Good afternoon to UK column viewers and listeners, wherever
you are in the world. Welcome back to Part 2 of my
interview with Carl Schwartz on the subject of the events of 911
and what was happening in a geopolitical sense around that
oil and gas exploration. But also we we have been talking
about risks around the World Trade Centre buildings
themselves, in particular in connection with asbestos.
So we move on through what's really a chronology leading up
to the World Trade Centre events and post.
But one of the issues that you'd focused in on, Carl, was the
security company and I found this very interesting.
We've got a company called Securacom Incorporated versus
Securacom Consulting Incorporated and the difference
with Securacom Consulting is Comm has got 2M's.
What was happening around this court case?
What was this battle about? The best I can tell, once I got
the full chronology ironed out on who's Stratasek is, we had, I
think they were using Securacom, so nobody would know the name
Stratasek and they kept the tied up for as long as they could.
They actually did their IPO in 1897, but they were still, they
were still appealing and tied up, tied this other company up
all the way to 2000. It was like they did not want
anybody to know. Oh, by the way, the real
security company for the World Trade Centre is Stratassec, and
they're registered in 16 different States and it's where
they're registered and all. A lot of those registrations
also point straight back in. We've got a bona fide security
company that's started from quite small beginnings.
It's, it's established itself with a pretty sizeable business
in the States. And then along comes another
company that chooses a name that's very close to it.
And that's that second company is the company that's then
ultimately involved in security around the World Trade Centre.
Is that? Is that the nub of it?
Yes, yes. But if you if you dig deeper on
Stratosec, they actually predate by years even in even in New
Jersey, even in New York, they predate their use of the name
Secure Company by years. So, you know, it smelled to me
like this was a cut out and that they didn't want anybody doing
this, that Stratosec was actually the security company.
And the reason that you and your team believe this is so
significant is ultimately when the events around 911 took
place, who had access to the building was a critical factor
in in what actually took place. Exactly.
And there were several players involved in that one.
That was Strata SEC and then Otis Elevators lost the elevator
contract for maintenance and service on the World Trade
Centre towers. And then comes a company ace the
elevator, which was basically a nobody.
And this was during the period of time that everybody on my
team thinks is when they were actually wiring the building to
bring it down by controlled demolition.
Now this was not just done by arms.
The interior core that I mentioned earlier, Part 1 was
one of the strongest structures ever built and you you've seen
eight shaped columns, you know it's, it's got a top and a
bottom and then it's got a vertical member between them.
A lot of these columns were not your regular steel, which was
called ASTM 36, which means £36,000 per square inch capacity
water. The steel was 5060 and 70 and
even between the top and bottom running parallel with the what
they call the web were huge plates of steel welded in there
where it's like a steel box. It was almost like a, it was
almost like a trunk of a tree. It was just shy of being solid
steel. And you can't, you couldn't take
that out with a regular bomb. You have to figure out some way
to weaken the steel to where then the bomb could, you know,
Pierce through it. And Stratassec was involved in
that in the Los Alamos National Laboratory out in New Mexico.
And then I started digging into who, who are these names of
these people? And, you know, how likely is it
that George Bush's brother is part of Stratassec and he's also
part of an insurance company that took a 30 million loss on
World on World Trade Centre when it came down?
It's been my contention that the Bush family knew about that
asbestos lawsuit sometime in the 90s.
You mentioned a laboratory there in connection with the security
company, if I read that correctly, what what was what
was happening in the laboratory? What?
What were they testing? They were the Los Angeles, that
particular lab, Los Alamos National Lab, was heavily
involved in thermitic research. Now, thermitic reactions have
been around ever since. They've been separating gold and
silver and, you know, and copper.
They can work really fast or they can be designed to work
really slow. And what you do is once you get
that ignited, if it's a slow process, you know, have the
plane swam into the towers, the thermetic process kicks in.
And then, oh, my God, the towers collapse when the bombs start
going off because they could Pierce the steel because it had
been weakened. And there is a video, there's a
video on the Internet, molten metal was flowing out of one of
the towers. And when they were clean doing
the cleanup, they found pools of melting Bolton metal.
There was nothing about the jet fuel fires or the normal fires.
It was hot enough to turn that type of steel to a pool of steel
completely melted. We have the irrefutable
statistic that no steel framed building anywhere in the world
had collapsed as simply as a result of a a carbonaceous, a
wood or a a fuel based fire. Well, there was never you know,
I kind of jokingly say sometimes or the building codes that LAX
in New York City. The only three that have ever
collapsed anywhere on the in the world is a high rise fire just
happened to be right there on the same site.
That, to me, is a smoking gun. OK.
So if we focus in on the the events of the day a bit more,
and I've got a number of your images and there's a little bit
of animation here as well. And this of course was something
that a lot of people saw. I think this is the one that
plays. So we've got one of the towers
already hit and then we see an aircraft flying to the side of
the other tower. When you see this clip, what's
the significance of it, Carl? Most of the pictures that were
shown on TV and the videos that popped up later were much
further away than this guy was. This was a Canadian banker.
He worked in Toronto. He was in New York City.
I think he worked in compliance operations and he just happened
to be walking to work and he was standing there, you know,
videoing the north tower. That's Rector Place on the left
and that's the Marriott Downtown on the right.
So we could figure out within feet of where he was standing.
You know, once we kind of messed up the screen view that he had
on his camcorder. We had copies of that video that
you're playing. And what we did is we, we put it
on a large screen, analysed it and then we, we, we did still
frames that were less than 110th of a second each.
We have 20 still frames. That's the 7:37 that is not
about a Boeing 767 from Austin Boeing International Airport.
I've got one of those stills that you labelled and this is
Exhibit A that's gone in with the the court submission.
And there's also one where there's a zoom in on it.
And you're suggesting here that this isn't even that.
Sorry that this is a manipulated image.
That's like a CGI insert that is not the plane that threw almost
over the head of that Canadian banker and he got it on the
camcorder. This one here is the genuine
image. Is that correct?
Yeah, there's a big mystery about what happened to these
planes. And I actually had a phone call
one time. It was made to me by a woman.
She was involved in air traffic control operations in Boston.
And after my book came out, after I was at Jimmy Walters
thing, she called me up from her sister's home phone number, not
her own phone told me. She just told me her first name,
Brendan, And she was in the air traffic control when those two
planes took off. They didn't come to New York
City. They went to Europe and I
thought that was really odd. I mean, I used to fly a lot of
miles when I was with Smith Barney and when my design build
company was doing work in multiple states.
I had never been on a 767 in a continental flight within
domestic flight within the US, 767 is a much longer range
plane. And what she told me, she said
those planes turn, they took off and they turn back to the East
and they went towards Europe. I've got to call it an anecdotal
story, but that Lady called you and spoke to you.
She was scared because they had been threatened to not talk
about it, to not disclose it, blah, blah, blah.
And then when I, when this video was in my possession, I was
robbed by the CIA in Berlin. They stole that video and about
11 months later, the other video that my team had, that woman was
found murdered in her home, the video and the stills, and there
was still money in her purse. OK.
And the banker, the original man, I think he was a compliance
officer for for Canada Bank, took the original video.
Is he still alive? Well, he just up and disappeared
after I was robbed. Deborah was trying to find out
some way to track him down to get another copy to to me.
And then she wound up dead 11 months later and we we hadn't
been able to find him. I called the bank and they said,
well, he didn't come to work one day and we don't know where he
went. He may have gone into hiding in
the Rockies or something. The critical video clip was was
posted relatively recently. It suddenly appeared online
again, and you, you, you actually don't know who could
have released that video clip. Well, it wasn't Deborah and it
wasn't me. So maybe the banker is still out
there or maybe maybe another person had that video, but that
that video that you just played that was not on the Internet
like a year, year and a half ago.
So we've got really disturbing things happening around real
video footage that was taken at the time, which of course would
be key evidence. And then we've got the fact that
it was claimed that the plane was a Boeing 767, but you are
saying it was probably a 737. And we'll have a look at that in
in a minute. Yeah.
One of the things that we did, we figured out within two or
three feet of where he was standing.
And with trigonometry on one of the steel frames that I have, we
were able to figure out the wingspan, approximate wingspan
of that jet that flowed over. And the wingspan of the 767 is
75% of the width of the face of that building.
And the wingspan of a 737 is just a little over 50%.
So there's a big difference in wingspan and body, body width
and even the size of the engines.
You know, we've already done that math.
So that's not a 767, that's a 737 that went over his shoulder.
The one that you're saying is the CGO and this, this was an
image in created presumably in order to reinforce the idea that
it was a Boeing 767, the bigger aircraft, yes.
Yeah, and that photo is not what went went over his show.
Different coloured plane and everything.
More evidence that you've looked at is actually debris itself and
in particular engine components, some of which appeared actually
on the street. So tell us about this one.
A combustion chamber That's a. Combustion Chamber of a 737.
You can verify that in multiple ways.
I've shown that to some people that actually work on 737, so
you know they recognise what they're looking at.
And of course, the scale of, of, of that piece of engine and the
image is pretty simple to ascertain because not only can
you get a, some idea from the street furniture close to it,
but you've also got a person standing in the foreground and
you've got two people crossing in the background.
And you can see that that is waist height at best.
So this is a very small unit. Yeah.
That's the type of jet that they use, the jet engine they use on
730 Sevens. And even prior to that, there
was a couple of jet models that had those same engines on.
This is another image that you'd given us.
Well, your Exhibit B in this case, we've got a 737 jet engine
and relative in size to a human being adjacent to it.
So we've got two men or a lady could be one of them using a
phone in the background. So still quite a big engine, but
if I go to this one, which is the 767 jet engine, the audience
can see that there is a huge difference in size compared to
the man who's working in the foreground, and therefore the
wing that takes this engine would be vastly bigger than for
the 737. That's true.
That engine weighs many times more than 737 engines.
And then if we turn our attention to the Pentagon, this
is an image of some form of glass, we would call it a
windscreen or windshield, I think it's called in the States
on the Pentagon lawn. And you've made the comment that
there were no vehicles involved in the impact or in the in the
vicinity of the impact. And you're saying it's not a
window of a Boeing 757? Yeah, that that photograph was
sent to me the next day. I woke up early the next morning
and I knew to some people in the Pentagon, they said correct to
me, asking if I can identify that.
Just to give you a kind of a marker.
I'm about 20 years older than the person that sent me that now
a retired Lieutenant Colonel, US Air Force intelligence.
And the Intel people, you know, they're not out on the flight
lines and the operations and they didn't even have a clue
what that came from. They wanted to know if I'd ever
seen it. And I told him, I said I got a
pretty good idea and I dug in deep.
And yeah, that's a canopy window from an 8 three sky, which is a
it's a Cold War jet. It was mostly used in the Navy.
It had it had fold up wings where you can actually launch
it, you know, from an aircraft carrier or from land base.
And it is used for electronic intelligence.
It's used for electronic jamming, it's used for Recon.
But it can also carry a nuke. And that's one of the reasons
the windows were so thick on it, you know, because it was
potentially it was going to be going into the Russian airspace,
you know, if if the war broke out.
This was the the glass, obviously reinforced glass,
because although it's heavily fractured, it's held together,
but it's on the lawn. And you've also got an image
here of what was being claimed as part of a 757 wing.
But you're making the statement. This is clearly not part of a
wing that any 757 has had. And I'll follow on with this
image where men are carrying something away which is covered
up, which is very interesting. And your comment is not a
severed wing from a 757 that many men could could pick up, IE
the real wing would be far too heavy.
But also the angles and the width of what's covered up with
the blue top are not close to a 757 wing.
So there's debris on the ground. But your point is that this
debris does not match up with the claims that the aircraft
that hit the Pentagon was a 757? True.
Absolutely. Yeah, That's, that's, I was
actually the first person to to to break that story and was
heavily criticised. But several years later, several
other people verified it. They went through all the
evidence and pieces at the Pentagon and they came to the
same conclusion. You know, this was not a 757 and
it was probably an 83, Scott. OK.
And you're reinforcing things here.
So you've got a cover of them magazine, which is saying is
this really a 757 engine disc, either RB211 or Honeywell APU?
Or is it instead from the engine of a smaller plane or missile?
And that appears to be the front cover of a book click called
wagkingdom.com. And then the right is a turbine,
A Prax Air. Which is a company that
refurbished military jet engine blades.
And you're saying that the one on the right does seem to fit
the right dimensions for the debris on the Pentagon lawn?
Exactly, if you if you take off the the hubcap from the the left
photo and then you look at the one that's been renovated in
tracks air, you can see it's exactly the same centre way that
the turbine blades are attached to it.
To put it in context, under your Exhibit D, here's the A3 Sky
Warrior aircraft that would be fitted with such engines, and
you've made the comment here that the Pentagon had two left
as of 9/11, 2001. This jet uses the exact type of
fan and rote to hub. When you say the Pentagon had
two left, why would the Pentagon itself have aircraft such as
these? Well, actually there was the
service, whether it was Navy or Air Force, they still had two A3
Sky Warriors in their inventory, and I had people inside the
Pentagon verify that for me. They sold most of their fleet to
Raytheon, which is the photograph of that jet right
there. They use those for their testing
of missiles and, you know, electronic countermeasure
systems, all kinds of different things they do for the US
government. And then we've got a close up
here to give us a better ideal of scale, not only in respect to
the engines, but here you're you're actually starting to
focus in on that broken windshield on the ground and
saying here it's a similar making of material and size as
found on the Pentagon lawn. And if I just go to the next one
and then I'll let you come back into comment.
So here we've got a nose cone section of the same aircraft.
And there you can see the shape of that windshield glass.
And it certainly does to me, seem to be roughly the same
shape as the shape of the broken windshield on the Pentagon lawn.
Yeah, most, most military jets don't have canopy canopy windows
like that. They're small.
It's either a unitized, you know, 11 canopy piece or it's
two pieces. But that was the only jet I've
ever seen anywhere it actually had those two that were above
the power and Co power. Where has this evidence, this
photographic evidence, where has this appeared?
You've you've now got it into your lawsuit documentation, but
where, where has it come to light elsewhere?
I have put that in an article that I wrote about the A3 Sky
Warrior. I revealed that yes, we have a
photograph. I can't do it.
I was doing my own critique of the official story because I
knew the official story was was basically just a big lie.
Thank you for that Carl. And this this one which I just
find fascinating. So you have here a photograph
which you said is a photo taken inside one of the World Trade
Centre towers. And then you can see on the big
cardboard boxes that are stacked up, it says BB18.
And you've commented that the the boxes or devices used in
controlled demolitions, this would be, is a very critical
photograph. What's the provenance of it
though? How?
How do we know that this is a bona fide photograph from inside
the World Trade Centre? Well, I can tell it's inside the
World Trade Centre several different ways, but just the
width of the windows and the other span, you know, the
vertical elements. Of course, with the guy looking
away from us, what he's doing is he's attaching the cable to what
is called a fuse holder. It's the fuse holder that they
have to put in to test the sequence.
When you're bringing the building down, the controlled
demolition, all the bombs don't go off the same time.
You have to, you have to gut it, so to speak in this in the
centre and then the other others, you know, start falling
to the centre to bring it all down within its footprint.
You know, you don't want 100 and ten Storey building falling like
a tree or a 40 seven Storey building like World Trade Centre
7. It has to be broken up
internally and down. But what he's doing there, after
they do the wiring and the testing the sequence, then they
said the explosives are already set, but they're just, they
don't have the firing mechanism, you know, to detonate them,
which is basically an electric charge.
And then when they actually do it with the laptop, boom, boom,
boom, the whole sequence is done.
But we had questions of who that person is doing that.
And I sent this to a remote viewing team.
We're talking to somebody who's military police for law
enforcement and also intelligent agency level team.
And they're 95% certain that guy was the chief operating officer
of the World Trade Centre security company Stratosec.
I have to ask a question here, and maybe this is a very naive
question to ask. How, How would it be possible to
engage an American in such vicious criminal activity to
bring down a major building with the result and thousands of
deaths? Why?
Why would an American do that? Would, would they be prepared to
do it simply because they were offered a lot of money?
I, I could, there's an expression in UK which is an
ordinary decent criminal and it means a criminal that is still a
criminal, but they actually have some of the values, they still
respect certain values. And I can remember, I could
think that a lot of people who might be criminal in lots of
things they do would baulk at the attempt of of doing such a
heinous crime on behalf of the government.
The guy that was the chief operating health, Sir Stratasek,
his previous background, he was at Fort Monmouth Military Base,
it's called AMC, and he is a weapons and explosives expert.
They do a lot of distribution of weapons from there.
And also Charleston, SC He's got a military background.
And I guess if you offered him enough money and security, you
know, you won't get caught. That stuff, you know, he may
have decided to go ahead and take it.
Let's put the photograph of those boxes back on screen,
because you'd also put some text alongside it which I'll just
read for the audience. It will be sufficient to say
here that no tall structural steel building has ever suffered
global collapse, complete collapse either before or after
911 for any reason other than controlled demolition on 9/11.
The official account says that there were three such instances
that is of complete collapse due to minor low heat fires, all on
the same day and in the same place.
This is a very suspicious record that cannot be ignored when
looking at all of the other factors.
And then the statements goes on to say the photo is inside of
World Trade Centre tower. The cardboard boxes BB18 are
devices used in controlled demolitions.
This is absolutely a fundamental thing, the strength of the World
Trade Centre buildings by virtue of their construction.
And I will insert an image so that viewers can actually see
what it looks like if you, if you cut horizontally across the
buildings to see what that steel core is.
And you've, you've already described that that was a
massive central steel framework and it was of steel that was had
superior heat resistance to normal steels.
But in any case, the heat from jet fuel burning in normal open
air conditions cannot generate the heat necessary to melt or
even greatly soften steel. And yet in this case we have the
steel simply vaporising or becoming molten and the
buildings falling in their own footprint.
It is, it is a remarkable situation.
Yeah, let me let me say something about the photograph
with the guy with the BB18 boxes.
We have another photograph that was taken inside the World Trade
Centre and it's taken at a different angle and you've got
two young males looking out and down and you can tell that this
was taken somewhere like the 60s, seventy, maybe the 80th
floor of World Trade Centre, same boxes.
And of course, those boxes could only come in if security for the
World Trade Centre had been heavily compromised.
Or the security company or personnel were complicit in
allowing this to happen. Yes, exactly.
And I'm saying complicit. The only way that you could have
gotten to the interior core is through these this massive
structure is through the elevators and certain crawl
spaces that see not all the elevators went all the way up,
but you have to get back in there and wire it and even put
the thermite like a thermite plate on both sides of it.
When that ignites that will immediately start degrading the
strength of the steel and that's what they were doing at Los
Alamos thermetic research. Now I always thought their medic
reactions were very fast. I have a video of a German that
their company, it was one of them that embedded their many
processes and they were demonstrating the fast and the
slow, the slow version. So yes, there there's there's a
way to do it slow. Carl, let's bring things
together here a bit because you, you were present when the
initial inquiry was going on around World Trade Centre and,
and the events. What what was your take on on
how investigations were conducted?
I was already aware that there were some huge conflicts, like
the chairman, Thomas Keane, he's involved.
He was the CEO of Amaretta Hess Oil Company, but Amaretta Hess
was already in the joint venture with Delta Oil, which is Saudi
over in the Caspian. Does they have some?
They have a big oil Oasis just off the off the coast of
Azerbaijan and just north of Iran.
And then Mayor Brown, Richard Bentonnist, they were the ones
that were representing Turkmenistan down in Texas.
They represented them at the 5th Circuit and they even filed a
writ of Sersi air riot to the Supreme Court, which was
rejected in March 2004. So you had conflicts sitting
right there on that Commission that had no reason to work for
the truth. If you sum up your opinion of
those inquiries for us, how would you describe them?
I agree with the six of the 10 commissioners and said that it
was set up to fail. Set up to fail that that
expression also suggests men's Ray that there was there was a
guilty mind, there was a a plan at work.
It wasn't as if it was set up and then it proved to be
incompetent. You're suggesting that it was
deliberately set up in order to produce an answer, an evaluation
on the day that was not true. John Farmer.
He used to be the Attorney General of New Jersey.
He was also on the staff of Christine Todd Whitman, former
EPEPA administrator, as a regal counsel to her office.
But he was, he was one of the general counsels for the 9/11
Commission. And he went public after it was
all over. And he said, basically, the
United States government decided not to tell the truth of what
really happened. And as you've made clear in in
in the way that you've set out the legal application with the
plaintiffs, this act of not telling the truth, which is a
very polite way of saying that public are being lied to, had
huge, huge implications on what took place in other parts of the
world. And thousands, if not millions,
of people died as a result of these actions that took place
around the World Trade Centre. Yeah, it all started there.
And then I've, I've, I've seen figures that between Afghanistan
and Iraq to Persian 2 point O, there's over 2 million dead. 2
million. And yeah, over 2 million.
Yeah, when you look at that BBC children's documentary, which
was in Part 1, and say to our audience, if you haven't seen
that Part 1, you need to see it because this is this is a bit of
a more relaxed discussion on what took place.
But when you see that BBC report to children, what goes through
your head? They're trying to teach people
not to think and not to ask questions, You know, just buy
off what we told you. But we told you the truth.
Just believe it. But where I'm from, Brian, we
have a saying. I was born, but not yesterday.
And when I started, when I started seeing what was going on
before 911 that day and after 911, it made perfect sense to me
of why they did it and what they were really after.
And that 240 page document I sent you, that was the one I
prepared for our attorneys, every bit of the facts are in
there. And like in Florida, Stratasec,
we couldn't find the, we couldn't find the foreign
corporation registration in Florida for Stratasec even
though we knew there was one. We actually found that yes,
there was a business relationship with two companies
down there and SEC files mandatory, you know, public
company SEC file. So it's taking a lot of research
to get to the bottom of. We've got three things at work.
We've got asbestos and asbestos risk in the building which was a
bit multi billion pound problem. We've got very strange
circumstances with the security company around the building and
then we've got AI believe the figure you gave me originally
was a 7.4 trillion value on that oil pipeline deal.
Well, that was as of 2004. That's a very good point.
Yeah, 7-7 trillion as of 2004. So a huge, absolutely huge
opportunity, Oil and gas opportunity. the US companies
had been outmanoeuvred by that Argentinian company.
And it was clear that the US companies and the government
wanted that pipeline deal, but they could only get it if they
had control of Afghanistan. And how do you get control of
Afghanistan and the region? You've got to get troops on the
ground, and you need an excuse to get those troops on the
ground. And you would argue hence 9/11.
Pearl Harbour. Pearl Harbour.
I'll just give you an aside. There are still groups trying to
sue the Saudis. And I saw this woman, she lives
in Florida. Her husband died.
He worked for Kantor Fitzgerald and they're still after the
Saudis. And I've been trying to get her
to accept this simple reality that the Saudis were business
partners with these people. They, they, they were not going
to lose that by attacking America.
And when we found that there was Kuwait American Corporation
involved with the Bush family, involved with Stratosec,
involved in the securicom versus securicom lawsuit, that that
tells me that the, you know, don't look at the Saudis, look
at who was actually hands on. And in that one photo where
you're showing the guy with the BB18 boxes, I think that's
Michelle we Sabal that's sitting down in the business suit.
You know, there's three, three men in that photo.
I think, I think this Kuretti guy got sitting in that.
Ear Yes, you've got the the man in the slightly pinkish top
who's working he's clearly a Workman and then behind him,
just behind his hands in this image is a man sat in a dark
suit with his back towards us and you think that this that
figure may be who. I think that's Michelle Lee
Sabah of Kuwait American Corporation, which was in bed
with Marvin Bush and and Wert D Walker, the third who's also a
Bush cousin, and other people that were directly involved in
security or World Trade Centre. Now obviously we can't see that
man's face, but you, you make that allegation because of all
the other information around it. It's just a gut reaction I have
every time I look at that photo. Tell us a bit about the the team
that's, if you can, that's come around you to support what
you've done here with assembling such a vast amount of evidence
over so many years and moving it through with the court case.
If you can't give us names, can you tell us anything about the
types of people that have come around to support you?
Some of them have been engineers, scientists,
technicians, you know, very smart people.
I had to get out of the 9/11 truth movement for the simple
reason I was the only Republican involved in it.
And when you've got a bunch of liberals who are involved in it
because they want to get rid of Bush, Cheney, and then all of a
sudden a Republican shows up and has more information than they
have. They tried to turn it around and
make the whole story about me. You know, it's like they totally
evolved focus. But I I pulled out a nine O web
and the truth because I see it wasn't going anywhere.
So. You've got professional people
who've come around you have have you had I've done 3 interviews
with CIA professionals who have grave concerns about the
performance and the reliability and the trustworthiness of
American intelligence and security, national national
security. Have you, have you had any
bodies of that ilk that's that's come on board to support?
It's got inside knowledge of the government, the inner workings
of the US government itself. Not yet, but it's like I told
you before we started last night, I got emails from three
former CIA people that want this video.
So most of the people have been like pilots, architect,
engineers, mechanics that work on jets, you know, verifying the
little the little pieces of the components and everything.
You know, they haven't been they haven't been the government
level stuff. It's been the people that are
practical frontline people that they're in aerospace.
You know, they actually work on The Jets.
Yes, they they know what a Boeing 737 combustion chamber
looks like and what how big it is and that they do the same on
the seven six set. I mean, even the, even the type
of combustion chamber it's on, the 757 is considerably bigger
than what you were showing for the 737.
It's a, it's a different type of jet engine.
It's called a high bypass fan. And and it's not, it's not like
a turbo jet where the air comes in and it gets supercharged and
blows out the back combustion. A high bypass fan.
Your, your, your fan blades are huge.
And what you're doing is you're, you're grabbing more air,
pushing it. Colt you, you've now submitted
the the legal documentation where that application's been
made to the court. But I, as I understand it, the
information that's gone in has got to be reworked in order to
get it in a proper legal format and with the correct legal
language and presumably charges formed around the evidence that
your team has put together. Can you tell us a bit more about
the process of getting it into the legal system?
Who? Who's actually accepted these
papers? I've had attorneys review them
and no one, no one attorney can take these people on.
I mean, it's going to, it's going to have to have a big back
office, maybe two or three of all firms, you know,
representing the plaintiffs because we're going to be up
against quite a few big law firms.
You know, it'll turn into what we call paper Blizzard real
quick, OK? There'll be all kinds of
motions, kind of motions, you know, motions for summary
judgement. So somebody he's going to have
to review it and understand the reason that the the lawsuit is
Rico civil Rico, Vicar, abuse of human rights, undercover of all
all the way up to murder and treason.
And there's two laws. It's common in UK and it's
common in U.S. law. It's called misprision of felony
and misprision of treason. If you're aware of something,
you don't report it and it comes out later, you know you could
be. Charged.
We spoke quite, quite a while ago and at that stage President
Trump hadn't come into office. How how do you view the fact
that Trump's now in as President of the United States?
Do you think that his his offices are going to be more
receptive to taking this type of case?
Forward, He has always wanted the truth about 911 on the
record. So a lot of people don't know
that they had a hard time coming up with enough manpower machines
for the clean up crews and Donald Trump hired out of his
own pocket additional people to come in and help.
So he was he was concerned about what happened.
I think he'd be supportive of the truth actually finally being
on the thing. Can you say at the moment that
these this legal application has been accepted by the Department
of Justice? No, no, we haven't.
We haven't gone that step. The approach we're taking would
actually be filed in US District Court.
It wouldn't be filed through the COJDOJ is more of a law
enforcement arm of the US government, and it's basically
from federal laws. But this one, this one violates
a lot of federal laws and state laws too.
One interesting thing, after 911 happened, I contacted Arlington
County, Virginia, and I contacted the prosecuting
attorney in Manhattan. They both had been ordered to
stand down and not pursue murder investigations in their own
jurisdiction. And it was absolutely their
jurisdiction. But they, they were ordered.
Oh no, this was a, this was an act of war against America.
So we don't you know, you can't, you can't investigate this.
This is our case. By putting this claim into the
District Court in New York and New Jersey area.
Apart from anything else, this is where the the the raw emotion
of what happened resides, Isn't it because the events took place
there? And what we may wind up doing,
and I've had this discussion with the attorney too, the
courts in New York are very Webro.
They they tend to try to make up the law as they go.
And the other possibility would be following this in the state
of Virginia, because Arlington County, Virginia, there were
murders there too. OK, because I don't, I'm not
sure that I'm not sure that anybody would get a fair trial
city on something that's magnitude.
There's too many ways the mafia corruption and stuff like that
could try to twist this and you know, you get kicked out on
technicality. What sort of reaction have you
had from the the media in what you're doing?
Because you've been very outspoken, Your book went out
there, you did the very high profile interviews.
Did did you get any response from the big media channels in
the US or from anywhere else? You mean like CBSNBCABC?
No, no, they they're, they're pretty much under control of the
CIA. And if they're told does not
touch the story, they don't touch it.
Well, at the end of the day, Carlos, one of the reasons that
the UK column exists because we got tired of the fact that the
truth didn't come out in the in the big media channels.
And of course, if you live in UK, you have this multi multi
billion # organisation called the BBC, which simply works
alongside and for the government.
There's no question this is true.
And I've I've not seen any substantial investigation by the
BBC into what took place at 9:11.
And we have the incident of building #7.
Would you like to remind the audience about that?
At about 5:00 PM on September 11th, 2001, the BBCA woman
reporter looks at something and and she looks at this camera and
she goes. We've just been informed that
the Salomon building has collapsed and literally over her
left shoulder in the background looking out across Manhattan,
WTC 7 is still standing. About 20 minutes later, it was
brought down by a controlled damage and even Larry
Silverstein, Larry Silverstein admitted after 9-11 that he gave
the order to pull it. Well, pull it is a is a
controlled demolition term. That's a warning sign that in 10
minutes this building's coming down.
So everybody get away. He of course, was trying to sell
it that in order to protect the public, a decision had been made
to collapse the building. But it it it also it also
collapsed by falling in on itself.
And you can see that very clearly in that footage.
Well, if you if you look at the World Trade Centre, there was
some some spewing outwards, which was basically from the
core out. The core itself collapsed into
its own footprint. That's why we knew there was no
way that low heat fires could have done that.
Some other way had had to be brought into bear to have
brought those that that interior core down.
And the last point from me, Carl, is you have an audience
today. What what would you like to say
to the audience? What would you like them to be
thinking about and doing in relation to 911?
Several things we had discussed in the past by email.
Can you put my email address post it with with this article.
This video, of course. One of the things we've run into
is the United States government was real dirty.
They have tried to make sure we couldn't get any traction to
come at them. They know what we know.
Like it. The 3rd anniversary event Jimmy
Walter's event, September 11, 2004.
CIA shows up and they threaten me backstage.
They thought I was going to disclose the asbestos lawsuit
because I had requested a, a order copy of the final order of
the asbestos lawsuit. And I just looked at him and I
said, well, gentlemen, I came here to say what I have to say.
So why don't you go with these two security guards since you
cannot legally be back here and you can just listen to what I
got to say. As you know from the PowerPoint
that you were showing some of the slides, I was revealing the
Caspian Basin issues. There were other people in that
in on those four panels that were talking about this, the
asbestos, and there were other people talking about the, I
don't know why they, they targeted me, but I thought it
was really stupid for them to, you know, threaten me because
they were afraid I was going to be the one to out it.
Now, one of the things I wish, I wish the entire world did.
Saint Jimmy Walter's DVD on that.
Then they'd be wide awake. But I think what needs to
happen, we're going to have to pull together a support group,
even financially, because every which way I've turned, including
this year, Brian, I had a guy coming to Canada.
I didn't get back to Europe until the 18th of January and he
was literally disappeared. First he was kidnapped, catching
a plane to come to Ontario. That right there sent me back 5
million and over 60 million. That one step.
Yeah, it took the police about 5 or 6 hours to find him.
By the time they found him, he'd missed his 5:10 AM flight.
So we tried to ride him a different way.
And we haven't seen or heard from this key person since
January 7th, 3:00 PM his time and 6:00 AM my time in Ontario.
That's why I came back to Europe.
I mean it, I just got completely levelled over there.
Years worth of work or not, this is how the US government works
with people. They spy on you, they get out
ahead of you and they hammer you to keep you from moving forward.
Now what you've just presented with me, what you've just
presented with me here is major evidence and can move forward as
soon as we can find the means to do that.
Carl, I'm, I'm going to say, I think we're at the end of this.
There's so much more to tell. And and this, this two part
interview is, is a tiny proportion of the work that
you've been doing. But thank you very, very much
for joining me. And I'm just so pleased that you
also were watching that interview with Mr Sweeney when
the issue of Sandy Burger came up and that triggers you to make
contact. That was that was really
excellent. So thank you very much for doing
doing that. I was surprised when I first
went to your site that you, you had interviewed Waller and him
and I, I know, I know from arm's length, I know who both of these
people are, but I've never, I've never watched a video with, I've
read articles where people were talking about them.
I found the interviews with them very, very interesting because
one of the points that we discussed is if these things
were happening in the States, they're also IE the breakdown of
law and order within the security services.
If that's happened within the within the services in the US,
it's also certainly happened in the UK.
In fact, a little while ago the government was busy introducing
a law which made it easier for the intelligence and security
services to break the law when they felt it was appropriate to
do so. So if the law is to make the
law, and if the law is to break the law, you have no law.
That's true. In America they have the Smith
Munt Act which forbid propaganda and lying to Americans.
But then, in 2012, Obama had been they did the Smith Month
Organisation Act, which legalised lying to Americans.
Just a coincidence, Carl, Just a coincidence.
Just a coincidence, but anyway, make sure that my email gets in
there. People are welcome to contact me
if they want to. And you know, we're having,
we're having to pull together a war chest here to take these
people on and take them down. The evidence is, well, I've got
a lot more photos than you have shown here today.
I mean, the evidence is overwhelming.
I just, I just selected some of them to stick in there and you
know, we could discuss it today. Carl, let's end there.
Thank you very, very much for joining me.
It's been a fascinating discussion and we need to, yeah,
we need to get the truth out and we need to get the bad people
brought to, brought to rights. That's the that's the aim of the
game. Well, thank you for having me.
One of the things that's going to happen as soon as I have the
links is this has gone out to close to 30 million people.
And I'm hoping you get a lot more followers and viewers and
supporters because you're doing great work over there.
Thank you very much. Let's leave it there and hope to
see you again with UK column. Thank you very much, Carl
Schwartz. Bye.
Thank you.
Have a good day.