Interview 1409 – Jason Bermas on the 9/11 Papers

01/08/201916 Comments

Jason Bermas of Pulse Change joins us to discuss the recently released “9/11 papers.” What new information is in this release, and does it tell us anything of value about 9/11? Can the documents be verified?

Watch this video on BitChute / BitTube / DTube / YouTube or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES
Pulse Change

Fabled Enemies

TCR Live #94 (1/4/18): Dark Overlord Hacks the Deep State

Hackers Threaten To Dump Secret 9/11 Attack Files If Bitcoin Ransom Not Met

What’s Actually In The Dark Overlord Files?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. sTevo says:

    40 seconds in and I learned a new word…Conspiratainment. I looked it up and found 7500 hits. Looks like the big cohuna surfing wave just came in!

  2. HomeRemedySupply says:

    It should be noted that in Corbett’s 1/6/19 Subscriber Newsletter (“5 Outrageous New Year’s Predictions”), he had a Recommended Viewing link to one of Jason’s recent videos about the Dark OverLords.

    I sure have a lot of admiration for Jason Bermas. That guy has paid his dues, and at times has had some rough roads. Man! In the early days he was out on the streets giving out flyers and DVDs.

    My wife and I, along with some others had the pleasure of having dinner with him in 2008. I sat across from him as we chatted. He is such a real guy, down to earth and caring.
    Here he is talking to another 911 Researcher who helped publish some of the thermite studies, along with the Toronto Hearings.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMV-QwXDI1c

    • bollir says:

      I knew Jason was the real deal when he called James Meigs a liar and whatever else during his loose change vs. popular mechanics interview. Right at the end, all Meigs would say for people to do is just to keep looking, keep digging….because loose change was garbage, yadda yadda. Man he stuck it to him. It was pleasant to watch.

  3. jarmstrong says:

    Good interview.
    I have no objection to the revelation of this information being lucrative for the people who went to the trouble of obtaining it.
    A lot of whistleblowers seem to suffer for their efforts rather than profit from them and I greatly appreciate their sacrifice but don’t believe it is the only way that wrong doing can or should be exposed.
    As Adam Smith would say “It is not from the benevolence of the hacker, the dissident, or the spy that we expect our 9/11 truth, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

  4. Libertydan says:

    Christopher Bollyn is an Investigative Journalist that has been publishing articles questioning the official story about the events of 9/11/01 since they happened. I have read his book “Solving 9-11, The Deception that changed the World” and “Solving 9-11, The original Articles”. He has a new book that is in the mail to me. I highly recommend at least checking out his website. His website is http://www.bollyn.com

  5. Fawlty Towers says:

    Thanks for the interview James and allowing
    Jason to go full tilt for as long as he wanted.

    As others have already stated here, he is such
    a pure, affable guy with so much 9/11 smarts, and smarts
    in general who has really paid his dues in this theater.

    Like you, I’m not expecting much to come of this, but there is
    always hope that we can hang our hats on.

  6. André says:

    Hey, James, did you know this??

    Sen Bob Graham: At least two 9/11 hijackers were hosted by an FBI informant
    https://streamable.com/2f5gu

  7. kachatel says:

    Hi James,

    Tried to download the interview (video), but seems like there’s no file…

    Would you be so kind as to take a look?

  8. Octium says:

    It’s good that it may get people thinking about 9/11 truth again, however the downside is that with Sibel Edmonds exposed, it may be just another way to get everyone distracted with the idea of 9/11 Hijackers again (Especially with the Grand Jury case coming up)

    • Droves of Perception says:

      Funny you should mention her. JB seems suspicious in the same way of controlling such a specific line of discussion, with all his purported info on 911. Feels just like old know-it-all Edmonds. Guess the clip of JB berating someone for daring to request that Dr wood be interviewed leaves me suspicious. James never touches on this cornacopia of theory and physical evidence either, that I’m aware of.(woods info) Anyway. please point me to some true debunking other than the A & E groups “debunking” of this material. If not I’ll just assume that it is too sensitive to risk having Corbett report taken down for and I’ll leave it at that.

      • Octium says:

        Debunking Judy Wood is kindergarten stuff really. Well at least it was back in the days of her old website circa 2007 before she pulled the more ridiculous stuff off it and made it look more like a regular 9/11 truth site.

        The first time I visited her site I encountered a quite convincing slide show of single video frames of some of the WTC columns apparently vaporising into thin air…well it did look quite convincing except there were no references to the original material on her web site at all.

        After 8 hours of trawling Youtube I found the original videos she had taken the frames from and discovered that while the frames were legitimate, the entire sequence taken as a whole did not indicate vaporisation of columns at all.

        Kind of like freezing a video of a newsreader at the instant in time when they blink their eyes to make them look weird and dopey.

        The intent of deception would have to be deliberate by the person editing the video, So I’m not going to waste any more of my life debunking her current stuff (if she has any)

        I do believe James has an episode debunking Judy Wood, it’s in the archive if people want to search for it.

        I mention Edmonds because I note that so far she does not appear to have discussed this issue, while claiming others are not covering 9/11 truth these days.

        Also, I do not wish to imply that Jason is evolved in any deceit. I’m glad that he is looking into this subject and I’m glad James has covered it too.

        It’s very hard to talk about this without invoking Hijackers – which may be the intent behind the original leak.

        • Droves of Perception says:

          Wow! if those frames are GCed or doctored, that would be fairly easy to determine, and pretty bold. It seems like the well funded debunking sites would just expose her rather than black listing her. It would be just another Truther kook out there to justify biz as usual. Why go to such length to scrub her from wikipedia and such? Or is this part of the controlled opposition conspiracy to have her deleted from wikipedia? Hmm. What about the parking lot full of fried cars? What about the firefighters who survived inside tower 2? I’ll see what other, older videos show this dustifying phenomenon detail, if any, if you’re convinced that the frames were doctored, there will be ample evidence of this.

          Are you of the school of “no highackers”? I love the quest for non fiction! I honestly am open to some theories, but certainly not the official story. Thanks for your work everybody!

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Jason Bermas is correct about Judy Wood. He has seen the history and evolution. After all, he was one of the first hardcore researchers. The history and timeline really give insight into what was really happening with Wood coming on the scene.

        In the past, in the Corbett Report comment section, there often has been discussions about her and her “cohorts” (e.g. Morgan Reynolds).

        911blogger.com is a good resource to see some of the history.

        I lost my notes with a computer crash, but I believe James Corbett talks about Judy Wood in one of his first “Questions for Corbett”.

        • Droves of Perception says:

          Interesting. “Guilty by association” does not address the physical evidence. It will be interesting to see what physical evidence is addressed, if any, in questions for Corbett. This woman is a PHD level mechanical engineer. Not some NIST clown. She may have folks trying to handle her but that only strengthens the case for the Wood’s information, potentially. Though big words like Kindergardner and debunked leave me almost completely convinced that she’s a doo doo head, logic keeps pressing.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top