Interview 1471 - 9/11 Revisited with Corbett, Gage and Grove

08/12/201951 Comments

via In this conversation, James Corbett of The Corbett Report, Richard Grove of and Richard Gage of talk to Christopher McMillan, a student of the AUTONOMY course at about 9/11. Topics discussed include an investigation into the destruction of WTC 7 at the University of Alaska and the recent call by New York City fire commissioners for a new investigation into 9/11. They also answer questions from the class.

VIDEO COURTESY: Tragedy And Hope

"WTC 7 Did Not Collapse from Fire" - Dr. Leroy Hulsey, UAF, Sept. 6, 2017

New York Area Fire Commissioners Make History, Call for New 9/11 Investigation

9/11 Suspects: Christine Todd Whitman

Info on WTC elevator upgrades

Info about radar blind spots on 9/11

Project Constellation

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (51)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. HomeRemedySupply says:

    This was an excellent “roundtable discussion”! I loved the approach and dialogue.
    Corbett asked some very good questions.
    Thanks to “mkey” for an early sneak peek…

  2. flammable says:

    I think I remember there were photos from WTC 7 south side I believe, that showed smoke coming from every floor. Does this add doubt to the claim of small office fire? Or maybe someone already proved the pictures to be photoshopped and I missed it. And if it was real, what could make such a massive fire in a tall office building? Explosives or a building that didn’t meet fire code?

  3. candlelight says:

    It cannot be emphasized loudly enough the significance of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District coming on board, fully and “on fire” to 911 Truth, in an official capacity.

    As one might interpret and/or paraphrase Richard Gage as meaning and saying, respectively, with regard to James’ cynicism – or what Gage would prefer referring to as skepticism – is that maybe it has simply come the time for a breakthrough to finally occur, sighting the unprecedented involvement of the aforementioned fire district. Amen to that!

    Also of much interest was the discussion involving a contract “given” to Ace Elevator Company for the modernization of the elevators in the Twin Towers.

    This is very curious, and I would concur highly unusual. Though it wasn’t actually mentioned, if Otis Elevator Company had been the company maintaining the elevators, the chances are great that the elevators in the towers were, indeed, Otis elevators.

    Key components of the operating systems of Otis elevators are proprietary, meaning that such components are not readily available to other companies, making it extremely arduous for another company to work on Otis’ equipment. Furthermore, by Otis’ own doctrine, their maintenance employees are tasked to “walk away” from maintaining equipment installed by others, therefore making little or no sense for the owners of the Twin Towers to have farmed out any modernization contract to any other company besides Otis.

    Said contract and/or any other related documents concerning Ace Elevator’s involvement in the modernization of the elevators should be legally summoned to be studies and if appropriate, brought before the special grand jury.

    My hat’s off to Richard Gage for his tremendous work in deconstructing the official framework of the 911 deception.

    Maybe, just maybe, after 18 years, the time for Truth has finally arrived.

    • cooly says:


      Interesting details about the elevator industry. Thanks.

    • says:

      Are you saying only Otis can install and maintain their elevators? If so that seems like a weird distribution model for a manufacturer. I would not expect them to be such a popular Brand if they had to manage not only their manufacturing base including R&D, as well as installation crew. It would make more sense if the manufacturer in question followed a fairly industry standard method of training independent contractors to be approved installers. I think your vertical integration strategy argument doesn’t make logical sense.

      • candlelight says:

        Correct. Otis can and typically does install as well as maintain their elevators. Whether or not Otis themselves actually manufacture all of the components of their elevators, I cannot say with certainty. But, that’s really beside the point. Some of the equipment that goes into Otis’ elevators are proprietary, so either they make these things themselves, or some other entity makes it for Otis, whereby Otis, by rights, would own a patent for such proprietary equipment/components. Otis does claim to develop and manufacture and market their elevators.

        Such a monopolistic business model – developing, producing and maintaining proprietary equipment, especially when there’s not that many elevator companies to choose from makes perfect sense. Basically, once Otis, or presumably any elevator company with a similar business model, is awarded a winning bid, the building owner is essentially married to that company, for maintenance, upgrades and/or modernization. It is claimed that Otis is the largest elevator company in the world, and they did, indeed, install and maintain their elevators in the World Trade Center….until 1994.

        Coincidentally, that’s one year following the FBI-coordinated false flag attack in 1993.

        I’d love to see any internal memos relating to the decision to discontinue Otis’ maintenance contract and opting for Ace Elevator to maintain Otis’ elevators. That, to me, is what does not make any sense!

        It’s also sickening to hear that, as Richard Gage states, the
        Ace Elevator crew “…ran like rats…” the day of 9/11.

        You would think that in the immediacy of such an emergency these guys would stick around and use their expertise to do anything they could to help out, as was reported back in 1993 of Otis’ maintenance workers doing whatever they could to help out. Even if the elevators were damaged beyond their means, I can’t imagine them fleeing in such a fashion as described by Gage.

        It’s been speculated that the planning of 9/11 dates all the way back to that first false flag in 1993. Could dumping Otis in 1994 and hiring a relatively small, two-bit elevator company like Ace have been a part of that planning??

        Subpoena the records!!!

  4. manbearpig says:

    well, haven’t finished the interview and haven’t really thought much about it but…

    why do I suspect that cooperative Al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheik Mohammed and uncooperative pseudo-corpse Epstein are gonna steal the spotlight from Hulsey’s otherwise eye-opening study and the NYC fire commissioner’s appeal to justice come 9/11/19… ???

    at least I can send this to my Firefighter captain friend in Massachusetts…

    now on with the end of my vacation…

  5. dubrey says:

    It’s great that the investigation into 9/11 is finally getting somewhere. There appears to be updated information, with an updated explanation. Apparently, the thermite explanation alone, would have required a prohibitive amount of Thermite to get the job done. Here’s another hypothesis.

    • Olaf says:

      Prohibitive in terms of budget or in terms of resources?

      The high levels of aluminum and iron that were actually found – each ranging from 1.3 to 4.1 percent of the dust samples by weight, indicates their selection of aluminum as the fuel component and iron oxide as the oxidizer component.
      They clearly went with aluminum because it’s the cheapest and most common out of the 6 fuel options that they could pick from.
      Iron(III) Oxide is also very common.

    • renouard says:

      I found that video Stunning and cooly logical.

      These 2 videos are more dramatic, but nevertheless intersting.

      video re; setting of Thermite charges.

      video with information of the power outage prior to 9/11

      • Olaf says:

        This is exactly what you would expect to see in a top-down demolition with use of nano-thermate (thermate-TH3 composition:68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% dextrin as binder).
        The thermite reaction yields white fumes of aluminum oxide (Al2O3).
        When the temperature raises beyond the boiling point of the Aluminum metal which is 2467.0 °C (2740.15 K, 4472.6 °F), the burning aluminum escapes into the gas phase above the bulk of the reaction, taking the products (aluminum oxide plus heat) away with it.
        Thermite burns at temperatures somewhere along the lines of 2200 to 2500°C (4000–4500°F)
        Most chemists seem to believe that thermate burns somewhere between 2700°C and 3000°C.
        The point when rock is molten is 1,200°C.

        Another factor is probably the crystallized water within the iron oxide, which will certainly be present if ordinary rust is used. This will rapidly vaporize during the reaction – the steam produced would throw the relatively light aluminum oxide up into the air, above the denser molten iron.
        The reaction of the water present with the molten aluminum (once thermite is ignited; the aluminum reacts in the liquid phase) could also contribute to gas production. Aluminum can react violently with water, producing aluminum oxide and hydrogen gas – this is the principle behind the ALICE rocket propellant. Again, the hydrogen gas produced would force the aluminum oxide up into the air.
        In all the above mechanisms, once aluminum oxide is thrown up above the bulk of the burning thermite, convection currents generated by the intense heat will carry it much further, generating the rising clouds of smoke you see.

        The addition of sulfur and barium nitrate increase the reaction’s thermal effect, create flame in burning and they significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
        Both thermite and thermate can burn without an external supply of oxygen.

        The top-down demolition charges evidently did not extend all the way down to the base of the 2 towers.
        WTC 1 probably had explosives all the way down to the 20th floor.
        WTC 2 probably down to the 16th floor.

        Fire & Molten iron gushing out of the north-east corner of WTC2 – 5 minutes prior to the detonation of the explosive charges:

        The underground molten iron “foundry”:

        Can thermate melt steel and cut through steel columns?:

        The fires burned for months:

        NASA’s thermographic images:

        The hypothesis that mini or micro nukes were used to bring down the towers has no real evidence backing it up:

        Aluminum Oxide inhalation effects & contact exposure:

  6. pbirdstheword says:

    911. . . Steven Jones PhD in physics at Brigham Young University said in 2007 it was Thermite that brought down the towers, thus all set up and phony. It cost him his job.

  7. flammable says:

    That Ace Elevator Company could be critical to the new 9/11 investigation. It is understandable how many people thought the towers being brought down by explosives is illogical. How can it get through building security? How can it be done. There must be too many people needed to execute this?
    Well now there is a logical answer that involves only one suspicious maintenance company.

    • cooly says:


      You ask valid questions. I would like to respond.

      1) “It is understandable…”
      Only if you consider that most people have no knowledge of how controlled demolition takes place, what it looks like physically.

      2) “How can it get through building security?”
      Who has control of building security? Not the security guards. They are employees who do what they are told.

      3) “There must be too many people needed…”
      Compartmentalization. At every level of an operation, those who are needed or useful are only told what they need to know to complete their specific task. They are not informed of the whole picture. They are just doing a job. And when someone does know more than they are supposed to, they had better make arrangements for who will be feeding their pets in the future.

      • flammable says:

        Thank you for the answers cooly. I’m kind of new to the 9/11 conspiracy. I still have my doubts but more and more details are getting through to me.

  8. mellander says:

    Please send info on UC Berkeley presentation by Prof. Halsey (sp?) on 9/5 that was mentioned

  9. Olaf says:

    I’ve been a proponent of the theory that thermite had been used for the demolition from the get-go.

    As far as what hit the towers, I feel that Steve De’ak hit the nail on the head with his research on the events.

    The footage was faked, using tripods for stability, so they could add the “planes” later. Notice after the vigorous shaking camera movements, you see that right before the impacts occur there is practically no camera movement for like 15 frames or so.
    The objects that went into the towers must have been missiles. Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) by Lockheed Martin was his guess. That’s why the steel girders were bent inwards and there was also evidence of lateral damage to the beams along the margins of the impact crater on the side of the buildings. These missiles are 14 feet long and have a wingspan of about 8 feet. They are terrain hugging subsonic cruise missiles. They have 450 kg (1000 lb) WDU-42/B penetrator warheads designed for punching through hardened targets prior to detonating. They kind of look like small white planes. They can also fly together in formation. A plane could not have cut through all those steel beams upon impact. The alleged “planes” were filmed maneuvering with precision at sea level. One with a ground velocity in excess of 500 knots (575 mph, 926 km/h) and the other above 400 knots (460 mph, 740 km/h).

    The object seen hitting the pentagon is a subsonic cruise missile as well but that one didn’t have a penetrating warhead as it is seen exploding upon impact. They collapsed the building with secondary explosives because the missile didn’t do enough damage to it. Then they used a rapid hole breaching kit for the alleged punch-out holes. The punch-out holes were almost perfectly round. They also used smoke machines during the pentagon incident aftermath.

  10. Olaf says:

    I meant to say: right before the “planes” are about to come into view.

    Not, right before the impacts occur.

  11. allister says:

    I’m definitely FOR exposing the truth of 9/11 but call me cynical why do I feel the closer the 9/11 truth movement get to exposing 9/11 the closer we get to the next 9/11.

    Everywhere the players appear to be jostling for positions, politically, economically and militarily. Kashmir and the Persian Gulf build-up just the latest examples and even in the detail one might be excused for reading war in the tea leaves as Trump looks to free up resources within US boarders.

    How relevant today is James’s “Echoes of WW1” presentation in Denmark.

  12. Libertydan says:

    I met Richard Gage in 2008 after a Presentation he did at The Town Hall in Seattle. At the beginning of his presentation he asked for a show of hands of how many people believed the “Official government Story about 9/11”, and about half the of the hands went up, (about 300 of about 600)
    At the end of his presentation he asked the same question, and about 6 hands went up. It would appear that he has a 99% success rate with those who are willing to listen.
    I should be clear why he can’t get on main stream TV. In fact, I would be willing to bet that he has been declared a “Threat to National Security” (made the top of the Shit list, as I like to say).
    Yep, the Evil Empire has little toleration for people that expose the lies and corruption it uses to manipulate the masses.
    In order to find out who runs the evil empire, I would recommend “Solving 911, The Deception that Changed the World” by Christopher Bollyn. He also has a website, where nearly everything is available for free.
    I also think that Christopher Bollyn would make an excellent guest for the Corbett Report!

  13. John Blaid says:

    I think what is greatly missed in the discussion of what happened with the towers on 9/11 is the work of Dr Judy Wood. Her work with the physical evidence needs to be included in the discussion regardless of how some parties like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth feel about it.

    I think one of the best presentations made by Dr Judy Wood is this one from 2012 at the Global Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Holland

    9/11 Breakthrough Energy Technology | Dr Judy Wood

    • Olaf says:

      What i can’t wrap my head around with this person is the fact she’s staring the obvious in the face (no major seismic activity from the building going down at free fall speed, squibs from the sides of the buildings, glowing “cheetos” on the ground, localized “spontaneous” combustion within the debris, melting metal in environments with temperatures well below it’s melting point, cars that burned with their handles being completely gone, actual side fires, curled-up steel beams, steel on boots melting, extreme rust a.k.a iron (III) oxide on some beams but not on others near them) and at the same time knows what thermite is and what it does, knows what a top-down demolition looks like and she concludes that it must have been a cold process and that a generated electromagnetic field must have been the cause behind the buildings falling at free fall speed.

      What a top-down demolition pattern looks like:

      Simultaneous squibs on all sides of both towers:

      Actual analyses of pre-treated dust samples and peer-reviewed paper proving that nano-thermite was used:

  14. HomeRemedySupply says:

    This “Interview 1471 – 9/11 Revisited with Corbett, Gage and Grove” is also posted at
    (By the way, 911blogger is asking for donations. Any amount.)

  15. grant.m says:

    Great work James,

    Thank you for your good works.


  16. mkey says:

    I’d like to once again raise the issue of the “heavy damage” on WTC7.

    • Olaf says:

      Heavy fire has never brought down a steel skyscraper before in the history of the world.

      Even the alleged “heavy damage” to the steel structure of the building by debris, that’s shown in the diagram of the article that you provide here, could not have had possibly accounted for the rate of acceleration and symmetry at which the building “came down” that day.

      A simple analysis of the acceleration:

      What a gravity demolition looks like:

      Controlled Demolition Expert looks at WTC7:

      • mkey says:

        I’m not suggesting that it does, my apologies for not making that clear from the start.

        What I’m saying is that this looks like an exquisite example of astroturfing where the controlled narrative is so overbearing that even evidence supportive of the official narrative is being kept occluded.

        I have seen a video on YT testifing to fact of the wtc7 sustaining massive damage when coming into collision with the falling tower, but it’s been memory holed.

        • Olaf says:

          There was little fire going on at WTC7.
          The fire was only on 3-4 floors and it was already out by the time they brought down the building. I don’t see much structural damage either.

          This was the fire at WTC7:

          After the fire was out they used smoke machines to fake the building burning.

          Watch this burst of flames as seen on one of the NIST report videos:

          This burst of flames is not coming out of the building, but from a smoke machine, that was pointed upwards, which was located in front of the building.

          Smoke machines produce their effect by pouring a fluid mixture onto a heating element which vaporizes it upon contact and then it is forced out into the atmosphere under pressure.
          Military grade smoke machines are jet-powered and make a roaring swooshing sound.
          Sometimes the temperature of the element gets too high and the smoke machine briefly turns into a flamethrower.
          When that happens you need to go there and tweak the element manually if you want it to cool faster otherwise in order for it to cool on it’s own while it’s still pumping out smoke, it has to keep squirting out the hot fluid.

          Same gimmick at the pentagon aftermath.
          Again, you can clearly see the flame coming out of the smoke machine at 0:22 followed by the swooshing sound as it pumps out the smoke.
          Fortunately this video has sound. :

          This is an example of a random smoke machine so you can compare the swooshing sounds. Sound comes at 0:53 of the video:

          WTC5 that was actually on fire that day didn’t even budge an inch. Go figure. :

          • mkey says:

            Again, I’m talking about heavy damage on WTC7, not office fires.

            There is/was a video on youtube showing one of the towers falling (the one which had the top proken off prior to falling down) from an angle from which it can be seen that the broken off section of the building cuts into WTC7 and does extensive damage on its (north, is it?) side, spanning several floors.

            Again, I’m not saying that WTC7 wasn’t brought down in a controlled fashion. I’m not saying anything that has been done there hasn’t been planned months in advance.

            What I am saying is that someone is going through quite an effort to obfuscate facts, even those that may be supportive of the narrative.

  17. Olaf says:

    If the video that you’ve seen was released to the public and it indeed shows the debris clearly cutting through the building and leaving behind a clearly visible large opening then, don’t you think people would have saved it?
    I mean, it would be a vital piece of the puzzle that would prove that many of the eye witnesses that were in building 7 that day, including the fire fighters, lied when they spoke about what happened to them.

    I say this because:

    1. Barry Jennings:
    On several occasions, Jennings stated that an explosion trapped them in WTC Building 7 (before the collapses of WTC 1 & 2) and that explosions occurred throughout the building until they were saved after attracting the attention of a team of firefighters through a broken 8th floor window. Barry Jennings died in 2008. 4 years after giving this testimony.

    2. Michael Hess that was trapped with him had the same story to tell:

    3. The Firemen:

    WTC7 came down long after these people were out.
    Don’t you think they would’ve known the difference between debris falling on the building and the building exploding beneath their feet (Jennings & Hess) or the floors above them (firemen)?

    -A missing section of the building:

    -Whole section of the building missing:

    ——————–Videos showing falling debris————————–

    -This is what i think are demolition squibs coming from WTC7 at 0:28 to 0:32 seen while WTC1 is coming down.
    This happens before he shows what he thinks are debris striking the building:

    -Slow-mo dissipation of debris:

    -Falling debris do not cause symmetrical damage like this.
    This looks like a blown out elevator shaft:

    -A small rock hits the upper right corner of the building during WTC2 demolition:

    -WTC1 heavy debris clearly falling in front of WTC7 and not on it at 2:17.
    -7:58 steel truss clearly falling in the street.
    -7:00 to 7:01 debris to the right of the screen clearly seen falling in front of WTC7
    -If what you remember seeing is the scene at 4:08 that column falls to the side of WTC2 and not towards building 7 as you will see in the following video.:

    -5:24 column from previous video falling to the side and not towards building 7.
    -Once again from the front WTC2 debris miss their mark at 0:23:

    -Columns once again falling to the side:

    -5:46 WTC2 heavy debris miss the tower and dust is seen dropping from the building afterwards. The pieces that were in range of the building drop next to it and into the street:

    -Same thing shown at 8:13 of this video:

    -Some more clips of WTC1 coming down from different angles:

    -Aerial view of WTC7 South side burning:

    Anyways, if it’s none of these either, i give up. 🙂

    • mkey says:

      I’ll have to watch these when I get more time. The last video does match the point of view of the video I’m talking about but this one has more smoke.

      Again, I’m not claiming the building wasn’t brought down via convectional means and use of explosives. Hopefully this is the last time I need to repeat that.

    • candlelight says:


      Besides, after letting a number of years go by while they, NIST, scratched their heads trying to figure out how to obfuscate reality by stating to the gullible public that one singular column in the building “shifted” causing the whole building to collapse, you would think they would have desperately jumped and grabbed at the notion that tower debris sliced and diced and gouged out a significant section of a side of the building, yadayadayada…. That no mention of the sort was ever promulgated by these morons, means then, that this story of cataclysmic destruction from fallen debris is a complete fabrication courtesy of the usual, anonymous, Internet fraudulent hucksters.

      What else is new?

      • candlelight says:

        By the way, Olaf, planes did hit the goddamned buildings. Which planes? Good question. But, to suggest otherwise is to get sucked down a fathomless, useless, obfuscatory blind hole. The precise hole the big players want you to get yourself stuck in, where you will do absolutely no harm, only good. lol Good, in this case, being utterly subjective, of course.

        • Olaf says:

          candlelight /re – “planes or no planes”

          “…to suggest otherwise is to get sucked down a fathomless, useless, obfuscatory blind hole. “

          Quite the opposite is true.

          What they did was:
          They used fighter jets to launch the JASSMs (from a rather close proximity to the buildings) in order to cut out the initial shape in the buildings and have the beams bend inwards to mimic a hole from the impact of a flying object coming from the outside-in while they had explosives within the buildings that would cut out the bigger internal holes. The previously set explosives were located in the building towards the center of the line of the missiles flying together in formation into the building and they blew up when the missiles towards the center of that line had entered the buildings and struck them.

          They edited out the footage of the missiles’ approach and of the actual impacts/penetrations completely in the non-live videos and then stitched together:
          1. The footage where they added in the animated plane’s approach and where they then switched to a still image right at the time when the “plane” starts to disappear into the wall face of the tower.


          2. The footage of the real explosions of the bunker-busting missiles and internal (=the ones inside the tower) explosives.

          They also edited the footage of the buildings after the explosions by panning out and fuzzing out the holes to cover the area where the internal explosions had gone off so that people would not be able to see any movement or the missing airplane parts inside the hole.

          All fifty or so cameramen filming the event were professionals. The ones filming the impacts were all on tripods and on comms pretending to be amateurs and pretending to have handheld cameras. They drilled for this event in advance.

          Only three 9/11 airplane videos are confirmed to have been shown live (ABC chopper 7, FOX chopper 5 and WPIX). None of them shows an airplane hitting anything. They weren’t capable of faking impacts on a clearly visible wall face (i.e. that were not out of the line of sight of the viewer) or editing out the missile approach on a live broadcast because it’s a single take, so they only filmed live with the shady side of the towers next to a very bright sky , and out of the line of sight of the missiles’ approach and of the impacts into the wall face.
          They only had to use video-compositing and masking (by using an effect called “key”) to add in an animated plane and to fake it disappearing behind the tower in the live broadcasts.
          The live shots share a remarkable list of characteristics that make live video-compositing possible:
          1. High contrast between tower and sky.
          2. No panning, tilting, or zooming during the airplane part.
          3. Airplane path across sky only.
          4. Airplane disappears across straight edge.
          5. Impact wall is hidden.
          6. No shadows required.

          [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. -JC]

          • Olaf says:

            FOX Chopper 5 live footage:



            Compilation of the 3 live videos:


            The Hezarkhani footage where at 0:46 to 2:56 he pans out and fuzzes out the holes to cover the area where the internal explosions had already gone off so that you won’t be able to see any movement or the missing airplane parts inside the hole:


            Fighter-jet seen flying behind the towers @ 2:20:


            Naudet accidentally catching the fighter-jet plane at the 1:05 mark:


            Jet- plane caught again:


            The sound of missiles:


            9/11 “Planes” vs Cruise Missile Audio Comparison:


            Impact comparison between Courchesne and Hezarkhani:


            What cut the plane shaped hole?


          • Olaf says:

            Taking my recent realizations into account and given the lack of other plausible alternative explanations for how it was done, my statement here needed some corrections/adjustments as well;

            The discrepancy in the amount, nature and expected effects of the explosives that had to have been used to completely obliterate the internal contents of the towers and make them disappear leaves no other possible explanation in my mind at this point, other than that of the towers having been prepped & dismantled for the false flag demolition event well in advance, by the removal of most of the floors, most if not all of the furniture and office appliances and of a lot of the bolts, as well as by the prior evacuation of all of its occupants.

            This is the only plausible explanation, given what we were shown that day, as also evidenced by the otherwise unexplainable lack of contents seen in the rubble.

            The floors that they left in were pre-loaded with fine dust and office papers, some thermite was used in a corner of the tower and also some was later placed in the rubble to fool people into resting their hopes for justice on their own pre-created “controlled opposition – truth movements” that were already prepared and waiting to roll out false explanations and wild theories based on the pre-planted false clues.

            This would also mean that, given this explanation for the absence of the floors, seen inside the gushes after the impacts, they wouldn’t have needed to use internal explosives to make the floors behind the spandrels there disappear, because the floors weren’t there in the first place and thus only missiles of two types needed to be used to make the holes. This would also explain why there were no outward bends at the middle of holes where allegedly the plane’s fuselage had entered the towers. Something which I could not previously explain.

      • Olaf says:

        That’s what i’m saying.
        They couldn’t stick to the fictional story of debris slicing and dicing and gouging out significant sections of the building because they knew that if people had also gotten a good look at the actual damage of the building, almost everybody would have smelled foul play (i.e. the use of explosives).

  18. Olaf says:

    James, it is very hard for me to believe that to this day a group of qualified professionals like the engineers for 9/11 truth, truly believe that a plane – a mostly hollow aluminum structure – can cut through steel columns like a hot knife through butter.
    I think it is safe to say that this is what a controlled opposition looks like.

    If you plan on interviewing someone on 9/11 in the future, i would strongly recommend that you interview Steve De’ak.
    He is the only person within the truth community that you’ll find that has looked at the evidence critically for many years and has conducted a very thorough research into what has happened that day.
    The man has also formulated a plan on how to conduct a simple simulation experiment that would definitively put an end to the “plane – no plane” contention and bring us all a step closer toward exposing the “official story” for the utter absurdity that it is.

  19. Mielia says:

    After the 41 minute mark, the channel James is probably speaking about:

  20. Mielia says:

    These days were some days were I did intensely regret not to have build some video-producing skills and an audience.
    The Hasan Piker controversy provided such a good opportunity.
    I probably would have even titled the video America deserved 9/11 for ultimate provocation/clickbait purposes.

    The fault outrage, especially by all those of the “free speech advocate” crowd was again so infuriating, sad, despicable and unoriginal.

    At least three layers for the video:
    Very short cynical on Karma.
    Then the most important: Who of the outraged audience knows of the firefighters? Who even knows? And you pretend to care?!? Visited events, donated, offered expertise? Are you aware they are still fighting and crushing health effects are a burden?
    Were you celebrating Giuliani and that woman in the description as heroes?

    Third layer: People publishing about We need a new Pearl Harbor. People close to influence and power. So you could somewhat build the case that America deserved this as ‘America’ allowed such people to dictate/majorly influence their legislative and foreign policies, couldn’t you? (Other variations possible like America did it do itself thus deserved it but this would be hard to convey to the targeted audience.)
    Then there is a connection to the climate change agenda where we have this pearl harbor rhetoric repeated and WWII mobilisation asked for – be careful what you wish for.

    What or who is America I probably would not have much discussed – semantics.

    Anyway, excellent opportunity to get a new crowd to look at the firefighters and the whole 911truth situation
    and to smack all those boring “culture warriors” who suppose to support free speech but then shout someone down who immediately pedalled back and apologized – yeah, great atmosphere where you really like to sometimes say something dumb or emotional. And especially at someone who constantly poisons minds but only at these once uttered 9/11 words you really start hitting him hard.

    The real sad thing: Me or anyone else out there not making such a video.

  21. Christopher McMillon says:

    We had to make some revisions to the final video cut, which is why it’s not there now- here’s the video again for anyone who’s missed it,

  22. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Mr. Corbett, (or anyone visiting)
    Here is the new working video link

    (Thanks to Christopher McMillon)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top