesn't have personal firsthand evidence of. When it ended, I asked him how many other officials who were in and around Washington during nine eleven have similar questions. And he said to me, as far as I know, all of them, and he's still in touch with a lot of those people. After this conversation, which again we've been thinking about ever since, I thought it might be time to look a little more deeply into the nine eleven commission report. Was it accurate?
Nine eleven changed The United States forever. Those of us who remember it, who lived through it, can tell you this was a different country afterward, completely different, and not a better country. And so there is no more significant historical event in the lifetimes of any living American than nine eleven. And the fact that there are still outstanding questions about what exactly happened and why is troubling. Up until this point, most of the people who've addressed these questions are either crazy or seem slightly crazy.
Now is the time for a sober look, not a wild eyed speculative look, but an honest look and honest conversations with people who participated in the response to that day, government officials. And so we're gonna do that. We are planning right now a multipart documentary series on 09:11, and we hope to bring that to you as soon as we possibly can. And now former congressman Kurt Weldon. Congressman, thank you so much for doing this.
I haven't seen you in twenty years. I one of the last times I thought about you was right around 02/2006, and I'm you had been a frequent guest on the show that I was hosting then, and I read that the FBI had raided your daughter's house. And I thought, man, I was like Kirtweld, and I guess he's corrupt. And then I never heard never heard anything about it, and then you lost that election to a guy who I was that was kind of repulsive. And then probably fifteen years passed, and I thought to myself, wait a second.
Kurt Weldon was the only Republican I'm aware of who criticized The US response, the intel agency's response to nine eleven, who wrote a book blaming elements of the US government for allowing nine eleven to happen and then covering it up. And then right on the cusp of becoming tell me if I'm getting this wrong, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the FBI raids your daughter's house, and you lose an election in which your opponent has funding from all over The United States. Never no one's ever heard of this guy. He's got more money, and you're out of congress. And I began to think maybe this was a setup, so I thought I would ask you.
Speaker 1: Well, it definitely was, and you're always one of my heroes. I enjoyed your show with Paul Begala and Thanks. When I did had it many
Speaker 0: years ago.
Speaker 1: All the others and enjoyed and and I was always I took my work very seriously. I'm a teacher by profession, youngest of nine kids, firefighter as a volunteer all my life, and that's my devotion even to this day. I don't get any money for it, but it's what I'm committed to and why I care about nine eleven so much. I was at 09:11 I was not 09:11. I was at Trade Center in '93 at the invitation of fire commissioner Howard Safer to go up there and learn about what had occurred the first time they attacked us.
And they introduced me to a young fire officer, former marine, five kids named Ray Downey. He became one of my best friends. Ray told me what he thought we should do. I took his advice seriously and wrote the legislation to create the Gilmore Commission. The Gilmore Commission was chaired by Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, a a man of integrity.
I had him on a podcast last September for twenty minutes, and the Gilmore commission's recommendations were largely what the nine eleven commission took credit for after the fact. One of those recommendations was to have a fusion center of intelligence be put together. At the time I was doing this on behalf of the firefighters to deal with disasters, I was in the position to oversee the funding as the chairman of all military research and technology funding, about a hundred and $80,000,000,000. The services were building information dominant centers. The armies was at Fort Belvoir, and I would get down there regularly and meet with them, and we became good friends.
I didn't bother getting ready into the program. I didn't need to, but I knew what they were using with new software like Starlight Inspires and Fusion and data mining and analysis and and LinkAnalysis. This is gonna be important to prevent what happened in '93. Yes. So I supported
Speaker 0: Which was the first bombing of the world's
Speaker 1: bombing. Right. And as a result, I went to John Hamry, deputy secretary of defense under Clinton, and I said, John, you have to go see what they're doing down there. He did. He called me, said, you're right, mister chairman.
And by the way, John Hamry had endorsed me for chairman of the committee in February as did as did Rumsfeld. Yeah. This is before 09/11, obviously. Both endorsed me publicly. I had their letters.
And he said, but you've gotta convince the CIA and the FBI to let us use their raw data because there are 33 classified systems. And if they don't allow us to use their data, this won't succeed. On November the fourth of nineteen ninety nine, in my office in the Rayburn Building, I had John Hamrae, deputy secretary of defense. I had the deputy director of the FBI, and I had their names, and the deputy director of the CIA. And we talked about the NOAA, National Operation Analysis Hub, policymaker, and warfighters tool to deal with emerging transnational terrorist threats, the fusion center.
Hammery said, we need this. I'll I'll manage it. I said, I'll get it funded. The FBI said, great. We're all in.
And the CIA said, we don't want it. We're not supporting it. We're doing something called c I twenty one on our own. I spent two years traveling around the country giving speeches at intelligence forums calling for a fusion center. I put language in two successive defense bills calling for a fusion center.
Nine eleven happens. I get frantic calls from four of those professional staffers at the Able Danger team, which I later learned was the name of this group at Fort Belvoir. We have to see you right away, mister chairman. Scott Philpot, Annapolis grad, navy career, officer, commander of four ships, pleading with me to meet Tony Schaefer, lieutenant colonel, Bronze Star recipient, spy for the military, Aileen Pryce, lieutenant, air force career intelligence officer, expert on computers, and Eric Klein Smith. I met with each of them privately.
They all told me the same story, and they rolled out the charts that I just showed you. Those charts I will make public now because they're not classified. I showed them when I testified before the senate hearing. We identified every cell of Al Qaeda in the world the year before nine eleven. We identified the New York cell, a year before nine eleven.
We knew there was gonna be a problem. The AbleDanger team tried to go to the FBI in just about three times. We have the names. All three times they were stopped. We have the names of the person in the FBI that was told to deny the meetings.
They were not allowed to transfer the information. That information, when I came out with my book, Louie Free, former FBI director, wrote in an op ed in the Wall Street Journal and said on Good Morning America could have prevented nine eleven from happening. That's not me saying that. That's Louie Free. And general Keith Lambert, our general in charge of special operations on horseback, was asked in this award winning book, became a movie, on page 27.
General, what were your thoughts when nine eleven happened? And he said, within seconds, I knew who had done the attack, and I knew it would involve Muhammad Ada. Thirdly, after this all broke and I came out with my book criticizing the agency and started really going crazy protecting these brave heroes that were being abused by defense intelligence. The inspector general for the Pentagon files a whistleblower paper. I have a copy of it.
I'll give it to you. His name is John Crane. He asked for protection because his bosses in DIA refused to allow him to become a whistleblower when he told them that he was told to lie to the congress. He was told to misinform the congress. I have that in writing, Tucker.
The nine eleven commission is a cover up, 1000% cover up. Zelikow was the lead of the cover up.
Speaker 0: Philip Zelikow was
Speaker 1: the Zelikow. He was handpicked by Condoleezza Rice. When when Tony Schaeffer met Zelikow over in Afghanistan, because Zelicow took a team through to see if there were soldiers who had maybe encountered some information about nine eleven in advance. Tony Schafer had been back deployed in Afghanistan at the time, so he told his commanding officer I should talk to them because I was a part of a special team. He met with Zelicow.
They exchanged business cards and Kabul. And Zelicow said to him, lieutenant colonel, you've gotta see me as as soon as you get back to America. It's very important. When Tony went back to The States, they had shut down his office, locked his office, secured all his files, and they then worked to destroy his personal, reputation. They tried to destroy his career.
I went to the floor and did a one hour special order calling it a scandal bigger than Watergate. You can watch the footage. It's available online. I said this is outrageous that the Defense Intelligence Agency is screwing a lieutenant colonel because he's telling the truth about what he was told to talk about when he came back from Afghanistan. Tony Schaeffer then went to work in the reserves because he had been basically harassed by the regular army because of what Zelicow did.
Speaker 0: So so I just wanna back up a couple steps. So you're saying what others have said before, which is that elements of the US government worked really, really hard to hide the fact that they could have prevented nine eleven, that they had all the relevant information and for whatever reason ignored it. But motive really matters here. Do you believe that there were people in The US Government who made a bunch of mistakes or were too territorial and didn't share information with other agencies, therefore nine eleven happened, which is basically the conclusion of the nine eleven report, I think? Or do you believe that there were people in the US government who knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen on purpose?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, the nine eleven report has no credibility.
Speaker 0: I I
Speaker 1: don't believe anything that is in that. It's a bunch of garbage. It's a lot of paper that has no substance. And I tend not to want to speculate on things that I can't prove 100% myself Yes. Or I'm not willing to take a polygraph.
What I can tell you unequivocally is there was a cover up. And before I answer your question, I would state one more fact. Tony Schaeffer got approval from his commanding general after this whole whole thing happened to read his memoirs. His memoirs are called Dark Heart. So he wrote the book.
He had a publisher. The publishers he went to his commanding general to review the book as his protocol. His commanding general said, fine, Tony. There's nothing there that's a problem. Publish it.
Tony publishes the book. Our deep state finds out he's publishing the book. A cease and desist order is issued against the publisher. Stop publishing the book. It's too late.
Our government our government buys all 10,000 copies of the first edition of Dark Heart with taxpayer money, and they destroy them. So I asked Tony on a show last September as I've done many times. Tony, you have the original version of the book. Right? Yes.
Here it is, congressman. You have the redacted version. Right? Yes. Here it is.
What did they want out of your book that was so sensitive? What secret information were you giving, Tony? What classified information did your boss not see? He said, congressman, the only thing they wanted out of my book was the fact that I named Zellekow and that I briefed him in advance. That, Tucker, is treason.
That means our agencies our agencies use their position not for something involving our national security, but for involving a a cover up of a person's identity who was publicly approved by the congress of the United States appointed by the security adviser to president Bush. It's a massive cover up.
Speaker 0: At what point following nine eleven, since I just wanna restate, you served in congress for about twenty years, I Yep. And you really were at the heart of these questions, national security questions in the congress. You were about to become chairman of farm services. So you're at the top of the pyramid for for receiving relevant intelligence. At what point because you weren't just some random guy at all.
At what point after nine eleven, the attacks of that day, did you realize there's something bad going on here?
Speaker 1: Well, it it started before 09:11 when I realized that the intelligence I was getting as the vice chairman of the committee was not really solid intelligence. I would get better information from Bill Gertz, a reporter that you know Yes. Coming to me with anonymous sources leaking to him Yes. About intel matters. And I would then go to the CIA and say, why am I getting this information from a reporter that I know you're leaking from classified sources that I'm not getting as a member of congress who's the vice chairman of the defense committee?
Are you playing games with me? And they wouldn't answer that. And that's what they do. They play games by manipulating the media to put out a narrative, and then we have to deal with that narrative. So, Tucker, what I did, there's a group in Washington that was known as the cockroaches.
They're a group of people that work for the intelligence agencies that get along socially, and I knew them all. They trusted me. I formed a loose net network of about 15 or 20. We met for breakfast every week in the member's dining room in the capital, and they would feed me raw data. They would feed me raw data, then I would go to the classified briefings using that raw data, and I would ask questions of the CIA in front of the entire committee.
And in many cases, I was the acting chairman because the the chairman wasn't there. So here I am, the acting chairman of the entire committee of armed services that fully embarrassed the, the intelligence agencies. I'll get into that when we talk about the 09:11 information, and post 09:11 where they put Bin Laden. The point is that the agency plays games with congress. The congress thinks it's getting good information, and it's not.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The agency wants members fighting with each other over stupid things so they can do what they want. And it's not all. There are good people in the agencies Yes. That I worked with, and I would go to go to war over. But there are some scumbags.
I know those scumbags. At the appropriate time, I'll name those scumbags who have made millions and millions of dollars and are making millions and millions of dollars today. They're making it in Ukraine. They're making it around the world because of context they established. And all that ties back to their positions that they got supposedly working intelligence for The US.
That's not what this country's all about. And you asked about my daughter.
Speaker 0: What happened? So give us the timeline. So you 09/11 happens. You keep ascending in congress, and you really and I remember this well because I interviewed you on these topics at the time twenty years ago when your book came out. And you start saying, wait a second, the US government really blew this.
There are people who knew this was happening, was going to happen, and for whatever reason didn't stop it. And you're really the only Republican who's saying this. And then 02/2006, you're up for reelection. It's an even year, of course, and and you're from your district in Pennsylvania after twenty years. And out of nowhere, the FBI raids your daughter's house, and we're all told it's because she's corrupt, you're corrupt, etcetera, etcetera.
And then you lose, and we kind of lose track of you, and Washington goes on as it does, and no one talks about nine eleven again. I think that's fair to say. I mean, I was there. I I remember when all this happened, though. Didn't it all.
I didn't put it together in my head at all until about a year ago. Was thinking about this in the shower. Whatever happened to Kurt Weldon and his daughter? So I go on the Internet. I'm like, is Kurt Weldon's daughter in prison because she's so corrupt?
Like Never talked to. So so what happened?
Speaker 1: So Okay. Well, here's what
Speaker 0: happened. Thousand six.
Speaker 1: In in in 1999 and February, they wanted me to run for chairman of the committee to jump over four or
Speaker 0: five Which committee? The armed services. Yes.
Speaker 1: But in congress, the protocol is you wait few times. So I have letters, which I can show you, Tucker, from Donald Rumsfeld endorsing me to become chairman of the Armed Services Committee in February.
Speaker 0: Yes. I have
Speaker 1: a letter from from deputy secretary of defense John Hamry endorsing me to become chairman of the committee in February. Dozens and dozens of letters. Then nine eleven happens. I felt personally responsible because I knew that we could have prevented it by the information that the Able Danger team established by general Hugh Shelton had gathered and tried to transfer three times and were blocked. So I said, uh-uh.
I got I owe this to Ray Downey. I'm wearing his jacket today. I owe this to the firefighters in New York and around the country to get to the truth if it's the last thing I do. And I owe it to all those soldiers that we're now sending overseas.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: So what I did, Tucker, I supported George Bush when he said we're going to send our troops over to Afghanistan. He made those heroic comments about we're gonna get them. I took that as a patriotic American and said, yes. We're gonna get them. But I was worried about what the Afghans might do as they did the Russian troops when they were in Afghanistan.
So, Tucker, with Al Santoli, whom you know Yep. And two other members of congress, I privately, without the knowledge of our government or the CIA, I went to, Paris. We met with king Zahir Shah, the king of Afghanistan who was living in exile with his family in Paris. We met with him to convince him to go back to Kabul to convene a lawyer Georgia of all the tribes, to to convince them to accept the American troops before they went in so it wouldn't be like they did with Russia. King Zahir Shah agreed to that.
I'll give you the photographs, Tucker. And I had two members of congress and Al Santoli with me, decorated Vietnam Veteran. Zahir Shah went back. I did all I could to protect our American troops, not the CIA, our troops. Then I find out, my intel team, those 20 people that were feeding me raw data, give me data within months after nine eleven, that Bin Laden's been sited in a town called Ladiz.
I have nowhere no idea where Ladiz is, so I grew up Pennsylvania Avenue to a bookstore and buy a map. I just gave you the map here today, Tucker. You can show it. And I found Ladiz. It's not in Afghanistan.
It's not in Pakistan. It's in Iran, in an area called Balochistan. So I go to the next classified briefing for the full committee. Now I'm the vice chairman of full committee. There are 60 members.
I'm the acting chairman at this time. So I said to the CIA, I have information of bin Laden's in Ladiz. This is their response to me. Mister chairman, we've heard similar reports. We could either confirm or deny them.
I was in shock. I was in shock. We're sending kids to die in Afghanistan, and we can't confirm or deny whether or not Bin Laden's in Ladiz? Three Months go by. I'm still supporting the president.
My intel team comes back to me and say, Kurt, he's being treated at a military hospital outside of Tehran. I go back to the classified briefing, and I ask the question in front of the full committee. And the answer from the CIA is, mister chairman, we've heard similar reports. We can either confirm or deny that Bin Laden is being treated at a military hospital outside of Tehran while we're sending kids to die in Afghanistan. I said, this is outrageous.
And then, Tucker, I get a call from Jack Murtha, the most respected democrat in the house, former marine, who I worked with closely. And he says to me, I want you to meet with Ron Klink, democrat from Pittsburgh. And Ron Klink's still alive. He'll verify this, Tucker. Jack's dead, but Ron's alive.
He said, Jack has a person who used to work for the agency that has information about Iran. And you investigate this kind of stuff, Kurt. Will you meet with him? I said, sure. Ron Klint comes to my office and brings this very tall man who's a former person from the the Swedish area, but he's a US citizen.
And I said, how can I help you? You know, congressman Murphy asked me to help. Ron Klink wants me to help. He said, congressman, I want you to help me get into Iran. I said, why do you wanna go to Iran?
He said, that's where bin Laden is. I said, why would you tell me that bin Laden's in Iran? He said, I was a knock for the agency. Do know what a knock is?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Nonofficial cover.
Speaker 1: That's right. He said, I was a knock for the agency, and I worked that area. And my friends are seeing Bin Laden in Iran. If you help me get to Tehran, I'll leave my identity there. I'll get a piece of him dead or alive, and I'll bring it back.
At the time, there was a $25,000,000 reward for Bin Laden. I said, can't help you right now because I'm in a battle over this follow-up to 09:11. Then I get another call, Tucker, from the interior department, totally separate. They wanna bring in their top bird man, their bird expert. I didn't think that was unusual because I was a Republican on the migratory bird commission.
The migratory bird commission No. There was a migratory oversees all the flyways for all the refuges up and down the coast. I was a Republican. John Conner's
Speaker 0: like me. Thank you, by the way.
Speaker 1: John John Dingle was a Democrat. Of
Speaker 0: course. I've duck hunted with him. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Two senators and three cabinet members. So I figured they wanna talk about birds. I'm on the bird commission. I'll meet with them. So this interior department bird expert brings in a US citizen from Maine who's a Sikh, but he's a US citizen, very wealthy family.
And he's got two falcons on his shoulders, million dollar birds with the blinders on, beautiful, into my office. I said, good boy. They're gorgeous. How can I be? He said, well, congressman, I've devoted my life to falcons.
He said, I helped write the UN protection treaties on falconry. He said, I trained all the children of the royal families in the sport of falconry Yes. Because that's their sport. He said, they all know me. They all trust me.
They all
Speaker 0: In the Arab world. It's huge. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: He said, so and I wanna help the country, and there's a reward for bin I said, yeah. I know that. He said, I want you to help me go to Iran. I said, why do you wanna go to Iran? Now he knows nothing about anything else I'm doing.
My my falconers are seeing Bin Laden's birds flying in Iran. You help me go to Iran. They'll accept me there because they know me. I'll tag his birds, and I'll take The US to exactly where he is. That's four four full source identities that Bin Laden was exactly where my intel people said he was.
Over the course of time, Tucker, I developed 10 silver bullets. They want to do a movie about me after they took me out, and I'll get to when they took me out. I got a call from Michael Scheuer. Michael was career CIA. After I was taken out of office, he called my home.
He said, congressman, do you remember me? I said vaguely, Michael. He said, well, I was the chairman of the Bin Laden task force in the CIA, and these people that you've that have met with you have shown me documents I never saw when I was working in the agency, and I was the Bin Laden task force director. He said, we want you to work with us. We want you to be involved in a movie we're doing.
I said, Michael, after what they did to my family, I can't do it right now. I hung up the phone. I get a call from general McInerney. About three months later, Tom McInerney. He said, congressman, you remember?
I said, yes, general. I remember you. He said, I'd I'd like you to work with us, congressman. I'm working with Michael Scheuer and and the Falconer, and we want you to be I said, I'm not getting involved after what they did to my family. They all had the same story, Tucker.
So what was happening in 02/2006? All my elections were landslides.
Speaker 0: It's one of the saddest things about this country. The country's getting sicker despite all of our wealth and technology. Americans aren't doing well overall. Obesity, heart disease, autoimmune conditions, all kinds of horrible chronic illnesses, weird cancers are all on the rise. Probably a lot of reasons for this, but one of them definitely is Americans don't eat very well anymore.
They don't eat real food. Instead, they eat industrial substitutes, and it's not good. It's time for something new, and that's where masa chips come in. Masa has decided to revive real food by creating snacks how they used to be made, how they're supposed to be made. A masa chip has just three simple ingredients, not a 17.
Three. No seed oils, no artificial additives, just real delicious food. And I know this because we eat a ton of them in my house. And by the way, I feel great. So you can still continue to snack, but you can do it in a healthy way with chips without feeling guilty about it.
Masa chips are delicious. They taste how a tortilla chip is supposed to taste. But the thing is you can hit them really, really hard, and I have, and not feel bloated or sluggish after you feel like you've done something decent for your body. You don't feel like you got a head injury or you don't feel filled with guilt. You feel light and energetic.
It's the kind of snack your grandparents ate. Worth bringing back. So you can go to MasaChips.com. Masa's m a s a, by the way. MasaChips.com/Tucker to start snacking.
Get 25 off. We enjoy them. You will too. Can I just ask you to pause for one second? So you had a lot of evidence, it sounds like Absolute evidence.
That Bin Laden was not in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Right. He was supposedly ultimately killed. Not in Iraq. He was in Iran.
But Iran was also in the crosshairs of the Bush administration. It was part of the so called axis of evil at the time. People were talking about invading Iran then. Why would the Bush administration hide the fact that
Speaker 1: It wasn't the Bush administration. Oh. Let me explain to you. And this is what Trump needs to understand. It started under Clinton when the Clinton administration Bill and Hillary Clinton, I have no respect for, were allowed to be themselves to be used so they could make money.
Tens and tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars because they allowed people, unscrupulous people, to control the agenda in Russia and around the world. And you've been going after some of this involving Russia. I can give you dozens of hard examples.
Speaker 0: I believe it. We've we've talked about this off camera, but I just wanna get to specifically Continued? Who was hiding the fact that Bin Laden was in Iran and why?
Speaker 1: Okay. It continued under Bush junior. Yep. And as I said, up until February, they wanted me to be chairman. All of a sudden, when I started questioning nine eleven, all of a sudden, the Bush people said, woah.
Yeah. I bet. John Sununu, after I was out of office, I had a lot of respect for it was Bush's chief.
Speaker 0: Smart man.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I know. I was in his office, and he's they said this to me. He said, you know, congressman, you were a great member. Everyone respected you, but you made one fundamental mistake.
I said, what was that, John? He said, when you come to the city, you're either on one rail or the other rail, and you went down the middle and took on both rails. I said, well, John, I didn't pledge allegiance to the Republican Party.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I pledged allegiance to the constitution. You guys were ecstatic when I took on the Clintons, when I took on Sandy Berger, when I took on the scumbags and what they did with China and Russia. You were ecstatic. But then when I saw things happening at 09:11, all of us he said, well, that's why you're not here. I said, you know what, John?
So be it. It's not the end of my life. And one day I'll tell the story, John. One day I'll tell the story because that's what America needs to hear. They need members of congress who don't become duped by scumbags and the intelligence agency making money for themselves.
And you know what, Tucker? I challenge them. I'll name them, and I'll give their dollar amounts of where they're making money today in the countries that we're at war with. They care about themselves and their power. They don't care about the lives of the kids that we send to war.
I saw it in Libya. I saw it in North Korea. I led delegations that were bipartisan to all of those places. They took it out on my daughter.
Speaker 0: So I I just wanna get one more time to the question of why who was hiding the fact that Bin Laden was actually in Iran? Our our intelligence agencies. They they have plausible deniability. In the end, I have 10
Speaker 1: silver bullets including two royal family members from two different royal families from two different countries, including in the end, the person that was in the room who was a knock for our government for fifty years. He's not from The US. He's become a friend of mine. He's been to my home. We've met dozens of times.
And on one of my trips to The Middle East, he said to me, you know, he calls you my my dear. You were right. I said, about what? He said, about a lot of things. But you're right about Bin Laden.
I said, what do you mean? He said, well, he was placed in Iran, in Balochistan. He said, I said, well he said I said, you know? He said, yes. I know that.
He said, I was in the room when the deal was cut. The US has plausible deniability. They weren't in the room. Was the point to get to Iraq? The point was to the the point was to manipulate, to get our troops committed, to go over to fight the battles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and that whole region of the world.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And they had to have the justification to do that.
Speaker 0: I believe it.
Speaker 1: But in the end, when five years ago, and even Trump doesn't know this, I'm sure, we killed someone that Trump took great credit for, and I applaud him for it.
Speaker 0: And he said, we killed this guy. Soleimani.
Speaker 1: That's right. Soleimani was the guy the deal was cut with. The deal was not cut with the Iranian government, and we need to understand that. And this is the heart of what we have to get to. The Iranian people are not our enemy.
I wrote this book in 02/2005, Countdown to Tear. It's all about Iran. It says that the people of Iran are not our enemy. And this book was endorsed by Jim Woolsey with a three page letter.
Speaker 0: Former CIA director.
Speaker 1: Former CIA director. This book was endorsed by Al Caravelli, Jack Caravelli, Gore CIA adviser. They both endorsed my book. The book was so popular that the people of Iran published it in Farsi. There it is.
And they published the book. Without my approval, they published my book. It became a bestseller in Iran because it said, you're not the enemy of the American people. Here's what happened, Tucker. When the Shah was in power think back.
We were best friends with Iran. Of course. Our intelligence people trained the Iranian intelligence people. We trained them. They're our people.
When the radical Ayatollahs and the mullahs took over Iran, they did not bring a new intelligence service. They did not change the agency. The IRG stayed the same. The deal to place bin Laden in Iran wasn't cut with the Iranian government. It was cut with Soleimani, and that's why we killed him.
Our intelligence agency has tentacles around the world, and they're not answering to anybody. And that's the problem right now. That's the problem Trump has. Yeah. He can cut off the security clearance of 51, but those that network extends far and wide around the world, and they can play all the games they want in Ukraine, in other countries.
And until we go after that, this is not gonna stop.
Speaker 0: That's consistent all consistent with what I've seen.
Speaker 1: And I
Speaker 0: would say. And that's I don't figure That's not a crazy statement.
Speaker 1: That's the challenge that Trump has right now. I still think he's at risk. Last May, I went on a TV show locally in the Philadelphia area, and I said my greatest challenge is they're gonna try to take Trump out. A month later Yeah. They they did the attack.
You know, it goes back to when Trump first when I kept quiet because I couldn't trust any of the administrations after I left, including the Bush administration, because Bush wasn't in control. And I can give you example after example
Speaker 0: I I saw that.
Speaker 1: Bush not being in control. I knew who was in control. When Trump was going in, I met with Rudy Giuliani. I had two private dinners with him up in New York. I had not known Rudy that well.
I said, Rudy, this is what's gonna happen. The deep state's gonna undermine Trump. They don't want him. They will undermine him by removing his ability to understand how they operate. Before he took office, they took out general Mike Flynn.
Yep. When they took out Flynn, Trump was like a baby in the woods. And for four years, they used the congress and they used their connections to derail this country. That's the problem that occurred in the first Trump four years. This time, I'm trying to get Trump to realize he's he's got a great start, but the people around him don't know what they don't know.
They don't have that historical understanding of what this just didn't happen with Trump. I mean, they took me out in 02/2006.
Speaker 0: So let's get to that. They took you out in 02/2006, and that's kind of where this conversation began. I I remember that very well, and it was like there were pictures on TV. I worked then at CNN. There were pictures of, you know, FBI and their blue jackets outside your daughter's house, and it's like, Kurt Weldon corruption scandal.
And then you lost to Sestak. Is it Sestak who was like a former general and just like a
Speaker 1: He got demoted. He was a three star demoted to a two star. His wife worked on the Clinton Security Council. She had intelligence ties. She still does.
Her name was, I think, Clark. And so he and he was on the NFC
Speaker 0: for But he was, like, the ultimate deep stater.
Speaker 1: Like, on every district. He doesn't live there now. Right. He came into the district to run. He had been in the district, and then he lost, he went back down every chain.
Speaker 0: And all of a sudden I mean, I remember all this really well thinking like
Speaker 1: Well, here's what happened. And then
Speaker 0: he got, you know, massive funding from around the country.
Speaker 1: You know who ran his campaign? His his campaign was managed by the staff director of Sandy Berger's company. Sandy Berger sent his woman to run the Sestac campaign. And I I did a one hour floor speech about Sandy Berger calling him a traitor. Yeah.
And we could talk about really, we
Speaker 0: just I'd like to. I'm I'm just getting far field once again, and my my apologies for that. But okay. So to your daughter and the FBI raid, did you have warning? Like, what No advance what happened?
Speaker 1: No advance warning. We we, you know, the we would have won the election. The polls were in October were showing that we were up by about six or eight points. All my elections have been landslides because I'm moderate Republican. And this one, I would have become chairman of the committee.
No doubts about that. You know, for some reason, the the Sestac campaign was maxed out every week in a TV buy. You know? And three weeks before my election, I get a call on a Monday morning that agents had appeared at my daughter's home at 7AM. And I didn't know what's that all about.
And so I immediately said, cancel the TV ads. My daughter's more important than some TV ads for a campaign, and I didn't know whether she might have done something wrong. I didn't think she would have. And and so we stopped the campaign. But something that I haven't talked about in the past, Tucker, the same time they raided my daughter's house, they raided a lawyer in my district who's a democrat who, interestingly enough, they shut down his Philadelphia office.
They brought dogs and helicopters and all to downtown Philly, same time. At the time they raided his office, he had been working for FBI counterintelligence against Russia for two years that I had arranged two years earlier. I had arranged two years earlier. Under oath. So the counterintell people handling him went to his office and were sitting with him while these agents from DC come in, and you had two sets of agents in the same office at the same time.
And the counter intel people are saying, don't answer any questions. We don't know what this is, but you're doing work for our country. The other ones don't know why they're sent there. Their first question is, mister Gallagher, isn't it true that you're related to congressman Kurt Weldon? And John starts laughing at them because congressman Walden's wife's last name is the same name as mine, and you're from the FBI?
I know who told them that, Tucker. Wait. So what but what
Speaker 0: was the pretext for raiding your daughter's house?
Speaker 1: There was none. They never talked to her.
Speaker 0: So what was she charged with? What did she go
Speaker 1: They never charged her they never charged her with anything. They never talked to her. There was no charge.
Speaker 0: So the FBI just shows up.
Speaker 1: Shows up, raids, takes boxes out, and then gives her the boxes back unopened, still taped. Nothing. Did when did
Speaker 0: they give the boxes back?
Speaker 1: That was months later.
Speaker 0: After you'd lost?
Speaker 1: Yeah. The and not only that, three months after the election, the annual fire dinner in Washington, which I started, 2,000 people attend, members of congress, house and senate, George Bush, the father, former CIA director, does a tribute to me, which you can I sent it to your staffer? Yeah. You can play it. And he says in the tribute, congressman Walden, you're the kind of leader that America needs.
You're the kind of leader that leaves the country safer, stronger. Those aren't my words. Those are George Bush senior's words to 2,000 people after they raided my daughter's house.
Speaker 0: After you'd already been neutralized. After I've not gonna be
Speaker 1: It was all about
Speaker 0: getting me out. So did you what? So the the raid comes. You must be completely confused. You call your daughter and say, like, what's going on?
Speaker 1: She she was totally devastated. Ruined her life. What do you how do you deal with that?
Speaker 0: I don't know. How do
Speaker 1: you deal how do you deal with your kid?
Speaker 0: I'm probably gonna find out at
Speaker 1: some point. If you wanna you wanna come after me you know? And that's what I say to them. They're scumbags.
Speaker 0: Oh, I know.
Speaker 1: You scumbag, if you wanna come after me, come after me publicly. If you're gonna hide and go do something behind somebody, which you do, none there are good people in the agency. But there are scumbags that work in our agencies, and I know them, and they're making money. They're million dollar people, and their million dollar companies are gonna be exposed if it's the last thing I do. And you'll see the ties around the world to the million dollar intel people who've made money off the backs of young American kids who have died in wars while they make money, or their companies make money.
And I'll give you example after example of that. In Russia, in Ukraine, around the world, in Libya, that's what's wrong. And until we understand that, it's not gonna stop. And Donald Trump's people need to understand that. We're not playing tiddlywinks out in the schoolyard.
We're playing with bad people.
Speaker 0: I agree. I I yeah. As I've said, I've I've I've seen it up close, so I know that you're telling the truth. What they do to my family is outrageous. So so this happens, and in the final month of a campaign with Three weeks.
Three weeks. With this challenger who doesn't live in your district who all of a sudden has I think I'm remembering this correctly, a lot of his money came from California.
Speaker 1: All of it.
Speaker 0: All of it.
Speaker 1: Then we find out, Tucker. I'll give it to you. We get a memo. My staff does some digging. What's going on?
And we find a memo that was sent to my staff in September, a month before this, from the National Republican Congressional Committee to my campaign committee saying, hey. For some reason, your opponent just cut his TV buy for one week in October by $500,000. The week was the week they raided my daughter's house.
Speaker 0: Because he wouldn't need it.
Speaker 1: So they told the Democrats the week they were gonna raid my daughter's house.
Speaker 0: I believe it.
Speaker 1: Because they didn't need
Speaker 0: the advertising that week. But what's crazy, if if you think about it and by the way, should say of of Sestek, who I always thought was just such a reptile, but he had kind of, like, the perfect views. He was very liberal socially, but on foreign policy questions, he was just a national security state He's a loser. Perfect national security state.
Speaker 1: He's an embarrassment, and I'll say it publicly. He's an embarrassment. Oh, I I And what he did to my family, I'll
Speaker 0: never forget. So but that's the Bush Justice Department. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: That's the Bush FBI. It's the it's the and I wrote a letter to Mueller, which I'll give you
Speaker 0: Mueller was FBI director there?
Speaker 1: Yes. I wrote a personal memo to him on LinkedIn, right to his personal self. And I said, mister Mueller, I respect you personally for being a marine, but you're a scumbag for what you did to my family.
Speaker 0: So did you call over to the White House and say, like, what the hell is going on?
Speaker 1: I called Karl Rove. He said, get a good lawyer. I have no respect for Karl Rove.
Speaker 0: Well, no one does.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you that story on another show.
Speaker 0: Wait. So but your daughter's house gets raided. She doesn't get charged with anything. The FBI never even
Speaker 1: Not isn't talked to. Not charged. Doesn't even get talked to. No one.
Speaker 0: And CNN were all admitted. I then worked.
Speaker 1: You know the the only person that defended me?
Speaker 0: Who? You're gonna laugh. No. Probably not.
Speaker 1: Joe Scarborough.
Speaker 0: I believe that.
Speaker 1: He was on my committee. Joe Scarborough, I'll give you the article, defended me and said, congressman Walt will never do anything like this. And the stupid jerk reporter said, oh, Scarborough, I don't know what he's talking about. Joe Scarborough was the only one at that time who really publicly aggressively defended.
Speaker 0: I believe that, and I knew Joe very well very well then. And
Speaker 1: He was on my committee on
Speaker 0: He's not a stupid person, by the way, whatever Joe's many faults. He's not dumb, and he gets how politics work.
Speaker 1: But he
Speaker 0: won't talk to me now. Of course not. Okay. So you call Karl Rove, and you say, what the hell, Karl Rove? What is going on here?
And he just says He's
Speaker 1: to get a good lawyer.
Speaker 0: That was it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. He's the same scumbag that when I told him that I told this company in Florida that was being harassed to hire lobbies, I told him to hire Bob Dole, he starts screaming at me on the phone. He said, who are you to tell anybody to hire Bob Dole's law firm? I said, Bob Dole's a war hero. He's a credible person.
He said, don't you know who his partner is? I said, I have no idea who his partner is. Well, his partner was Ian Richards from Texas. What does that have to do with somebody doing national security issues? Because Karl Roeb was from Texas and his nemesis in Texas was Bob Dole's partner, he didn't want them to benefit?
Speaker 0: That's what he's like.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what he's like. He's a small
Speaker 0: fat man. There's no doubt about that. Very small. So we're not positive if cryptocurrency is the future of finance, but we do know that what we have now is broken and dangerous. Debt has never been higher in this country.
Many of our so called leaders are getting rich serving you. It's a scam. So where does it go? Well, thankfully, there are options. Donald Trump has said repeatedly he wants The United States to be the crypto capital of the world.
He's already created the Crypto Advisory Council and recently signed an executive order to establish a Bitcoin strategic reserve. This could give normal people an alternative to the government's failing system, and frankly to the US dollar. I'm not saying put all your money outside the US dollar, but like don't be crazy, don't be stupid here, you can see where it's going. So the people at I Trust Capital can help you get in to this. It's complicated for people who aren't following it.
They make it easy. They're based a % in The United States Of America. We looked into this. They service only American investors, and they operate the only platform that allows you to buy and sell crypto twenty four seven both inside and outside of your tax advantaged IRA, and it all happens on one easy to use dashboard. They also operate a closed loop system, meaning that bad actors can't access your account and steal your money.
So if you're considering adding Bitcoin if you want to or some other cryptocurrency to your portfolio, iTrust can be trusted, and it's easy to understand. ITrustCapital.com or click the link below. Wow. Okay. So that's kind of that's the end of your political career.
Speaker 1: Well, it's the end of my public career, but I have a lot of friends.
Speaker 0: I know. I I got that.
Speaker 1: Lot of people that support. Now people want me to talk, and I am talking because Trump's in power. And the only thing they can do is they can kill me. Now two of my friends were killed, or I think they were killed. One was threatened by a a guy that was running to be the head of the CIA.
He got a call. This guy that was live was in Florida, John Quirk, was career intelligence for the CIA, and he helped me. He gave me all the internal stuff of what they were doing to try to they try to portray me as a Russian spy of all this stupidity. Right. Been there.
So so right. So Quirk called me. He said, you won't believe who I got a call from. Uh-huh. He told me the guy's name.
He said, the guy said to me, why are you helping Kurt Weldon and and Jaw Jaw. Quirk said, because Kurt Weldon's a patriot. The guy slammed down the phone. That guy's a multimillionaire in New York right now. Multimillionaire.
Get his money off the backs of the American people.
Speaker 0: What happened to your friend? You think he was murdered?
Speaker 1: I think he was given a they both had fast moving cancer, and that's a typical process that the agency uses overseas when they wanna get rid of somebody.
Speaker 0: I'm aware of that. Most people are not aware of that. But do do you know that to be true that that is a I
Speaker 1: don't I don't I can't prove it.
Speaker 0: No. But do you know that
Speaker 1: I know that they both died suddenly.
Speaker 0: The the US government has the technology
Speaker 1: to Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Infect people with fast moving cancer. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: As they do with the you know, in 1997, I did the first hearing on asymmetric threats. I was the chairman of the research committee, and I focused on four threats that and you can read about them. The first threat was the use of drones, which nobody was using then. The second was cyberattacks, which is now a big deal. The third was EMP.
People don't even know what EMP is. I was the leader
Speaker 0: of that.
Speaker 1: I wrote the EMP legislation. And the fourth was cognitive warfare. People don't understand cognitive warfare. And today, our intelligence agency is trying to pretend they don't know what it is. Like, oh, we don't know what that is.
It's because the the Russians have used it, and the Chinese, they call it Havana syndrome. Right. We know what it is.
Speaker 0: Directed energy weapons.
Speaker 1: Directed energy weapons.
Speaker 0: But you believe that and the only reason I'm pushing on this is because I know for a fact that highly informed people in other countries with, you know, real intel services who are not crazy or sophisticated take it as a matter of fact that it is possible to transmit fatal cancer from one person to another or from a machine to a person. And you know that that's true?
Speaker 1: I don't know that the details. I know the research that was being done when I was chairman of the oversight committee for research was very provocative, and we need members of congress that are unafraid to get fully immersed in understanding what we're doing and why we're doing it. The problem with the members of congress is that there are good members in both parties, but they get staffers who have career goals. And their career goal might be to go work at the Pentagon or go work for the agency. Yes.
So they get compromised midway through. You can't have that. You gotta have people to understand their loyalty has gotta be for the country and for what their original goal. And that's why it's so important that we and and the old the ultimate goal here is to have this presidential commission on 09/11 to hold people accountable and to let the president appoint a commission that asked the questions of what really happened, both intelligence wise and with the actual structure so that we understand, and then we make those people accountable. Believe me, when we do that, then you shake the system up.
Speaker 0: I agree with that, and and I think it's really important to begin declassifying a lot of things that the US government has done with our money and our name over the past sixty years. You know, starting with the Kennedy assassination, which the president, you know, has issued an executive order on January 23 to declassify it hasn't hasn't happened. MLK, RFK, etcetera, etcetera. We should know what happened in the in Butler Township in July. But I think the big the big story is nine eleven and every
Speaker 1: The reason is all those happened decades ago, and I agree with you. Nine eleven is only 24 ago, and I have all the information. I have the firefighters ready to go. I have the tapes of the firefighters and what they saw and heard. I have all the architects and engineers and all their 3,000 of them risking their careers.
I have the lawyers. I have the families. Everybody's ready to go. All Trump has to do is name a new presidential commission. Let them do the investigation.
We'll give them all the material, and then we'll show the country that we cannot we will not allow these people to to commit these kinds of out they're not even unscrupulous. They're outrageous and scandalous and treacherous acts against our nation. Imagine planning to kill American people. I can't begin to think of that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So but you've also just said that two friends of yours died of fast moving cancers.
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I
Speaker 0: my Well, they died of cancer. Of cancer. Right. But you think that the the people who are hiding the truth about nine eleven are capable of murder?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Well, I guess that would be obvious since 3,000 people were murdered that day.
Speaker 1: Just like Libya. We we were the ones that caused Qaddafi's death because Hillary Clinton played a game over there, and I I was the one that went over there during the war. Qaddafi asked me to come over. I took a Biden staffer and a Bush staffer and a film crew leader from ABC one in New York, Larry Mendy with me and a cameraman, because I didn't want the CA to set me up. I hand carried the letter back from Gaddafi offering to resign.
The US didn't want him to resign. They want to kill him. Why? Because Gaddafi and I met him three times. I took Biden on my second trip to Libya, by the way.
He went with me when I spoke to the whole country. At every meeting I had with Gaddafi, he wanted two things. He wanted to unite the African continent into into a group of nations economically, like European stand goal like the European economy. He wanted to base it on the gold standard, and the The US and Europe didn't want that. For and the other thing is they wanted control of his oil, and they wanted control of his sovereign wealth.
So Gaddafi had to go. That's outrageous, and it's wrong.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But that, I think, sounds right to me.
Speaker 1: I mean, but we've allowed so many of our kids to be drawn into conflicts to be killed. And these people doing this are they've never served in any capacity in our country. They've never been in the military. They've never served on a fire ground, and it's outrageous that they think they can get away with us and sit back and make all this money. It's outrageous.
Speaker 0: I couldn't agree more. So what let's get to nine eleven itself, and and you were so deeply involved in so many parts of this personally that it's I think it's easy to go off on different tangents, but just to the extent that you can describe what you know to be true, you said don't want to speculate as to motive, for example, but what you know to be true, what do you think the core truth of nine eleven, September eleventh two thousand and one is?
Speaker 1: I I I don't at this point in time, I have my own perceptions. I don't have something I can give a % I can't swear on, but I what I'm seeing bothers me to the core of my body that nine eleven did not happen because a group of hijackers got control of some planes. First of all, I have confirmed that two of the hijackers that were on one of the planes in New York were working for the CIA. They were on the CIA payroll, and that was confirmed to me by someone in writing from one of our agencies, and I have that letter. So two of the people involved were actually working for the CIA in one of the planes.
I know that, and they lost control of them. And there were reprimands against those agency people after the fact. Second, I know the intelligence, they tried three times to transfer the information about information that could have prevented nine eleven. That's fact.
Speaker 0: To the justice department.
Speaker 1: And I have the name of the person that at the justice department they contacted, and she was told to cancel the meetings. They couldn't have the meetings.
Speaker 0: Who who did that order come from?
Speaker 1: Who That's that that's what needs to be investigated. Okay. And then we have John Crane, the inspector general of the Pentagon, who went to the extent of issuing a, request, for whistleblower status because he was told to lie to the congress and lie about pre nine eleven intelligence and able danger. And then we have general, the the book by the general and his comments that he knew within seconds of none of this is in the nine eleven commission report. The nine eleven commission report is a piece of garbage.
Speaker 0: Well, then you also have it. I don't I mean, this is just a fact. I don't know what to make of it, but you have a guy called Alex Jones, who's a broadcaster, who said that summer that the World Trade Centers are gonna hit by planes, and a guy called Osama Bin Laden is gonna be blamed. He said that on tape with a time stamp, so we know that that actually happened. That's not not making it up.
It's not a conspiracy theory. He said that, and it's like, how would he know that? That's so far out of the realm of what anyone was thinking in Washington where I lived at the time that so then my question is, okay. If I'm Philip Zellico, the guy running the nine eleven commission, I'm calling Alex Jones immediately, saying, come on in under oath, and we're gonna find out how did you know that. And instead, the US government, the FBI in particular, set about to destroy Alex Jones and and almost succeeded.
I mean, they engineered a billion dollar judgment against him, etcetera, etcetera, but they really have, like, tried to to to kill him for saying that. And it's like if you wanted to get to the truth, why would you act that way? Why would you knock you out of congress?
Speaker 1: At the time of 09/11, I had been to the World Trade Center in '93. The governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, called my office, talked to me personally, thanked me for coming up. He watched my one hour presentation. I was back up there with Ray Downey. I brought Ray Downey's widow and five kids down in my district after 09:11 to honor him as a hero.
I, I was up all during the 09:11 incident at Ground 0, and I did everything I could to and I felt responsible. Do you know the nine eleven commission would not let me testify before the commission? Now I'm a firefighter. I'm a fire chief. I'm a state fire instructor.
I spent my whole career helping protect people from disasters. The nine eleven commission, even though my experience as a member of congress, vice chairman of defense and homeland security, would not call me to testify, would not call me to go in and speak before the line because they knew what I would say. So when the commission said it's gonna issue its report,
Speaker 0: which was when Pardon me. What year was that?
Speaker 1: It was when the report was released. I think it was 02/2005. So what I did, the the report was being released in the ways and means room of the Cannon Building. I went over. I sat in the front row to be the first one.
Lee Hamilton and Tom Keene were up there. Good people. I don't blame them. Yeah. It wasn't them.
It was the staffers that controlled this. It wasn't the commissioners.
Speaker 0: It's a Zellekow guy.
Speaker 1: That's right. Zelicow and Gurelik and Dieter Snell. Dieter Snell was a staffer working for them.
Speaker 0: Jay Jamie Gurelik, who was a Clinton DOJ
Speaker 1: who wrote the firewall memo that said you can't transfer military intelligence to civilian law enforcement.
Speaker 0: Think Bill Crystal's cousin too, unless I'm misremembering him.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's the case.
Speaker 0: I So
Speaker 1: I sat in the front row and I said, Lee, why did you not allow me to testify? And he said to me, well, congressman, you know, we had a lot of people that wanted to testify. Now I'm the representative of all the firefighters in the country. I'm the point person for the firefighters. Yes.
I'm a firefighter and a fire chief. I had been at the Trade Center in '93. I had been there in in 09/11, and they would not let me testify because they didn't wanna hear what I had to say.
Speaker 0: What would you have said?
Speaker 1: I would have said that is that we caused this.
Speaker 0: What do
Speaker 1: you mean? With the intelligence, the the I had the evidence that we we could have stopped this? Not me. Louie Free said that. Based upon what I came out with, Louie Free's op ed in the Wall Street Journal, which I can give you a copy of, said the the, nine eleven commission was an incomplete investigation.
And he also went on Good Morning America and said the same thing. They tried to blame Louie Free because Louie Free had left, the FBI the year before nine eleven happened. So he was their scapegoat. And I to this day, I think Louie's very upset over that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. I believe that.
Speaker 1: So the only way around this is to have a new for the firefighters of America and for our country to have an independent commission be appointed and give that commission full authority to take this wherever it goes, including the end result. And the end result may be very ugly.
Speaker 0: I I there's this a sense in which that's pretty obvious. I mean, like, why why is anything from 09/11 still classified? It's our country. It happened to 3,000 of our fellow Americans. We have an absolute right to know what happened.
There's not even a question, and it was almost twenty five years ago. So, like, spare me your lectures about national security. But can I ask you this? So, by the way, I never questioned anything about nine eleven, and I actively attacked people who did. I'm ashamed of that, but that's a fact.
I did it on tape more than once. Because my feeling was, well, you know, like, that's divisive or whatever. I was a child and an idiot. But the what began to make me wonder, and I have no idea what happened in nine eleven, but it's very clear that there's a lot of lying around it, was the collapse of Building 7. And all the wackos would be like, Building 7, Building 7.
I'd like, shut up, wackos. And then if you just sort of look at it, you're like, well, that is very weird, actually. No plane hit that building, and it does this happen a lot when buildings catch fire? Right. Okay.
Speaker 1: Besides being a firefighter, I worked for the INA, largest insurance company in North America. I was responsible for training their fire protection arson people for eighteen years. That doesn't happen. You never have a 47 story building just collapse, which this is. Even Donald Trump, I have a tape of him speaking on 09:11, and Donald Trump, which I'll give you a copy
Speaker 0: I've seen it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In his own words says, that's controlled demolition.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, it it certainly looks that way. I mean, look. I don't know.
Speaker 1: See, here's what they did. They brought in NIST. They brought in NIST to do a report.
Speaker 0: Can you tell us what NIST is?
Speaker 1: NIST is the the National Institute for Standards and Technology to do an assessment. Now they're like any other federal agency, and there are good people there, but there are people that want their jobs and want their careers, and they're not gonna rock the boat. And they came out with a report that's hogwash. University of Alaska, which is an ex very credible engineering department, did a full reputation of the NIST report, saying it's full with gaps and full with inaccuracies and areas where they did not get the right information. Let me just say this to you.
People say, well, you can't question NIST. NIST always does the right thing. When I went to congress, Tucker, in my first term, I'm two doors from the speaker's office, speaker Jim Wright. His office catches on fire at 07:00 at night. As a firefighter, I go up, punch the door open, get down on my hands, and he's crawling.
The kitchen's fully involved. This is all documented. You can read about it. And, said to my staffer, go get me the portable extinguishers. Three of the five weren't charged.
I said, go get me the hose in the hose station. There was no hose in the hose station. I come back out, and I say, gotta evacuate the building. Now I'm in my first term. It's a seven story building above ground.
No sprinklers, no detectors, no alarms. Here is the building, one of the seven six office buildings whole held holding the house and the senate in violation of every building code and fire code in America. Now I'm an expert on NFPA one zero one, the life safety code, and the BOCA codes. This building, if NIST did its job, NIST would have said, if you're gonna be in congress, you're gonna work in a building where your constituents who are blind and handicapped are not gonna feel threatened. Seven stories above ground.
No alarm system. No detection system. So a fire's occurring, and the police are running through the building yelling fire, get out. That's the you cannot trust the federal agencies.
Speaker 0: Obviously. I of course, that's obvious now. But tell us, like, from an engineering perspective, like, you had three buildings come down, sort of collapse in on themselves, implode, it looked like. And, like, a lot of people have said, many credible, non crazy people have said that was controlled demolition. Was it?
Speaker 1: Well, when I got up there the day after, I I I had been in the trade center at the restaurant on the top several times. There's no way those two buildings could have collapsed into what they were there. Something had to happen.
Speaker 0: Was that obvious to you immediately?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. Because, know and they were looking for other firefighters like Ray Downey and the 342 others that were trapped and eventually vaporized. So something happened. Whether there was there there's a there's a a high explosive material, I think it's called fermite, that is used to explode metal and steel and vaporize it.
Those tests were never done on that. There were some limited tests that found that there was some evidence of that, but that the whole thing never was subjected to the kind of investigation that would be warranted when three thousand people die. I mean, you have three thousand people die, you would think it would be a full massive investigation, not going after nine eleven, obviously, but what happened to the buildings and why they come down? They are the only high rise buildings in the world that have ever come down from an airplane hitting them. And those buildings, I read the report from the architect who designed them.
They were designed to withstand an airplane hitting the building and standing tall.
Speaker 0: And especially Building 7, which had no plane hit it. Right.
Speaker 1: No plane hit it, and the building just you could see it. When you watch it on TV, it just implodes straight down. And what really got got me again was Oriole Palmer, that the battalion chief arising on the
Speaker 0: Well, tell tell us who he was. What is
Speaker 1: Oriole Palmer was one of the most inspirational battalion chiefs in New York. FDNY. FDNY, who immediately, in very good shape, had a family, a couple of kids, went in the building as soon as Lee got on the scene, took the elevator up to the Fortieth Floor, got off the elevator, and you could hear him on the comms system say, I'm here, Fortieth Floor. We're gonna start walking up the stairwells. Every five floors, he radios back to communication.
I'm on the Fiftieth Floor. Everything's okay. We're on Floor 60. Everything's okay. He's going up.
Every so many floors, he gives a report. He reaches the 70 Eighth Floor, The Floor Of Impact. He comes out of the stair tower, and as clear as you listening to me here, and I know I get passionate and I apologize
Speaker 0: to the
Speaker 1: ministers for that, he says, we're on Floor 78, The Floor Of Impact. We've got two fires, and we can handle them. One minute later, the whole building collapses. That's not normal. That is not acceptable.
That is not what happened. And this is on tape? It's on tape. The film is called Bravo seven. And if your viewers want it, if they contact you, I'll give it to you.
It's free. It was produced not by Hollywood. It was produced by firefighters. And it includes the footage including the firefighter of the the footage of the firefighter communication between him and the command center. You can hear him as plain as day saying, I'm on the Impact Floor, Floor 70 8.
We have two fires here. We can control them. And he's comfortable. He's not worrying about the building collapsing. He just walked up 38 floors, and the whole building collapses.
Tucker, it's a big lie. Can can
Speaker 0: I like, what okay. Two things. What percentage of firefighters who were there that day are knowledgeable about building fires agree with you on this?
Speaker 1: The I have the utmost respect for the fire department in New York when I wrote the manuscript, Able Danger, which I didn't publish because my lawyer said they would kill me back in 02/2006. I never published it. I'm gonna publish it this year. Last summer in July, I took a copy up, a draft copy of the manuscript, and I met for two hours with John Esposito. He's the chief.
He's a great man. I have total respect for him. And, John knows me. And I said, John, you know my respect for the department. And I said, yes, congressman.
We know that. I said, I wanna give you this copy of my manuscript, and I'm signing it in honor of Ray Downey for you to keep in your archives. This is what really happened. He took it. I felt I owed it to the fire department of New York and their members.
There has been this subtle pressure to the firefighters and to the officers not to talk for obvious reasons. You you know what this involves politically. And look what happened to the chief of LA. The female chief of LA comes out and says that the resources were taken away from her for the field forest fires. And what does the mayor do?
She fires her. That was just a few weeks ago. The firefighters are always a scapegoat. That's why, Tucker, I'm done with this. If it's the last thing I do, firefighters are not gonna be taken for granted anymore.
We're gonna rise up. We're gonna shake the country to its roots. Super. Firefighters are not second class citizens.
Speaker 0: Well, should certainly shouldn't be.
Speaker 1: But if they talk, they'll they'll be they'll get sidelined. They'll be get called crazies. Even though they heard explosions, they can't be they can't be allowed to say that.
Speaker 0: They heard explosions?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. It's on tape. We have people coming out of the buildings that heard explosions. We have film footage of people that talked to Fox News that was taken off the air, and then then now it was brought back by X.
That's all available. That's why you need a commission to go back and look at all the Wait.
Speaker 0: So there are and pardon my ignorance, but there are people on tape saying I heard explosions.
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. 100%. Multiple people. So the counter
Speaker 0: to this, which is also kind of rooted in common sense is, wow, that would require a lot of people to be involved in a vast conspiracy and to stay silent for twenty four years, and that's just impossible because people talk.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of people. Not a lot of people. It will involve a very, very precise action of planning and, you know, taking steps to control the situation. And I again, I I have no firsthand evidence of this. That's why and this is the most important thing.
If there's one thing that you have the ability to do because you're very well respected and deservedly so, you coming out and showing that report, that request put out by the firefighters of America and by the people who are excuse me for doing that.
Speaker 0: No problem.
Speaker 1: The people who were the most impacted by this. Yes. I've helped them now. I'm not I'm not there's no money in this for me. I'm everything I'm doing pro bono.
Yeah. Pro bono. A new presidential commission. There was no presidential commission before. This would be the first presidential commission.
Speaker 0: We recommend you take this moment to do what we're about to do, which is enjoy an ALP. Wait. Can I ask though, like, if we find out I mean, one of the reasons I became so upset was actually an Alex Jones guy years ago at some campaign event I was covering? You know, 911, Building 7. I was like, shut up, asshole.
You know, I don't no one wants to hear that. And I was being a child and ignorant as I have admitted many times, and I was wrong because you should always be for the truth no matter what. On the other hand, I think my instinct was informed by the feeling that, wow. If we find out that US Government Officials or foreign officials or or anybody is hiding the truth about an event that murdered 3,000 America totally innocent people. Like, that's how could your country continue if you found out?
Speaker 1: It would be almost as bad as if there were people in our country who planned to allow Bin Laden to stay in Iran while we sent kids to Afghanistan and 2,500 came back in body bags. It would be almost as bad.
Speaker 0: No. You're right. No. You're right. Tucker,
Speaker 1: the American people don't understand. I was in decisions as vice chairman of the committee where I heard conversations talk about acceptable casualties. There are no acceptable casualties. If I have a son or a daughter, I'm the youngest of nine, my brothers and sisters served in every branch of the military, none of them would be acceptable casualties. And if we had people that made the decision that we can afford to get people over in Afghanistan knowing that several thousand are gonna come back dead, if there's no then we've gotta find an alternative to that.
And if we didn't do it there, then we shouldn't do it in The US. Do I think nine eleven is going to be the biggest scandal in our lifetime and beyond? Yes. I think it's gonna be the biggest scandal in the history of America because it occurred on US soil and because it is so recent that we have relevant information still available.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: We have recorded information. We have personal information. Once people realize they can talk and not be afraid of being killed or not being afraid of being ostracized. And you know what gets me is reporters who call people conspiracy theorists. Well, that's all the agency does.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that create the conspiracies.
Speaker 0: I'm aware. I mean, cut me a break.
Speaker 1: I'm aware. They have whole courses for their agents on how to make people look like they're conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 0: And the propaganda operations designed to discredit. Exactly. Right.
Speaker 1: And So all we want is the truth. Of course. So Trump, appoint people of impeccable integrity. Let them study the facts. I will testify under oath everything I know about intelligence.
Let these 3,000 architects who are risking their careers, making nothing, let them testify under oath. So let me
Speaker 0: ask you a very dark question. I don't even know if I want the answer, but flight 93, which crashed in your state in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, became a kind of and you feel obviously so crushed for the people, Todd Beamer and the rest on that flight, and they sound like they acted bravely and all that. But, you know, Dick Cheney the president Bush was hiding at Offutt Air Force Base, refused to come back to DC because of cowardice. And so Cheney was kind of running everything on that day on September 11, and he said it's been reported. You know, he gave the orders to shoot down that plane, but then they told us, no.
It wasn't shut down. The hijackers were under assault by the passengers, and so they drove it into the ground. Do you think that plane was shut down by the US government?
Speaker 1: I I don't have any evidence of that, but I I've seen other speculation that that plane may have been heading for the Chicago Tower. And if it wasn't for the people on the plane that diverted it and turned it around, that's where it was heading.
Speaker 0: For sure. Well, clearly, it was it was that plane was gonna be used to kill Americans, no doubt.
Speaker 1: And I lost a constituent that was a pilot on one of the planes, Michael Horrocks, who went to Westchester, the same school I went to, and I immediately contacted his widow and raised the funds to build a playground in his honor at the elementary school for his kids. So I felt it personally. The the the story is is a story that America has to come to grips with this because if there's any one story that's gonna determine whether or not we are a country of what we all claim to be, then as painful as it is, we have to learn the lessons from that. If we don't and we allow these people that were involved in these cover ups and in my case, I the people I'm talking about are covering up without any hesitation the intelligence side of it. If we don't do that, then this is just inviting this to happen again and again.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And it's and it's gonna continue. You can't have that in a country like ours. We're supposed to be the symbol around the world, and we get laughed at by people. The people in Libya know what we did and why we did Gaddafi. North Korea.
We had a solution from North Korea that Colin Powell endorsed that I worked on, with with a bipartisan delegation that the White House under Bush didn't want. And and look at now, North Korea is threatening an attack. All of these things we create. And if the American people don't have access to know the truth, then we're not really what we say we are.
Speaker 0: Who are the darkest actors in the Bush administration, do you think?
Speaker 1: I I can't name any one. I mean, Sandy Berger, in my opinion, should have been tried for treason. So Sandy
Speaker 0: Berger was I agree. Well, he committed treason, so he should have been. He's passed now. I knew him. He was national security adviser for Bill Clinton.
So tell us tell us you've made reference to him, for those who don't remember or getting their history from Wikipedia, who is Sandy Berger, and and why do you think he committed treason?
Speaker 1: And Wikipedia, by the way, has no credibility.
Speaker 0: I'm very aware
Speaker 1: of They are basically it's a controlled I'm aware. Process to manipulate And and you you don't really
Speaker 0: know that until I know it. Just because, you know, you get older and, like, there are some things in Wikipedia. Like, wait. I was there. I I know that that's not true.
Speaker 1: About Sandy and Sandy Berger. She Sandy Berger was when this all started. He was security adviser for Clinton in the nineties. And as a member of the Cox Commission, which was a formal commission established by the congress made up of nine members.
Speaker 0: Headed by congressman Chris Cox of California.
Speaker 1: That's right. Five Republicans, four Democrats, all committee chairs except me. I was appointed by Newt, and we spent six months behind closed doors looking at all the data about why China stole our technology. And what we ended up with was a nine to zero vote. Our security was severely harmed by China's acquisition of technology.
And Chris Cox warned a nine to zero vote. I went beyond that. And working with the people that I had befriended that were doing the able danger stuff, I said, why did this happen? And they produced charts for me, which I have given to you, to show the process that China established. And China did what we do.
We try to spy on other countries. That's part the game. That's legitimate. Yes. But if you get caught by that, that's your fault.
China set up a process using money through their central military commission, the People's Liberation Army, to set up front companies to deliberately acquire selected technology in The US by using campaign donations, primarily to the Clinton campaign in the mid nineties. The charts show that. You have those charts. Those donations resulted in waivers of arms control agreements. Those, donations involved in waivers of controls over technology, and all the technologies are listed.
Those charts show that four Chinese nationals who had no citizenship rights here gained access to the White House, in some cases, 49 times in one year. They were raising money for the Democratic National Party and Clinton. All of that was, orchestrated by Sandy Berger politically. In the end, what happened was we basically empowered China to acquire our technology by allowing them to use campaign donations. And the best example I can give you of this is there was a very specific inquiry done by the justice department of the L'Oreal Corporation in California.
L'Oreal Corporation, very capable, space company and technology company, had been caught transferring stage separation technology to China. Stage separation technology allows you to have a multistage missile to go long distances. Yes. Which
Speaker 0: is required for to go intercontinental.
Speaker 1: And China didn't have that. They didn't have that capability, so they got it. So Larao Corporation was caught transferring that. That's a violation. So the justice department, this is public information, was about ready to indict the CEO, Bernie Schwartz.
Bernie Schwartz went to Sandy Berger and received, this is public information, a retroactive presidential waiver. Retroactive presidential waiver. The technology had already been transferred. Now they get the waiver that it's okay. And that year, Bernie Schwartz becomes one of the single biggest donors in the history of the Democrat party.
I put all the donations in the congressional record. So anyone can go back in the congressional record to that time period and look for my speech, and you'll see the donations of Sandy Berger to the Democrat National Party and Al Gore and and Bill Clinton while we were giving our technology so China didn't steal it. They outsmarted us. That's our fault, not their fault.
Speaker 0: Right. They bribed our officials to
Speaker 1: the defense. So that's the first thing with Sandy Berger. Then Sandy Berger was involved in the run up to nine eleven, and he was, still Clinton's security adviser. He was, told he had to appear before the nine eleven commission. So two weeks before he was to appear, he gets permission to go to the National Archives in Washington.
And he goes up to the Top Floor in a special room. It's a big empty room, and he didn't realize he was on camera. They bring out documents that he has to see before his testimony. He said it was to refresh his memory. He ends up stealing those documents.
In a case that many remember and laugh about, he stuffs the documents in his underwear and his socks and his shirt pocket. You you've seen the story and Of course. It's all true. He leaves the archives with those national security archives, all pre 09/11 intelligence. And by the way, none of this is in a nine eleven commission report.
None of it.
Speaker 0: That's not mentioned.
Speaker 1: No. He leaves the archives.
Speaker 0: Do we know what those documents were?
Speaker 1: Well, I'll tell you what happened. He gets caught. The inspector general for the archives contacts Berger and said, mister Berger, did you take anything while you're in the archives? And he says, no. That's a felony.
He lied to a federal agent. He then hires one of Clinton's personal lawyers. That lawyer cuts a plea bargain. Sandy Berger pleads guilty to 11 felonies, lying to a federal agent, stealing five documents, and destroying five documents. The plea bargain he gets is one misdemeanor.
No jail time. He loses security clearance for one year. In the August before my election loss, I told my staff, I wanna go to the archives to see copies of what we think Berger stole. The CIA called my office and said, tell your boss that's very sensitive information. Like, what do you have to tell me?
What I what my job is? I know what my job is. I don't need to be reminded by somebody from some agency, so I went there. The documents were all regarding pre nine eleven intelligence. The millennium millennium after action report, which was prepared by John Ashcroft, was part of the documents that they didn't want the nine eleven commission to have.
Sandy Berger stole those documents. If you stole documents that are in National Archives, you'd be in jail right now. Sandy Berger got away with it, one felony, and he leaves the administration of Clinton, he forms a company. Guess what the company's called? Stonebridge.
And he hires Madelyn Albright. Stonebridge Albright. And what do they do? They represent Chinese corporations.
Speaker 0: Disgusting people. Both now gone. Both now gone. Do we know what was in those five documents?
Speaker 1: Why I while I went down there, I looked at what we think he stole. It was Paul pre 09/11 intelligence.
Speaker 0: Suggesting that?
Speaker 1: Suggesting that
Speaker 0: we should have taken action.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, we know that Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden in the base camps many times. I mean, all of this, and there's much more intrigue that I don't know about. That's why it needs a thorough investigation, not of staffers, not of hacks, but of people of intellect and people who are willing to put the country first. That's why Trump needs a convening commission.
Speaker 0: This is all so heavy that, you know, you wonder who would take that job.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I have people who will take it. I have firefighters who will take it, fire engineers. I have people who will surprise you that will take the job.
Speaker 0: That would take true courage. Venus, why No one even mentions declassifying nine eleven. I mean, it's like, oh, the Kennedy Association, UAPs. I mean, I'm all for I'm all for disclosure because we own the government. We're shareholders.
We're not slaves. So that's my view. I always push for disclosure, and I really mean it. But on nine eleven, I don't even know anyone who wants I do, but I don't know anybody else other than you who really wants full disclosure because it's like, you can feel it glowing. You just feel like, I don't know what that is, but that's
Speaker 1: really You know why? Everybody in Washington gets caught up with their with their careers, with their consultant fees, with their you know, I'm done with that. You know? I'm still paying the mortgage on my house. Actually?
Yeah. I'm actually paying the mortgage on my house. At what age? 77.
Speaker 0: Amazing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. My my wife's a nurse. You know?
Speaker 0: We don't So you didn't get rich in congress?
Speaker 1: No. I did not get I didn't I don't know how I don't know how Biden and Obama Obama was nothing in the senate. How do you make $88,000,000 in the senate when you don't have a job? And and and Biden, who I grew up with and was a friend with, I mean, no our kids went to school together. How does he have multiple houses at the beach and and, you know, I I don't need I don't need wealth.
I don't need wealth to be successful, and that's not my gonna be my legacy. But the there are people, and it makes me sick to my stomach because I'd like to name them all right now, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Well, go go ahead. Well, I I
Speaker 1: have them there. You know my partners, Judge Sullivan, very distinguished, the former deputy director of the FBI, Buck Ravel, Jim Woolsey, former deputy former head of the CIA, Chuck Brooks, who you got a note from, former, top guy at homeland security. Admiral Jay Cohen, who was head of research. They all know what I know and a lot more people. I had lunch with Jim Jones twice last year, former security adviser to Obama.
I don't wanna upend their careers. I don't wanna cost them money, but America America needs to know the truth.
Speaker 0: But without naming specific names, I'm familiar with every person that you just mentioned, and I would say from my impression having lived in DC for years, those are good guys, I think, honest people. Yeah. But without naming anybody, like, people who and those are all very highly informed people, like, actually, for real, not not bullshit.
Speaker 1: No. They're all real. No. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: For real. Of that of those kind of people, how many that you know think, this is not right? The nine eleven report. All
Speaker 1: of them. But they're not gonna come out
Speaker 0: But everyone kinda knows.
Speaker 1: Not gonna be the lead person to come out and take it on. And many people say, you know, Kurt, you're crazy. You know, you're Of course.
Speaker 0: Well, that's how they try to describe
Speaker 1: your your discretion.
Speaker 0: The only reason that I I mean, I've never done a 09:11 show, not a single one, really, that I know maybe one in thirty years, twenty well, now twenty four years. But the only reason that I wanted to talk to you specifically is because I was there, and so I know how much you know, and you're not a fake person at all. You're, like, right at the center of it. So I think you have complete credibility on this topic, and I think it's pretty hard to dismiss you as a wacko. If you're a wacko, then why are you gonna take over the armed services committee?
Speaker 1: Like Why would Donald Rumsfeld endorse me for the armed services committee?
Speaker 0: Paying your mortgage at 77, you clearly weren't ripping anybody off.
Speaker 1: I have no secret bank account.
Speaker 0: Clearly. So I do think you've got a lot of credibility, but it's just interesting. You're obviously very focused on this. The people just to restate, the people that you talk to who are in similar positions of authority who would have access to, you know, real intel on this, they all think that the
Speaker 1: nine talk.
Speaker 0: They all think the 09:11 report was just silly. Cover up.
Speaker 1: They think that there's a lot more to what happened than what's being told. The firefighters think the same, but a firefighter who's doing their you know, the key thing and why I devote my life to firefighters, they're the most powerful people in the country. They're not driven by power nor money. But when I organized them, back in 1987 and the fire caucus became the largest in the congress, I said, are the people that make America work.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're the people that not just fight the fires and disasters. They're the people it's where you vote on election day.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: It's where you hold the boy scout and girl scout meeting room, and there are 50,000 stations run by 30,000 departments, and 85% of them are volunteers. Do you know next year as we celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of America, the fire service will be 290 years old? Yeah. The first fire department was formed by Ben Franklin in Philadelphia in 1736. It didn't take a government to get people to come together to protect each other.
It's older than America, and the 50,000 departments are in every town, every village. They're the heart and soul of our nation and the backbone
Speaker 0: of our know that for you.
Speaker 1: And that's what I'm telling Trump. If you ignite that group of people, you don't need to have MAGA people alone. You have America then. Because in every poll, firefighters are 98% supported.
Speaker 0: They're the only ones everyone likes.
Speaker 1: Totally agree. Because they're not driven by power or money.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And that's why firefighters don't wanna get involved in a political battle. Even if they know they're being shortchanged, even if they know their loved one was killed when they shouldn't have been killed, they keep quiet. Well, I'm not gonna keep quiet. I'm their voice, and I'm gonna speak out.
Speaker 0: So let me ask you one final question for people who've made it this far in the interview, and and I should just I wanna say for the record, think you've been really restrained. You haven't speculated on really anything other than things. You said, I saw this, I know this to be true, but you haven't given us some complex theory of why this happened. Oh, I can't. I won't.
Right. But for people who are are thinking, wow, this is a little more serious than I realized, and I wanna know more, and clearly, Wikipedia is a filter, not a way to actually understand history, what should peep what responsible, credible accounts of nine eleven would you recommend people read? Like, where do you get closer to the truth?
Speaker 1: There there is no one single account that I have seen. I would suggest and they can go I'm not on social media except on LinkedIn. And if you go to my LinkedIn, I'll send you a copy of Bravo seven. Bravo seven is a film one hour long done by firefighters, not done by Hollywood. And by the way, my my film based on my book's coming out next year, and all the proceeds of my film firefight are going to firefighters.
So nobody can say he's gonna make a profit off that.
Speaker 0: No. Must still be paying your mortgage.
Speaker 1: My Hollywood film is the proceeds are going to firefighters, and it's about my book. But bravo seven gives you the story of what really happened from the eyes of a firefighter, and then it has the audio comments of Oreo Palmer. And if you're a human being and you listen to that brave firefighter with two kids, I think two or three kids, who's risking his life after he went up 40 floors in the elevator, climbing up 38 floors with his team, arriving on the floor of impact, and saying I can handle it. And if we let him die there like it was just some random thing, then we're not human beings of decency.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: We owe Oreo Palmer. We owe Ray Downey. Ray Downey told us ninety three, eight years earlier, this is gonna happen again. Ray Downey told us in the Gilmore commission we needed to have this fusion center. We allowed unnamed scumbags in the CIA to block us from having a fusion center.
We allowed unnamed scumbags in the agencies to block transferring the information that Scott Philpott and Tony Schafer and Eileen Pricer and Eric Klein Smith had that they tried to transfer to the justice department. They also had information the the beef before the attack on USS Cole when they ruined the career of, of Kirk Lippold, the commander of the Cole, I defended him. If we're gonna truly be a country that really cares about other people and what we're doing, then we have to live up to that. And how can you send your kid to war or combat and all this crap about giving them a home and a place to live and help? Well, great.
Let's do it up front. Let's prevent them from needing a home. Let's prevent them from needing health care. Let's prevent them from having to to be put in a in a shelter someplace. Let's focus on the veteran before they become disabled.
Let's focus on the firefighter before they die. But see the media the media and the intel deeps, they likes to make it look like, well, we got all these charities out there. These charities allow us to give money like we really care about them. Caring about them after they're dead is not the same as preventing them from dying, and that's what this is about, preventing them from dying. And I'm not gonna stop until we until we take the necessary steps to never let this happen again.
Speaker 0: I'm grateful for your determination. And the last thing I'll say is I think when you give up the love of money, you you get filled with a holy power, and you clearly have been. So congressman, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you
Speaker 0: very much. Thank you.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
@TuckerCarlson [RG911Team] Here is FDNY Battalion Chief Orio Palmer declaring he can put out the fires inside the South Tower on 9/11. Minutes later, it collapses on him like a house of cards. Curt Weldon is fighting to expose what really happened, and so are we. https://t.co/Jrtrp8zvs4
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Some say, “People never change.” Tell that to @TuckerCarlson. As he just showed in his 9/11 interview with Curt Weldon, sometimes the greatest wisdom is admitting you were wrong. What do you think? https://t.co/sNrbxM8NbB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. The speaker admits to previously attacking people who questioned 9/11. The speaker states they are now ashamed of this behavior, but admits to doing it on tape more than once. The speaker claims their reasoning at the time was that questioning 9/11 was divisive. The speaker concludes that they were a child and an idiot at the time.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One thing to hold on to. How you make these claims or appear to make these claims. Do you have any
Speaker 1: other thoughts on the Sure. Sure. Let's start with the collapse of Building 7. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if that Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. No. I've I've And so conveniently By the way, I never questioned anything about 911, and I actively attacked people who did. I'm ashamed of that, but that's a fact. I did it on tape more than once.
Because my feeling was, well, you know, like, that's divisive or whatever. I was a child and an idiot.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] What in the world is this? If you can explain the glowing yellow substance dripping from the side of the South Tower on 9/11, please comment below. Our money is on thermite. Aluminum does not glow like this in daylight. https://t.co/kAQAuoTAGe
reSee.it AI Summary
Minutes after this video was taken, anyone still near the South Tower on 9/11 would be dead. Those evacuating had no idea what was about to happen, but I do.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Minutes after this video was taken, anyone still standing near this area will be dead. This is the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11. And none of the people evacuating know what was planted inside. But we do. See next post ⬇️ https://t.co/87IAeuvRxB
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Video Transcript AI Summary
There were reports of a potential secondary explosion, indicating another bomb might go off. It was suggested that individuals in the area were planting additional bombs following the plane crashes into the towers. Concerns were raised that the situation was not yet resolved and that more threats could emerge.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He received word of the possibility of a secondary device. That is another bomb going off. It was a secondary explosion, probably a device. And he said that, that there were people in the area that were planting bombs after the planes that had flown into the tower. There may be more.
Any one of these fucking builders can blow up. Say This ain't done yet.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] There is a BBC clip from 9/11 you’ve probably never seen. No, not the one claiming WTC Building 7 collapsed 20 minutes early. BBC reporter Steve Evans mentions a series of explosions not caused by the plane impacts. And that’s not all he says. See next post ⬇️ https://t.co/DL6Q09NqSd
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was at the base of the second tower when it was hit on a busy morning. At 9:15, there was a powerful shaking, which felt like a heavy weight falling. People evacuated calmly, though you could see fear in their eyes and hear it in their voices. Once outside, a second explosion occurred, followed by a series of explosions. Emergency vehicles were present when debris fell on them, highlighting the unexpected nature of the structural damage. Now, eight hours later, the operation continues, and we can only speculate about the extent of the human toll caused by these explosions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Time ago, he told me what he'd seen. It's more what I felt really. I was at the base of the second tower, if you like. The second tower that was hit, on a busy, obviously, a busy morning. If you wanted to choose timing, that would be the time to do it.
9:15 in a complex of buildings, where 50,000 people work. There was an explosion. I didn't think it was an explosion, but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake. I thought, well, that can't be right.
It felt like a big weight, a construction weight falling from a great, great height. People, great height. People moved out very, very calmly. No screaming or anything like that. But you could see moisture on their eyes and you could hear fear in their voices.
And then when we were outside, the second explosion happened, and there have been a series there were then a series of explosions. You can see these pictures. The thing that strikes me about these pictures is that some of those emergency vehicles were clearly there when later debris, rained on them. So one of the things that happened was basically the structure, the engineering, if you like, of the structure wasn't apparent to the security forces. We are now, what are we, 8 hours after that, the operation goes on.
We can only wonder at the kind of damage, the kind of human damage, which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Look at the bottom right corner of this 9/11 video. Then explain what is happening to the World Trade Center - without violating the laws of physics. The debris from the crushed tower above has not fallen far enough to cause this. Make it make sense. https://t.co/jauFkFFJls
reSee.it AI Summary
The World Trade Center's North Tower was not destroyed by volcano ash or a dust storm, but rather through controlled demolition on 9/11. Prof Maximilian Ruppert, a renowned explosives expert, and his colleagues knew this instantly but remained silent out of fear. Other experts like Tom Sullivan, Gary Mackenzie, and Steve Luce have also risked their careers to reveal the truth.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] It's not volcano ash. It's not a dust storm. It's the North Tower of the World Trade Center, which was just completely obliterated on 9/11. But how did 110-story steel skyscrapers get ground to dust? Explosives experts know the truth. Read below to find out. https://t.co/GBMtqnG28J
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The most recent explosives expert to break his silence on 9/11 is Prof Maximilian Ruppert, a Professor of Structural Engineering in Germany with a focus on explosives. His PhD dissertation was on the effects of explosives on buildings. He is one of the world's foremost experts on building construction - and demolition. In this 2023 interview, he reveals that he and his colleagues knew instantly on 9/11 that the Twin Towers came down via controlled demolition after viewing videos of their destruction. But instead of going public, they kept quiet for years.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Wir haben gefeiert, als wir die Bilder sahen, aber dann erkannten wir, dass Menschen zu Schaden gekommen waren. Wir wussten sofort, dass die Türme geplant zum Einsturz gebracht wurden. Es gab keinen Zweifel in unserem kleinen Zirkel. Die Detailarbeit bei einer geplanten Explosion ist beeindruckend. Jahre später erfuhr ich vom dritten Turm. Es war uns allen klar, dass es keine anderen Ereignisse gab.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wir haben ordentlich gefallen, wie sich das hat auch gehört. Man forscht da wirklich - man muss das so sehen: vierundzwanzig Stunden am Tag, sieben Tage die Woche – es gibt einem immer durch den Kopf jahrelang. Sein Thema, für das man Feuer in Flammen brennt, und deswegen haben wir das auch bei meinen lieben Kollegen Gebühren gefeiert. Die Feier war dann plötzlich vorbei, dann sind grosse Monitore eingerollt worden. Ich weiss das noch wie heute, obwohl schon so lange her ist.
Dann war die Party vorbei und es war auch das Militär da. Alles, was Rang und Namen hat, war da. Amerikaner waren keine da. Normalerweise sind die immer da, wenn es es zu feiern gibt. Und es war dann auch der Anlass, warum einer vom höherrangigen Militär dann gesagt hat: Schaut mal aus, die Basilis, die Amis die bringen da diese Türme zum Einsturz und haben uns nicht mal Bescheid gegeben.
Das ist ja eine Frechheit, wenn es bei uns etwas zum Sprengen gibt. Ich zitiere jetzt: Dann kommt jemand zum Saufen und fressen und jetzt können wir zu denen nicht Es war die spontane Reaktion in den ersten Sekunden, nachdem wir diese Bilder gesehen haben. Das ist aber dann schnell still geworden, weil wir gemerkt haben: Oh, da sind Menschen zu Schaden gekommen. Da ist uns die Spucke weggeblieben, war es im Sinne des Wortes.
Speaker 1: Ist das so zu verstehen, dass diese kleine Gruppe aus ihrer Profession heraus die Bilder gesehen hat und sofort eine Beurteilung abgeben konnte? So etwas klingt ja absurd, wer kann schon sofort urteilen? Du hast ja vorher erläutert, wie lange du an diesen Themen arbeitest.
Speaker 0: Wir alle in dem Raum haben diese Themen untersucht. Das war eine kleine Community im deutschen Sprachraum, sage ich mal. Da gab es noch eine in Israel, mit denen wir engkontakt hatten – in den USA und in Fernost auch. Und das war's dann. Also man kannte jeden.
An diesem Tag waren halt die, die in der deutschen Community waren – Berlin, Freiburg, Breisgau, München, Bundesheer ohne eben, waren alle bei den anderen. Wir wussten sofort: Wenn man auf die Art Gebäude einstürzen, das kann nur ein geplantes Vorgehen sein. Wir haben auch irgendwie so was Wow, Respekt! Das ist echt sauber gemacht! Also das muss man mal hinkriegen.
Das ist nicht einfach. Sie müssen sich das so vorstellen: Ich halte jetzt keine Baustatik vorlesung, keine Angst, aber nur ganz kurz: eine Statik aufzustellen, damit ein Gebäude dieser Grössenordnung hält, ist vielleicht der Aufwand ein Hundertstel – auch von der Expertise im Vergleich dazu, dass man so ein Gebäude eben so auf diese Art und Weise zum Einsturz bringt. Ich meine, umhauen kann man es immer, aber das ist so ohne grosse Kollateralschäden. Vor uns
Speaker 1: müssen wir in Respekt fordern.
Speaker 0: Natürlich vor den Menschen, die zu Schaden gekommen sind. Aber normalerweise ist es so, dass man die Gegend räumt und dann das Gebäude so zum Einsturz bringt, wenn man es abreisplangemäss hat, dass das gerade in sich zusammenstürzt und keine grossen Kollateralschäden Infrastruktureller Art schon gar nicht personeller Art mit sich bringen. Bei so einem Gebäude bedeutet das bei so einem Gebäuden wirklich zwei Jahre schwerste Arbeit und Vorbereitung, also sowohl in Ingenieurtechnisch, berechnungenstechnisch, also heute virtuell mit dem Computer, als auch wirklich vor Ort eben Hand anlegen. Also ich habe mir mal einen Schrank gesprengt und da gehen wir mit der Flex ran beim THW, und tun jeden Blitzableiter vorher durchrennen, weil so eine kleine Störstelle kann im Umfallen passieren, dass er sich dreht. Und mein Sprengmeister Gotthard Selig, der uns beim TAW das Bike gebracht hat, der hat immer gesagt: Leute, ihr dürft es einen Fehler nicht machen Vorher sagen, wo der Einstein umkippt, sondern nachher sagen: Da wollte ich ihn haben.
Also, so schwierig ist es, das so zum Einsturz zu bringen. Das ist eine grosse Kunst.
Speaker 1: Gab es nach Wahrnehmung dieser Einsturzes irgendeinen Zweifel, den man in diesem kleinen Zirkel hatte, dass man sagte: Na ja, vielleicht ist es tatsächlich doch ein anderes Ereignis? Die Flugzeuge haben wir alle gesehen.
Speaker 0: Nein, kein Zweifel, nicht einer.
Speaker 1: Das gab
Speaker 0: es nicht. Es war uns sofort klar: Das muss durch eine geplante Explosion, die auch immer zustande kamen, welcher Sprengstoff und welcher Stelle, Das ist Detailarbeit. Aber uns war sofort klar: Die wurden plangemäss zum Einsturz gebracht. Und wir haben ja nur zwei Türme gesehen. Das mit dem dritten Turm, Das hat mich erst Jahre später verstanden.
Das habe ich gar nicht mitgekriegt.
Speaker 1: Wir wollen an dieser Stelle auch gar nicht das Ereignis.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Why did Prof Ruppert wait so long to speak out on 9/11? The simple truth is fear. Listen to him explain in his own words. https://t.co/ljgMBDP2PZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ich war damals 28 Jahre alt und hätte aufstehen können, aber hatte vor, eine Familie zu gründen. Als ich Zweifel an meiner Arbeit bekam, fühlte ich mich überfordert und schwieg. Dann wechselte ich zur Industrie, verdiente mehr Geld und wurde erfolgreich. Trotz Kritik von meinem Schwiegervater fühlte ich mich abgelenkt. Heute ist mir die Meinung anderer egal, und ich kann offen über meine Erfahrungen sprechen.
English Translation:
I was 28 years old at the time and could have stood up, but I planned to start a family. When I doubted my work, I felt overwhelmed and stayed silent. I then switched to the industry, earned more money, and became successful. Despite criticism from my father-in-law, I felt distracted. Today, I don't care about others' opinions, and I can openly talk about my experiences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Konnte mir den Mut damals nicht leisten, aufzubegehren, oder ich habe ihn mir nicht geleistet. Ich habe mich auch jahrelang darum auch geschämt darüber, muss ich ehrlich sagen. Ich hätte eigentlich auch begehrt müssen, Ich
Speaker 1: hätte damals achtundzwanzig Jahre alt.
Speaker 0: Ja, ja. Ich war damals achtundzwanzig Jahre alt, als ich meine Promotion abgegeben habe.
Speaker 1: Du warst ungebunden frei, hatte wahrscheinlich noch keine Familie zu versorgen. Du hättest aufstehen können.
Speaker 0: Das stimmt. Aber ich hatte eigentlich vor, eine Familie zu gründen. Meine liebe Frau, die sitzt hier. Sie waren damals auch in der aktiven Übungsphase, in der Planung der Familiengründung, und das hat ja auch geklappt. Und ja, So war die Situation damals.
Es gab schon den Punkt, wo ich aufgestanden bin und laut wurde, und dann habe ich gemerkt, was das für Konsequenzen hat. Und war dann erst einmal still. Warum bin ich überhaupt heute hierher gekommen und rede über neun elftel? Wie gesagt, ich hätte es ja schon frueher tun können, aber es ist ja schon so lange her, aber ich glaube, es gibt eine Motivation, warum ich das heute mache, weil ich ein bisschen auch dafuer Verständnis werben möchte, wenn Sie sagen: Warum steht die Wissenschaft Also zumindest die drei Prozent, die es angeblich sind, weil die siebenundneunzig Prozent sind ja alle einer Meinung – das ist auch Quatsch. Aber wo sind die drei Prozent?
Ich kann es Ihnen nur aus meiner eigenen Historie erklären. Also ich war damals achtundzwanzig, gebe meine Promotion ab, dann dauert es Monate, man zittert, dann ist es endlich soweit, dass man sich verteidigen kann. Dann bekommt man da einen Titel, schön geschmückt. Und ein Jahr später ist man erst mal unter Schockstarre und sagt: Habe ich jetzt wirklich, vierundzwanzig Stunde am Tag, sieben Tage die Woche, über viele Jahre hinweg, einen totalen Blödsinn gemacht. Also, verdammt nochmal, das stimmt doch, was ich gemacht habe.
Also, ich weiss doch, dass ich recht habe. Also man ist sich da eigentlich sofort zu einhundert Prozent klar. Tauscht sich dann - wenn man so was sieht im Fernsehen - mit anderen aus? Also, ich weiss noch: Gut, ich habe in der Woche angerufen, in Israel, in USA, in Fernost, in Fernost auch. Dem einer hat gesagt: Ted, weisst du, kennst du diese Typen, die da am Fernsehen auftreten, die über den Kollaps of the Towers was erzählen?
Da sagt er: Nein, ich kenne die gar nicht. Der ist Nein, ich kenne die gar nicht. Der ist noch viel älter gewesen als ich. Der hätte die Leute eigentlich kennen müssen. Es wurden Leute interviewt, die wir alle nicht kannten.
Wir wurden nicht interviewt. Ich schätze nicht einmal ein Journalist auf mich zu, obwohl ich eigentlich diesen numerischen Standard geschaffen habe, solche Sachen zu berechnen. Dann zweifelt man an sich selbst und dann geht es los. Einige etwas sagen werden und dann werden sie diffamiert, das muss man auch sehen. Man ist dann still und erst einmal in Schockstarre.
Und dann kommt der nächste Punkt, das ist jetzt keine Entschuldigung, das ist einfach nur eine Man kompensiert das ganze Drama mit einem Erfolg woanders. Es ist dann so passiert, dass ich dann auch die Schnauze von Wissenschaft voll hatte – muss ich ehrlich zugeben. Und dann geht man in die Industrie – da wollte man ja schon hin – da kriege ich das Zehnfache an Kohle und habe da halt Kohle gemacht, war erfolgreich und konnte mich so super ablenken. Dann, gepaart mit dem ersten Bashing, das einem echt wehtut – also ich weiss es noch gut – ich sage es erst einmal direkt: Mein Schwiegervater, den ich sehr schätze, Unternehmer ist, von dem ich wahnsinnig viel gelernt habe. Also Teil des Erfolges ist dem Sparring mit ihm geschuldet.
Den habe ich das erklärt und der hat mir gesagt: Es stimmt nicht, was Du sagst. Ich habe es selber gesehen. Auf ARD, auf ZDF, Das sind Flugzeuge rein, da zählen wir nicht so dummes Zeug. Und dann fragt man sich schon: Wenn der das schon obwohl, der einen total gern hat und schätzt und da gegenseitig grosser Respekt ist, auch die Bewunderung seinerseits in jungen Jahren eine solche Promotion machen und so weiter, wenn dann so einer einen so direkt sagt: Meinen Mund halten! Ganz direkt, das aber liebevoll meint.
Was passiert denn dann, wenn ich das laut sage und die Leute es nicht so nett mit mir meinen? Das ist eine Situation, in der man sich als junger Mensch überfordert fühlt. Und heute, ganz offen gesprochen - wie vorhin ist es auch so ausgedrückt worden: Heute ist mir das LX sagte egal. Also, das Schäfchen im Trockenen, was sollen sie denn jetzt machen? Mich als Verschwörungstheoretiker, Das juckt mich nicht mehr.
Heute kann ich es machen.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] But Prof Ruppert is not alone. Other explosives experts, like Tom Sullivan, Gary Mackenzie and Steve Luce, have risked their careers to tell the truth about what happened on 9/11. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than a paycheck. Here’s Sullivan: https://t.co/jE3fsh0OIG
Video Transcript AI Summary
My name is Tom Sullivan, and I worked for CDI, a top explosives demolition firm, during 9/11. I loaded explosives for 2.5 years, knowing it was a controlled event. Building 7's collapse was a classic implosion - the core failed first, leading to a symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed. I didn't doubt this from the start.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Name's Tom Sullivan. I worked for Control Demolition Incorporated, CDI, the top rated explosives demolition firm in the world owned by the Loazzo family during the year surrounding 9 11. I worked for them as an explosives loader for two and a half years. As an explosives loader, my job was to place explosives in the buildings to prepare them for demolition. I knew from day 1 that this was a controlled event.
And and why I did that is because simply looking at building 7. What I saw, it was a classic implosion. The center of the core, the penthouse area starts to move first, and then the building follows along with it. You have a sudden collapse of the building. It's fairly symmetrical as it comes down.
There's the classic kink, which means that the center core fails first. And you can see that on the video, and the building falls near free fall. So I really honestly didn't believe this from day 1.
reSee.it AI Summary
On the day after 9/11, Peter Jennings asked a revealing question about the attacks. The answer was shocking. Also, there is a WSJ article discussing evaporated steel at Ground Zero.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The day after 9/11, lead ABC anchor Peter Jennings asked a question that he wasn’t supposed to ask… and the answer was beyond belief. What does it reveal about the 9/11 attacks? https://t.co/3Pyu4L2I9n
Video Transcript AI Summary
George Stephanopoulos is in lower Manhattan discussing the lack of rubble at the World Trade Center site. When asked where the rubble went, a volunteer explained that it fell into the ground and was pulverized.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: George Stephanopoulos is, down in lower Manhattan today, George. I don't know if you heard a little earlier, me raised this question which was asked actually raised by ABC's Jackie Judd as we look at these areas down below. And the video where the towers used to stand and where is all the rubble gone. And have you have you been able to and is there any way you can answer that question?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry Peter, I didn't get the question.
Speaker 0: Okay, I apologize. Jackie Judd and several other people could keep asking us when you look at where the towers used to stand there is surprisingly so little rubble. Where did all the rubble go?
Speaker 1: It's a very good question, Peter. And I have asked some people who've been doing some of the rescue and recovery work this morning. If you look behind me, you can see the very remains, the skeletal remains of the World Trade Center. And one volunteer, Robert Gurlinski, explained to me the reason there's so little rubble is that all of it simply fell down into the ground and was pulverized, evaporated.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Link to WSJ article about evaporated steel at Ground Zero: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1002231520735763440
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] This rare video is what every worker in the Twin Towers would have watched before 9/11. Notice anything interesting? https://t.co/H4fkUOK3oK
Video Transcript AI Summary
As workers in the World Trade Center, it's crucial to be prepared for emergencies. You, along with floor wardens and fire safety teams, are the first line of defense. The building has smoke detectors, sprinklers, and emergency lighting in place. In case of a fire, follow evacuation procedures and do not use fire extinguishers unless safe. The Port Authority Police and New York City Fire Department are trained to handle emergencies. Remember, safety is a team effort.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As workers in the World Trade Center, this is a sound none of us wants to hear. But if we don't listen to it, if we don't heed the alarm, our lives and the lives of the people we work with could be in danger. That's where you come in. You, as well as the floor wardens, deputy wardens, and searchers play an essential role in safety procedures. You and the fire safety team on your floor are the first line of defense in a fire emergency.
We want you to know what to do in an emergency and how to report an emergency to building management and appropriate authorities. The fire prevention and safety features of the World Trade Center are as good as you will find in any high rise office building. For example, there are smoke detectors throughout the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and in the elevator lobbies. A sprinkler system is in place in the World Trade Center. A temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit sets off the sprinklers in the affected area.
Statistics show that sprinklers extinguish 98% of the fires they attack. In an emergency evacuation, the fire department could order activation of the smoke purge system. This system draws smoke and fumes from tenet areas and simultaneously pumps fresh air into corridors, enabling occupants to travel to the stairway. There are redundant electrical feeds and backup power generators to provide lighting in affected areas. Backing up the backups are battery powered lights in stairwells and elevators.
Phosphorescent strips help illuminate staircases and other important areas. Cabinets on the landings house water filled fire extinguishers. However, World Trade Center occupants should not attempt to use this equipment if by doing so, they would expose themselves to personal danger or cause delay in the evacuation of a fire floor. The Port Authority Police are trained in structural firefighting as they may be the first professionals to reach the scene in an emergency. Members of the Port Authority Police Fire Brigade put on firefighting gear as in this demonstration before responding to the emergency scene to await orders.
Of course, the New York City fire department takes charge once its personnel arrive. An engine company and a ladder company are based just across Liberty Street from the Trade Center.
reSee.it AI Summary
Twenty minutes after the video was shot on 9/11, everyone in it tragically perished. The claim is that explosives, not weakened steel, caused the collapse. The government's failure to test for explosive residue at the World Trade Center is questioned.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Twenty minutes after this video was shot on 9/11, everyone in it perished. Not because fires in the Twin Towers weakened the steel and caused total collapse. Because explosives were detonated. FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi explains in the next post ⬇️ https://t.co/W5eIG1DTjZ
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Is it just us, or should the government have tested for explosive residue at the World Trade Center after 9/11? Because they didn’t. https://t.co/f7JK1Gfx0T
Video Transcript AI Summary
There were secondary explosions in the World Trade Center, possibly from devices planted before or on the aircraft. The chief safety officer of the New York City Fire Department mentioned that after the initial crash, there were more explosions, suggesting bombs in the building. He speculated that one device was on the plane and another in the tower. This information was shared by Albert Turrie, the chief of safety for the New York City Fire Department. Ongoing explosions were reported in the area.
Translation:
There were secondary explosions in the World Trade Center, possibly from devices planted before or on the aircraft. The chief safety officer of the New York City Fire Department mentioned that after the initial crash, there were more explosions, suggesting bombs in the building. He speculated that one device was on the plane and another in the tower. This information was shared by Albert Turrie, the chief of safety for the New York City Fire Department. Ongoing explosions were reported in the area.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later. The chief safety of the, fire department of New York City told me that, shortly after 9 o'clock, he had roughly 10 alarms, roughly 2 100 men in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here or the first crash that took place, he said, there was another explosion that took place, in one of the towers here. So, obviously, he according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact was he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building. So that's what we have been told by, Albert Turrie, who is the chief of safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me that just moments ago. Now we are continuing to hear explosions.
We are continuing to hear explosions here downtown.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] This mysterious 9/11 report isn’t from some Alex Jones broadcast or a documentary by Qanon supporters. It’s from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) in 2003. Which of the true “conspiracy theories” they mentioned is most significant to you and why? https://t.co/TlR0Sj1miK
Video Transcript AI Summary
George W. Bush's first oil company was funded by Osama bin Laden's relatives. The Bin Laden family got a contract to rebuild after a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. On 9/11, George Bush senior and Osama bin Laden's brother were reportedly in a meeting in Washington. These seemingly unbelievable connections between the Bush and Bin Laden families are all true.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Return to the 50 states. Think of it as a conspiracy theory, true or false test. A, when George w Bush started his first oil company, who helped fund it? Osama bin Laden's brother and brother-in-law. True or false?
B, after a terrorist bomb at a barracks in Saudi Arabia killed 19 Americans, Who got the multimillion dollar contract to rebuild? The Bin Laden's. True or false? C, on the morning of September 11, 2001, who was in a meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington? George Bush senior and Osama bin Laden's brother.
True or false? Actually, the answer could be, d, all of the above. Because believe it or not, as far fetched as they sound, each and every one of those things, the Bin Laden linked to the Bush Oil Company, the Bin Laden construction contract after the terrorist bomb, and the Bin Laden Bush meeting on 911 is true.
reSee.it AI Summary
A man captured footage of 9/11 from his apartment and later discovered the Twin Towers had crashed into his living room. Among the debris, government scientists found iron spheres, evidence of intentional demolition using thermite.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] This man videotaped 9/11 from his apartment before the Twin Towers came down… then came back 2 weeks later to find the towers had smashed into his living room. But among the things he found in the debris, there is one terrifying thing he missed… See next post⬇️
Video Transcript AI Summary
I have a piece of metal from the World Trade Center, along with paper, carpet, and Butch in my living room. These items represent my emotions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Home sweet home. This is a piece of metal from the World Trade Center in my living room. Paper, someone's account, Piece of carpet. A piece of carpet. And Butch That's how I feel.
That's exactly how I feel.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] In the 9/11 dust, government scientists found tiny iron spheres, which are a byproduct of thermite - a compound used in the military to destroy steel structures. This is proof of intentional demolition. https://t.co/DIqR8WQt4k
Video Transcript AI Summary
USGS found iron microspheres in World Trade Center dust, unexplained. Microspheres contain iron, aluminum, sulfur, trace of manganese, less than a tenth of an inch in diameter, spherical, found in all dust blown out during collapse. Heat source needed to melt iron to form spheres must be very hot, like thermite reaction at 4500 degrees Fahrenheit. Finding thermite residue in dust suggests it was used before collapse, not after. Microspheres and melted steel beams indicate thermite involvement in melting steel beams.
Translation: Iron microspheres found in World Trade Center dust are unexplained. They contain various elements and are spherical, found in all dust blown out during the collapse. A very hot heat source, like a thermite reaction, is needed to melt the iron. The presence of thermite residue suggests it was used before the collapse, not after. The microspheres and melted steel beams indicate thermite was involved in melting the steel beams.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When the USGS collected samples of the World Trade Center dust, they found the iron microspheres. In so far, the USGS does not have a valid explanation for the presence of these iron microspheres.
Speaker 1: So, what do the microspheres contain? Iron is the main element and then it has smaller portions of aluminum, sulfur, a trace of manganese. Most of them are less than about a tenth of an inch in diameter and they're spherical and they're found in all the dust blown out of the buildings during collapse, no matter where in Manhattan that dust is picked up.
Speaker 2: You must have had a much hotter heat source for you to get 27 100 degrees Fahrenheit in order to melt the iron to get these molten spheres. Your heat source must be something like a chemical reaction, an exothermic chemical reaction that reacts, in the case of thermite, reacts at 45 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Speaker 3: My contention based on finding thermite residue in the dust is that it happened before. It didn't happen after in the in the fires that ensued in the rubble pile afterwards. It's all the microspheres along with what I see in the attack of the, the beams that were actually found tell me that thermite was involved in melting that, those steel beams.
reSee.it AI Summary
Many lives were lost on 9/11 due to explosive devices planted in the building. University scientists found high-energy materials in the World Trade Center dust, proving the demolition. For more information, visit the provided links.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Many of the people in this photo didn’t make it out alive on 9/11. But if explosive devices hadn’t been planted throughout the building and set off, they would have had a chance to survive. The proof is below.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] In 2009, university scientists found high-energy materials in the World Trade Center dust with incendiary and explosive properties beyond what the US military develops. Their smoking gun proof of 9/11 demolition has never been refuted in a science journal. More ⬇️
Video Transcript AI Summary
We discovered unreacted thermitic material in tiny red-gray chips that can produce molten iron, indicating a thermitic reaction capable of destroying steel structures. Testing these chips in a calorimeter would reveal their energy output. The rapid energy release from the chips closely resembles known nanothermite produced by a military lab, but with a higher energy release. This suggests the chips are highly energetic and potentially explosive.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The dust, we found what we characterize as unreacted thermitic material in the shape of some very tiny redgray chips. And in the reaction, they produce molten iron, which is the prime indication of a thermitic reaction. And such a reaction can be used to destroy steel structures.
Speaker 1: All it would take would be to put one of these things in a calorimeter and see what kind of energy we got out as we heated them up. I know they're energetic, so there's no question about that. I mean, the calorimeter is not gonna lie to us.
Speaker 2: As my materials, scientist friend said, they blow up. We found that the energy release is very rapid, so it gives you a very narrow spike in the machine. We compared our spike that we got with, a spike from known nanothermite, which is produced at a military laboratory. Their measured energy released with known nanothermite was less than these red gray chip.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] For more groundbreaking info about the truth of 9/11, see https://richardgage911.org/videos-evidence/ and the scientific study at https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
VIDEO EVIDENCE
richardgage911.org
Bentham Open ArchivesTwitterSM-FacebookSM-Youtube
benthamopenarchives.com
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Rare footage inside WTC Building 7 on 9/11 after the destruction of the Twin Towers This 47-story steel framed skyscraper completely collapsed due to “office fires” a few hours later. Notice anything interesting? https://t.co/YOiUX2qkOq
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tommy and Jeff discuss a building collapse. They describe smoke, glass, and chaos. Bennett, a Secret Service agent, recounts a plane hitting the building. Bennett spells his name and identifies as Secret Service.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. The Tommy wants to the bus. Thanks, Jeff. What happened? Did the did the side of the building come down?
I don't know. Something fell. What's what you see? It was pretty clear at one point, and then, there's a whole bunch of smoke and glass, and I think we're just about the last ones in this building right now. I think you should leave.
Everybody else is gone. Okay. I'll just make sure that, there's nobody else coming downstairs. I hit the top of the building and fell down. The old ones.
I don't know. I haven't been seen outside yet. Have you, have you been here? What do you been here? As a matter of fact, we're standing right underneath, 6 year old Craig when the, building actually when the plane made it the first time.
Just find it. There a a plane, the engine screaming, and then just an explosion. Glass, then everybody was, running around trying to get away. Tell me your name and spell it. Bennett, b e, double n, e t t e.
Sergeant? No. Secret Service. Secret Service? How do you want your title?
OST. OST. Thank you. Alright.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] On the left is the computer model of WTC7 from U of Alaska, simulating the instant cutting of every column in the building (aka demolition). On the right is the NIST computer model of WTC7 which claimed fire caused its collapse on 9/11. Which one looks more accurate? https://t.co/lI4vMb7jiR
Video Transcript AI Summary
I witnessed a skyscraper collapse that resembled a planned implosion by a demolition crew. It was astonishing, like watching a pancake collapse. This reminded me of the countless images we have seen on television before.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I turned the time to see, what looked like a a skyscraper implosion. It looked like it had been done by a demolition crew. It was almost as if it were a planned implosion. Take the other pancake. Amazing.
Incredible. Think you were for the 3rd time today, just reminiscing of those pictures we've all seen too much in television before.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The Alex Jones interview they don’t want you to see 12 years ago, Alex Jones did a 9/11 interview with us that has been deleted from most of the Internet… but we found it. Why is the legacy media so afraid of what we discussed? #AlexJonesWasRight https://t.co/i5F52IfDne
Video Transcript AI Summary
Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers 9/11 Truth, discusses the demand for a real investigation into the destruction of the three high-rises on 9/11. With over 1,500 architects and engineers supporting the cause, Gage emphasizes that when professionals see Building 7's collapse, they overwhelmingly agree it was a controlled demolition. The evidence surrounding the Twin Towers also points to controlled demolition. Gage is in Toronto for a truth hearing and will share his thoughts on a video showing people's reactions to Building 7's collapse.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Joining us is Richard Gage. A few years ago, he founded Architects and Engineers 9/11 Truth It's got thousands of members now, and it's made international headlines across the world. Hundreds of television programs, have, basically tried to debunk mister Gage and, of course, failed because he is a prominent architect, and he's got physicists, architects, engineers. It's over 1500 now that are speaking out, and he's in Toronto for the truth hearing. So we're going to Talk to him about that in a moment, and then I'm gonna get his view on the video we just played earlier.
You know, we interviewed more than 15 people in Austin randomly and asked, what do you think of building 7? And showed them on an iPad the building falling. And all but one said, looks like controlled demolition, where Architecture and Engineers is right now, what these truth hearings are, and, where you think 911 truth is going 10 years on.
Speaker 1: Well, there as you mentioned, I'm representing 1500 architects and engineers, now fifteen 60 actually. And these are demanding a real investigation of The destruction of the 3 high rises on 911. And, the people on the street understand that Building 7 is a demolition. And I wanna tell you So that every architect and engineer that I talk to almost without exception really, when they see Building 7, They agree it is a controlled demolition. And then they're just shocked.
Their jaws are open. They're receptive to hearing the evidence about the Twin Towers, which of course unfortunately is replete with evidence, science based forensic evidence documenting its controlled demolition.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Alex Jones might have predicted 9/11, but we collected the evidence showing that all 3 WTC skyscrapers -including building 7 - were brought down by demolition. The science is backed up by architects and engineers who put their careers on the line for the truth. https://t.co/TC1OOfeqZN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Richard Gage questions the collapse of Building 7, stating that fires have never caused the collapse of a skyscraper before. He argues that the fire NIST claimed caused the collapse had actually burned out over an hour before. Despite not being hit by an airplane, the 47-story building collapsed into its own footprint in under 7 seconds. Experts point out that the building descended in freefall for the first 100 feet, indicating no resistance. The symmetry of the collapse is seen as evidence, as all columns needed to be severed simultaneously. The failure at column 79 on level 12 is mentioned, with experts deeming it impossible for a single column failure to cause the entire building to collapse. The collapse is described as a classic implosion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Richard Gage. Fires have never before caused the collapse of any skyscraper, even though there are numerous examples of much hotter, larger, and longer lasting fires in these buildings. And in the case of building 7, the fire that NIST said started the collapse had actually burned out over an hour before. It could not have caused the collapse as NIST claims. Yet this 47 story, modern steel frame skyscraper, which was not hit by an airplane, collapses mostly into its own footprint like a house of cards, as fast as a bowling ball falling off the side of the building in just under 7 seconds.
Listen to the experts.
Speaker 1: Building Number 7, descended in freefall for the first 100 feet, which means that there was absolutely no resistance to the descent whatsoever. Mist admitted it went into freefall for 8 stories. And going from motionless to freefall instantly, that's a bothersome Part of the puzzle because NIST never explained it.
Speaker 0: We've got a building that came down on its own footprint, so all of the columns really needed to be severed at the same time in order for that structure to fall the way that we saw. The symmetry is the smoking gun.
Speaker 2: The whole building Completely comes down in one continuous motion. There couldn't have been any structural resistance.
Speaker 0: According to NIST, the failure occurred at column 79 on level 12. They're talking about a single columnar collapse or failure that resulted in total collapse of the building.
Speaker 2: It is possible that you could have a a local failure as a as a result of a connection failing, but the likelihood of the that Failure dragging the entire building in such a fashion that all the columns would fail at the same time is an impossibility. Impossibility, yes?
Speaker 0: What I saw, it was a classic implosion. The center of the core, Penthouse area starts to move first, and then the building follows along with it.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Tucker Carlson held a dark secret for 18 years, both at MSNBC and Fox News. There was something his bosses didn’t want us to see… and now that he’s left, he’s telling the truth about it. But can we handle the truth? #censorship https://t.co/X8CUtS60MB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 discusses the collapse of building 7 and requests a video clip to be shown. Speaker 0 mentions that the collapse is not shown and suggests there might be a code preventing it. Speaker 0 also mentions that questioning the collapse of building 7 is seen as weird and can lead to job loss. Speaker 2 explains that building 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, despite not being hit by an aircraft. The building had been damaged by debris and fire, but most of the fires were extinguished by 5:20 PM. Speaker 2 questions the official explanation that the collapse was primarily due to fire and asks for opinions on what it looks like.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Claims. Do you have any Let's let's
Speaker 1: talk about the the building. Sure. Sure. Let's start with the, collapse of building 7. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
Okay. I'm not sure if we
Speaker 0: can, but it's specified.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's some kind of, code. You just don't show the collapse of building 7. I don't know what it is.
Speaker 0: They don't care if you think the Earth is flat. It's not a threat to anyone. But if you say, like, what what actually happened with building 7? Like, that is weird. Right?
It doesn't like, what is that? Right. If you were to say something like that on television, They flip out. They would flip out. You'd, like, lose your job over that.
Why?
Speaker 2: Why? This is World Trade Center 7 just before it collapsed on September 11, 2001. It had not been hit by an aircraft. It had been damaged by falling debris and fire. But by 5:20 PM, most of the fires have been extinguished.
Although the building was 47 stories high, it doesn't fall sideways Nor collapse unevenly. For this to have happened, all of the building's This vertical supports must have given way at almost exactly the same time. Yet the Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that the collapse was due primarily to fire. But what does it look like to you?
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Some very strange things happened in the Twin Towers on 9/11… but can anyone explain this? What is that black object being blown out the window? #explosion #bomb #fire #bombing https://t.co/ci1NTekhWG
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] As heavily armed #IDF soldiers invade #Gaza, lets ask: why were soldiers with Uzis in World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11? Were they preparing to set off bombs as well? Someone has the answers... #WarCrimes #terrorist #falseflag #911truth https://t.co/P7V8lNvFtW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 witnessed three battalion chiefs entering building 7's lobby, followed by two individuals wearing black ski masks and carrying Uzis. The battalion chiefs ordered everyone to evacuate the building, claiming that it was going to be pulled down. Speaker 1 also encountered two armed men in front of building 7, who declared that the building had been secured. Both speakers noted the presence of fires in the building. Speaker 1 mentioned that it was unusual for anyone to prevent access to the fire department during a fire. Eventually, building 7 collapsed, causing a series of concussive sounds.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And he pointed to what turned out to be the entrance to building 7's lobby. He said, go in there. Go in there. Take a break. Take a break.
These battalion chiefs come in through the revolving doors. There was 3 of them. What stepped in behind them with these 2 people in black with black ski masks on and, And Uzis, and the Uzis were, you know, hanging off their necks. And I don't know what they were or who they were, but the battalion chiefs started yelling at us. Right, ordering us to get out get out of the get out of this building get out of this building.
They're gonna pull the building, everybody out now, And they ordered us back out.
Speaker 1: We then walked towards 7 World Trade, which indeed had a number of fires on various floors. We arrive at 7, and there were 2 paramilitarily clad men with, black rifles, Sunglasses. And as we approached the entrance, they closed ranks and said One of them said, this building has been secured, which is odd because in my experience in the FDNY, anybody preventing Access to the fire department in the event of a fire, that's a criminal act. The chief and I were not in a position to argue the point given the, inequality and weaponry present. I was further than I was from when the North Tower went when Seven let go as well and was also similar with, although not as loud because I was further away, a series of concussive,
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] This rare 9/11 footage shows a building near the WTC completely engulfed in flames, yet it did not completely collapse like WTC7. Also notice the Michael Douglas movie poster. When it comes to WTC7, the media has been told, “Don’t say a word.” #fire #coverup #911truth
reSee.it AI Summary
The World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition. Scientists discovered advanced nanothermite material in the WTC dust. Media silence surrounds this crucial information. Watch the video for evidence and read the peer-reviewed study. Remember September 11th. #911Day
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] The #science is settled. The World Trade Center buildings came down by controlled demolition. A team of univ scientists found high-tech nanothermite material in the WTC dust. Why is the media shadowbanning this info? #chemistry #September11 #Remember911 #911Day
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the video, the speakers discuss the discovery of unreacted thermitic material in the form of small red-gray chips. They explain that this material can be used to destroy steel structures, as it produces molten iron when ignited. Speaker 2 suggests testing the energy output of these chips in a calorimeter, as they believe they are highly energetic. Speaker 1 mentions that their experiments showed a rapid release of energy, resulting in a narrow spike on the machine. They compare this spike to the energy released by known nanothermite, finding that the red-gray chips had a higher energy output.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Anthony, you okay? Yeah. In the dust, we found what we characterize as Unreacted thermitic material, in the shape of some very tiny red gray chips. And in the reaction, they produce molten iron, which is the prime indication of a somatic reaction and such a reaction can be used to Destroy steel structures.
Speaker 1: All it would
Speaker 2: take would be to put one of these things in a calorimeter And see what kind of energy we got out as we heated them up. I know they're energetic, so there's no question about that. I mean, the calorimeter is not gonna lie
Speaker 1: to us. As my materials, Scientists friends said they blow up. We found that the energy released is very rapid, and so it gives you a very narrow spike in the machine. We compared our spike that we got with a spike from known nanothermite, which is produced at a military laboratory. Their measured energy released with known nanothermite was less than these red, gray chips.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] Watch the scientists explain the evidence starting 22 sec into the video - then read their peer reviewed study: https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
Bentham Open ArchivesTwitterSM-FacebookSM-Youtube
benthamopenarchives.com