Good morning to the UK column viewers and listeners and
welcome. I'm delighted to have Carl
Schwartz back with me. We've already done 2 sessions on
the World Trade Centre Collapse Part 1 and Part 2.
That was a couple of months ago. Now we're delighted to get back
together. And today we decided we would
have a very relaxed chat about how things have gone since we
put out those two discussions about what took place for 911.
So, Carl, thank you very much for joining me again.
Well, it's my pleasure. I know you've been very busy
since Part 2 and so have I. Well, this is this is, this is a
part of the key thing for us to discuss.
It has been a very busy period, but we've we've made it.
That's the important thing. We're back here together.
So I wanted to start off with just asking you in simple terms,
we did those two interviews you brought to the table, I think at
least some really fascinating information, which is not
information, which has been widely, which is not information
which has been available really in in previous 9/11 analysis.
And the key part was that you were talking about the lead up
to it, the events leading up to the actual fall of the the Twin
Towers. And you were really getting into
what was happening in a political sense, which gave the
the reason that this horrific event took place.
So we put out the information. What sort of reaction have you
got and who has reacted to the two interviews that we did?
Well, it's been basically from Tokyo all the way to Vancouver.
I mean, I've got a lot of contacts since we put my email
in there. I feel like on some days I feel
like I'm playing ping pong with my keyboard, but I'm answering
and providing additional information to these people.
We've set up a website. You know, that PowerPoint I sent
you was almost 20 megabits. And it's, of course it's, it's
very professionally done. And what is run, what I've run
into was now the 9/11 groups, the ones that are still standing
like Architect, engineers, 911 Truth, the International
Senator, Centre for 911 Justice, the 9/11 pilot, whistleblowers,
you know, we're all on direct communications.
You know, they have their own focus and some of them are
trying to get their head around my focus.
And I think I said this in the in the second part too was when
I saw molten metal coming out of one of the Trade Centre towers,
I knew exactly what they had done.
There's only one way to do that and it's not by jet fuel and
it's not by building fire. And one of the things I've
noticed is very interesting. I've since watched 7 videos,
podcast video, stuff like that. Kurt Weldon has come forward,
the link I sent you this morning, he's on there also with
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaefer, who is DIA, the
Defence Intelligence Agency. He's part of Able Danger.
Also Major Kurt Kleinsmith, he is DIA, he's the one that he was
ordered to delete that 4 terabytes of of information.
So all the little pieces are starting to come in.
You know, the Saudis didn't have anything to do with this.
They sure didn't have a chance to get in there and wire all
three buildings for controlled demolition.
I think Richard Gauge has done a very good job of presenting
that. But like I told you, and I've
told Richard privately over email, when I saw that molten
metal coming out, I went looking for who did the thermetic
reaction that crippled that building to where the bombs
would work and bring them down. And that's the trail.
And it's like we said on the, I think the first Part 1, we have
this situation where I met Bridas Corporation.
They told me what what their accomplishments were in
Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan for a pipeline.
And they also told me about the big Texas lawsuit.
So two years before 911, a little bit over 2 years, I was
already following that and waiting to see what else popped
up because like you said, geopolitical, that's trillions
of dollars worth of oil and trillions of dollars national
gas and and the only reason to attack Afghanistan is to take
that over. OK, Carl, let's let's just come
back a little bit on, on the types of people out there who
have who, who, who have reacted, you know, to what we've covered.
Why do we start off with the, the 9/11 groups themselves?
Because this is a very important selection of people.
Many of them have worked extremely hard over a great
number of years in order to try and get the the truth out about
what, what's taken place. And you will, you will know
these these groups and the individuals for more better than
than I do. But if I just list off some,
we've got the International Centre for 911 Justice.
I think that was funded by James Gurley way back in 2008.
We've got 911 truth.org. We've got scholars for 9/11
truth. We've also got architects and
engineers for 911 truth. We've got Richard Gauge, who's
now acting on his own, but he's still very much part of the
wider 9/11 truth community. We've got the, we've got the
pilot whistleblowers and you briefly mentioned able danger
there, which is Field McConnell, if I remember correctly.
So this, this is, this is a very wide selection of people and
you've you've got amazing qualifications, you've got
architects, you've got engineers, you've got stress,
specialised stress engineers, you've got legal people all
working in these groups. So has your has the information
that you've brought forward in the last two interviews, has
that made an impact on some of those established organisations?
Have have you had a positive response?
They're trying to get their head around it.
It's like I told you in one of the interviews.
Yeah, I didn't focus on just the day of September 11th.
It's because of the molten metal faun of that building.
We went off in a different direction.
One thing I can say, the early 911 truth groups, the nut cases,
the tinfoil hat people and the government shills are gone.
You know, they're not out here harassing everybody like they
were the followers that saw that on your On UK column, they've
all been very knowledgeable, that have been very helpful.
They provided some additional information that I think none of
us had come across yet. So the little pieces are all
coming together. And you have the International
Centre. Yeah, they have one way they
want to go at it. Kirk Weldon's group, he wants a
presidential Commission. And to me, that's why putting
the government, that's why I put in the wolves trying to
investigate themselves, why so many sheep were gone.
We, we still think now there has been a lawsuit.
Interesting enough, William Rodriguez, who was the janitor
that just barely made it out of North Tower alive, got buried in
the rubble. He filed A lawsuit against Bush
for murder. And it was the Pennsylvania
attorney. But when I read the case and
they didn't take the riot attack, I mean it it, it was a
Rico case, it was civil remedy. But that's not the sole way to
go at this. This, this is one of the things,
isn't it, that when, when these events take place and people are
caught up in it and they're hurt and damaged or it's the
relatives of people that have been killed, they understandably
always approach things from their own point of view and
they've got a lot of passion. So they set off down a Rd
determined to get justice. But this is, this is not easy
and they particularly because they haven't got the strength of
the team around them. So these are good people.
You correct me if my analysis is wrong here, Carlbert.
It seems to me we we have good people, lots of passion and
motivation, but they set off on their own path and that actually
makes them easy pickings for the other side because essentially
they are one or two individuals with very, very little
experience of the system. That's true.
Give you a good example of what you just said.
One of the videos I watched actually 2 videos.
This William Rodriguez, last man out of World Trade Centre 1, he
came very close to dying. He's battling PTSD.
He lost 200 friends. He got there 30 minutes away and
every day about 200 of them had breakfast up at the Windows in
the World restaurant on the top 4.
And he didn't make it in time, but he lost all those people,
you know, that that really weighs on him.
So it also effects his direction on how to go at it.
But even this morning when I watched this Patrick Beth David
with Kurt Gowdy, with Abel Danger's Lieutenant Colonel
Anthony Schaefer and also a Major Kurt Kleinsmith, Klein
Smith was talking about PTSD, you know, feeling like he failed
America because they didn't see this.
But what no one has done yet. And I keep listening.
They're not admitting the asbestos problem.
They're not admitting the other two lawsuits that the poor
authority laws. I mean those lawsuits and the
chronology I sent you, they're 19871991 and 1995 and on May
17th in 2001 it was over. Basically the World Trade Centre
was condemned. They had no solution to deal
with the asbestos and and and possibly any other.
Problem, right. So Carl, do do you think these
key things, asbestos being one of them, but also you, you've
given the political lead up, do you, do you think these are
points which are now going to be considered in the the work and
the research of these established groups?
I think, I think they're trying to get their head around it, but
you know, they've been focused whenever they started.
My focus even predated September 11th.
I mean, one little thing just popped up here.
Just give me an idea how the films are starting to come
together. OK?
On in June, early June 2001, Donald Rumsfeld did something in
the Pentagon. It was unheard of.
Rules of engagement when they scramble fighter jets, whether
it's a, you know, a foreign enemy, you know, trying to
penetrate the US airspace or it's a hijacked jet, just like,
you know, they alleged happened on 9/11.
He took away the fast response they have.
They have two responses. One of them is a slow response.
They just get up behind them where they can't see you and
trail them, see what, what their intentions are.
But the other one is a direct engagement, like you're going up
against a fighter jet and if it's hijacked and it's
confirmed, shoot it down if, if they're getting ready to hit
something. He deleted that the the first
week in June 2001, and he didn't reinstate it until September the
12th, 2001, the day after. That's crucial because that that
overrode Norad's building and US Air Force's building to respond
fast. And then it's also come out they
had three separate hijacking scenarios that were playing out
across the US that day. And up in the Northeast, they
had 22 fake blips. And, and the pilot, the pilots,
you know, the radar systems where the radar airports were,
they couldn't tell what was what.
And then it also came out that most of the US fighter jets were
in Canada and Alaska on another war game, you know, like the
Russians are invading, you know, here they come over the pole.
Then we had eight fighter jets on the East Coast.
And they're under Pentagon orders.
You only have the slow route as an option.
Yeah, this, this brings us back onto the the subject of of
premeditation that something was going to take place.
We could say that each of these things on their own or just one
piece of evidence. But when you put it all
together, these are significant pieces of evidence with the fact
that that something was being planned and actions were being
taken, Excuse me, in order to bring that plan into existence.
Well, it's, it's like, it's like you pointed out in the Part 1
men's reign guilty mind. Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely. So come on, if, if we if we just
stick on that because I'm fascinated by this.
I know, I know that you're you, you're not going to be able to
reveal all your contacts, but you've consistently said to me
that you've had a response to what's what's been put out.
So along alongside the official organisations, you've been
sharing your information with a lot of people overseas and
you've been particularly keen to share your findings with with
people authorities in other countries who've subsequently
been very badly affected by the the fallout, the no pun
intended, from 911 in. In as much as as that led into a
particularly brutal period of of wars in the Middle East in which
a lot of people died and, and were injured.
So you you've spread your information into other
countries. Are you getting, are you getting
a worthwhile? Sorry, are you getting a
worthwhile response from those those contacts in other
countries where you share the information?
It is just starting to have contacts when you when you
contact a nation or something like this. 372 non U.S. citizens
lost their lives at World Trade Centre.
Second to the US was the UK, 67 dead.
And then it goes all the way down the list to where there's
about 10 or 12 nations that just lost one person.
But trying to find whether or not you go through the Justice
Department at that country or whether or not you go through
the foreign affairs has been tedious.
Every nation has their own way of doing things.
Like the Japanese ministry, they lost 24 people that day, one
person on Flight 93 and 23 bankers that were, they were,
they lost in the upper fours, the World Trade Centre 1, that
was Misui Bank, which is now Sumitomo Misui.
The other one was Nishi Nippon Bank of Japan.
And then in the South tower, the Mizuno Finance back then they
were called Fuji Bank, but they lost 23 bankers, just almost the
1st 2 impacts. And, and I can't, I can't even
find, I can't even find an email address to how to contact them.
So I have people in Tokyo working on that, you know, hook
me up with a name and I'll get in touch with them myself.
Right. But are are there signs that
that at least some individuals within the government, the
establishment of Japan for instance, are still interested
in what happened in 911 and, you know, the deaths of of some of
their citizens? Absolutely.
The ones that have responded back, they're very concerned
about that. You know, they were told these
were hijacked jets and we can now prove there were no hijacked
jets. We can also prove, thanks to
Richard Gauge, his group has finally done some excellent work
on proving that all three towers were a controlled demolition.
I never thought much about WTC 7 until Jimmy Walter's event the
3rd anniversary of 2004. That one was a controlled
demolition, but I I knew the other towers were because of
that molten metal. You would I'm very familiar with
the structure because in architecture school, I had an
engineering school. I had to study the structure of
the World Trade Centre. Now another two things that have
come up. This is just this morning, this
interview I was watching with those three people with Patrick.
You know, bet David, the Donald Trump in 2000 predicted such an
attack on the World Trade Centre.
Why? I had no idea.
And then on the day of 911, he, he pointed out directly that
World Trade Centre 7 was an obvious controlled demolition.
But the information that we knew already about the thermatic
reaction to cripple the building, I mean, some of those
columns, the flanges and even the web, you know, they're kind
of an H shape or three and four inch thick steel.
And sometimes they have steel welded between the top and
bottom flange to make it even stronger.
And they even, they even made some very special type of box
columns, you know, just made them from scratch.
They were using like 4 and 5 inch thick steel.
And the only way to cut through that, that's not a bomb.
You have to weaken it first, then the bomb can work.
Yeah. So what?
What inference do you draw from the fact that that Trump spoke
about this at that time? Well, I just heard it this
morning and I'm still thinking about it.
I found it a little odd and I also found I think he knew about
the asbestos lawsuit. I think he was.
That's why I did the interrogatories and I've got him
posted on, on his website. I don't view him as a potential
defendant. I think if we do the
interrogatories and we do 1 deposition, you know, this case
is going to be pretty much open and shut.
One of the things they were talking about this morning, the
two people from DIA, was how they, they were the first to do
metadata. They figured out, they figured
out at the Defence Intelligence Agency how to gather all this
and analyse it and come down to a memo.
You know, here's the problem. But the only problem with
metadata is you can get out there on the Internet and plant
all kinds of bread crumbs and when somebody else sweeps
through there, this is what they find.
And I've, I've been convinced from day one CIA was behind this
all the way. I don't think the Saudis had
anything to do with it. In fact, on our defendant list,
there's a lot of American names. There's one Kuwaiti name.
There are no salaries. You and your team have have put
all this data and the evidence together in order to bring a
court case. Yep, that's the only, that's the
only way I see to solve this. We just, you know, force it to
action. You've got the authority of the
court. I don't think any type of
presidential Commission or government investigation is
going to go anywhere. Yeah, that's that's like when
the Kremel investigating himself.
A lot, a lot of people were very probably still are excited at
the idea that the new Trump administration will lift the lid
on a number of cases really where people have got concerns
about whether at the time the real information came to the
surface, all that information was denied to the US public.
So Trump has absolutely got his feet under the table.
Now you, you have been trying to put this evidence through to I,
I will say his legal team. Have you, have you been getting
any signs of any signs from that Trump team that they are
interested in digging deeper into what happened with 911?
White House No, I've contacted Pam Bondi at least four or five
times, have not had a response. I had an initial response from
this representative, Anna Paulina Luna that Trump
appointed to head up this, you know, disclosure programme.
And she responded back the first time and I haven't heard from
her since. I think they're just waiting to
see what's, you know, which way the wind is going to blow here,
which most politicians always do.
Right. So normally silence is OK.
We we can say silence is that they are watching and waiting.
But wouldn't you have thought that if, let's be provocative
here, if Trump was doing the right thing and standing up for
America, wouldn't you think he'd want to really grip this because
it's such a major event and, and ultimately the fallout with the
Patriot Act had such a huge effect on the American public?
Wouldn't you expect him to grip this straight away?
Yeah, but I mean, there's so many other avenues that they're
doing. They have created a nightmare
legislatively. The Patriot Act is a serious
blow to civil liberties, freedom and liberty, basically trying to
shut everybody up. You know, don't think, you know,
don't speak out. Just listen to what we tell you.
But they have other, other bills they brought in called the NDAA,
National Defence Authorization Act.
And now it's come out later. They have all these Pentagon
funded bioweapon labs all over the world now.
And they're hidden on the Pentagon budget.
These these are not separate authorizations that they're
doing. Right.
So, so you, you were suggesting that because there's such a
serious web of largely criminal activity, you know, around the
American political system and the, we'll call it the military
industrial complex, that at the moment Trump and his team cannot
take direct action. Well, yet, at least.
I think they're going to have to be very careful about how they
take that action. The deep state is already proven
on 9/11. You know, they're pretty
vicious. The I'm trying to figure out how
to say this. It's like one person pointed out
of this video I listened to this morning.
What's the, what's the connection here?
The day before 911, you got Donald Rumsfeld in the in the
Pentagon press briefing. They can't account for 2.3
trillion. And the next day, the group who
was investigating that was eliminated.
And it just so happens that Afghanistan cost about 2.3
trillion, and so did Iraq. But as they continued forward
with this global War on Terror against Libya and also against
Syria, you know, we're now up to 7 or $8 trillion blown on
nothing. So there's a lot of little touch
points here. Dig deeper.
I had one guy. This was actually when we were
FBI. Carl, sorry you started to break
break up there. You need, you need to say that
one again. So you you'd taken it.
Yeah, I have a friend. He's he's retired.
He's former science and technology CIA.
And when Robert Mueller announced the faces and the
names of the 19 alleged pilots, the hijackers, OK.
They also released a video showing Mohammed Atta supposedly
boarding the flight at Boston Logan Airport.
And he sent me an email. He said don't believe.
He sent me just a screenshot of them boarding.
He said don't believe this. He said this is the Portland, ME
airport. He said.
I've been through there 100 times.
Right. And you're telling me this
because of this, the background that the story that planes took
off from Boston and then hit the World Trade Centre cannot be
drew by the scale of the impact on the side of the building.
I it was not bigger. Now, one of the things Trump was
talking about on 9/11 was how they built the World Trade
Centre. And he, he was talking about the
really big jets. He couldn't believe that they
penetrated that much. A 737 is not a big jet.
A 767 is. And we have the, we have the
proof that what hit was a little over 50% of the width of the
World Trade Centre. A767 is 75 1/2% of the width of
the World Trade Centre wall. So that's, that's many more feet
out of 208 feet. That's the width of that wall is
208 feet. So, you know, our approach to it
has been, you know, this is a criminal case.
What you have to wade through is all the disinformation stuff.
And it is a little, it's, it is a, it's a little more refreshing
now that people like architect engineers, you know, you're not
talking to dummies. And they now they, yeah, they
now know. Yeah, they now know.
I'm a former architect engineer. I do nanotech now.
Yeah. And we're also talking numbers
of them because there's, if I remember, the figure is over
3000 professionals involved with architects and engineers in in
for architects and engineers for 911.
So this isn't. Absolutely.
Professionals who are, who are challenging the official
narrative. This is thousands of qualified
people. Yeah, this is a very important
point that the organisations that have been standing up to
challenge the official narrative, We're not dealing
with a few 100 professionals for architects and engineers.
I think it's over 3000. Yeah, it's over.
Over. Over 3000.
Yeah, it would be fantastic, wouldn't it, if amongst the long
established 9/11 groups there was a common approach adopted.
Well, to me it seems to make sense that if we could get, if
we could get all the key organisations agreeing on the
basic bullet points of what took place, it would strengthen their
hand. Yeah, absolutely.
Captain Dan Hanley's been pointing that out, especially to
International Centre for 911 Justice and Architect Engineers.
He's already pointed it out to his group and they totally
agree. You know, he's already teamed up
with us, but yes, we would be stronger together and separated.
But you have some factions like on the AE 911 Truth, they want
to pursue this as a grand jury, which you would have no choice
over the judge that you got stuck with.
And that could be a failing mistake because you get in
there, you get it all, and then they seal the file and they
dismiss you with prejudice. You can't refile the case.
So it is just explain a little bit about the workings of of
that sort of grand grand jury is, is this effectively A
judicial inquiry or equivalent of a judicial inquiry?
Yeah, it's very similar to some of the inquiries you have there
in the UK and also in Canada, Like if somebody dies
wrongfully, what happened in the US, they see the grand jury and
nobody's allowed to discuss the case and they do the
investigation. You know, the prosecutor, so to
speak, presents the case and they either hand down indictment
or they don't, you know, based based on what's been put before
them. It's a it's you know, it's a
different way of doing what they call jury by of your peers.
And this one you this one you don't even know the the process
is ongoing. Kurt Weldon and some of the
other people that are pushing for a presidential Commission,
and Kurt has been careful about saying this.
No politicians and no bureaucrats, but even in the
corporate sector, sector of the world, you still have this deep
state influence. Now one of the interests, one of
the one of the interesting things on our approach due to
who is named in this lawsuit. No judge appointed by George
Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Obama or
Biden could sit on the case because of who is named and why
they're named. And that's what I'm trying to
get some of these people to wake up to.
Just like on the Port Authority, their chronology goes all the
way from 1987 up till 2002. Their chronology in the Caspian
Basin goes from 1992 to 2006. And some of the evidence like
the Donald Canistero Declaration, he didn't even do
those interviews with the with the FBI and the CIA until 2016
to 2021. And that and that interview
reveals a lot. So all the way through here, you
know, a single minded approach is not going to get there.
So what we have done, Captain Dan Hanley and I have done, we
put it on the table in front of them and some of the 9/11
attorneys hadn't even heard of this and they they requested I
send them a copy of this PowerPoint so they could get
their head around it. Right.
And you and you've done that. So did you get a response from
them? Not yet, but you know when I
sent you information initially, it took you a while to get your
head around it. Yeah, that, that is absolutely
true. That's yeah, I'm laughing.
But yeah, you hit, you hit the nail on the head there because
you you really have to read into it.
And of course, this is what a lot of I got there.
But it did take me a lot of time because you, you'd sent me your
book, which we, you know, we required reading.
And then you sent me, you sent me the PowerPoint presentation.
But to actually get, get my head around all of that information,
I had to talk to you again and then go and, and, and revisit
everything. It's one of the things that I
have come to learn in, in a completely different area.
But it's, it's the subject of child abuse is, is that
typically just talk about this because it's been happening in
recent weeks. But I've been contacted by
journalists in the bigger newspapers in UK.
I've suddenly got them coming to me and they're saying we've come
to you because we're trying to work on a case.
And the person involved in that case has said, if you want to
know how the system works, speak to Brian Erish.
So I've been very happy to talk to these journalists, but the
problem is they know nothing. And when you start to say to
them, well, before I can explain, before I can explain
why, I've got to explain X to you.
Because if you don't understand how X works, you can't
understand why. You.
You're having a, you know, you're having a reasonable
conversation with these people, but you know, the big thing is
they don't want to give the time to actually understand what's
happening. And this is absolutely true with
legal people. I'm using the example of
journalists, but it's also true with legal people.
The more senior they are in the legal system, the more they want
the thing delivered to them as all the work done, bullet points
tied up with a ribbon so virtually they don't have to do
any work. If if you say to a senior legal
person you actually need to sit down and look at this for two
days, they're a rid, they're already backpedalling.
Maybe, but maybe I'm being, maybe I'm being unkind here
because there are legal people who stuck their noses into 9
level truth. But the wider system, to me this
is the problem. They don't want to do the work
to see the evidence. That's true, and especially if
they have to work at it to understand it.
Let me share this with the listeners and you.
The last Friday, I sent an email to Trump's appointee who was the
new US attorney for Washington, DC.
He had a very interesting interview with Tucker Carlson
about what their focus was, so I sent him some information.
Over the weekend I get an email from Mary Fanning.
She is the producer of a radio show that airs 3 hours every
Saturday night in the US. Huge following, usually over 8 /
8 million, sometimes more. But she was requesting a copy of
the PowerPoint and I had to email her back.
I said, well, there's multiple PowerPoints.
Which one do you want or the PDFs?
And what she wanted was exactly what I cited to Edward Martin,
who's the new attorney editor for Washington, DC She wanted
Chapter 5 of my book and Chapter 7 of my book.
And what's interesting about Chapter 5, I'm not only talking
about what the anthrax vaccine did to the soldiers.
I mean, just it ruins their health, OK, but also exposed who
the most likely suspect was. And I've done that to the
Department of Justice now. Five people died one week after
September 11th because of the anthrax attack on three senior
Democrat members of the Congress, 2 senators and the
speaker of the House. And on down in Chapter 7, it
deals with The Dirty bomb suspect.
FBI blows this out to the whole United States and Canada.
Oh my God, we have a dirty, dirty bomb suspect who they
pointed the finger at. And I, I, I've never said this
on video or radio, but I'm going to say it here because it's time
for the truth. This was a medical student at
McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, and who made the phone call
from my house was a Canadian woman I was dating for about
three years after my divorce in 2002.
When she called, they never and exactly where he is, they never
called him. They never went to talk to him.
They changed their strategy of announcing like a BOLO alert.
Oh, The Dirty bomb suspect's been seen in Maine Now this is
something she knew about him. He was within there attending
school under an assumed name. And this is how this is how
small. So these little circles are the
reason he was under an alias is he was one of the people that
the CIA was trying to lean on to get him to cooperate with their
little cover up story about radical Islamic maples, right?
I mean they, they. Stick with this.
Stick with this media channel with millions of viewers.
You, you, you get asked to provide them with information.
And did you give this lady the information?
Yes, but chapter 5, chapter 5 and seven of my book she's only
had it for like 24 hours. So, you know, I, I figured she
won't, she won't be calling me till tomorrow or maybe Friday.
Right. But are are you optimistic that
they're likely to do something to broadcast something asking or
talking about this subject? Yes, How they do it, It's not a
podcast, it's a radio show, OK. Right.
And the guy that's the host of the Arc Midnight, he used to be
part of the Coast to Coast AM, which is one of the biggest
radio networks in in the United States.
They even have listeners in Canada, so.
Right. So what we're, what we've, we've
discussed the problem of the fact that people always want
their information in small bites initially.
Maybe I'm also guilty of that in your case.
But when you spend the time you realise that what you're looking
at is very, very important stuff.
So if this channel broadcasts, this is also going to be a major
stepping step forward because this is going to be new
information in relation to 9/11 brought to the American public
as a whole. Yeah, See one of the one of the
problems I see with the media and that's why I sent you that.
I sent you the link to the very swicker, the Canadian very, very
swicker. He did a brilliant The Great
Conspiracy, broke down the media breakdowns and just really
nailed it as far as what's wrong.
We have people in this world that think looking at the little
sound bite they just saw on TV makes them informed, and they're
not informed. All they're listening to is
exactly what the government wants to be here.
Yeah, this, this, this is the media is spent on the.
A little, little bit broken up again, Carl.
We'll, we'll persevere because I know you're just, you're just on
your phone. Let's stick with it.
But just to say that now, you did an interview with Tucker
Carlson, is that correct? No, no, I have not done one with
him or Clayton Morris yet. They both know who I am.
They they know what I'm presenting.
Tucker prefers to come to his place and they do it face to
face. So that's not possible for me
right now. But Clayton Morris, the way he
does it, you know, I'd be, I'd schedule for him real quick
because then we'd get more to the American audience.
Yeah. A lot of people don't realise.
A lot of people don't realise Clayton Morris and Tucker
Carlson worked at the same time at Fox News.
You know they know each other. OK, I I didn't I, I must admit I
didn't realise that. Yeah, I remember when Redacted
first started, it was Abby Martin.
She went from, she went from RT and she got fired from RT
because she insulted Putin. She she claimed that Putin
invaded Crimea and he didn't. And then she went redacted for
a. While and then she's she's now
on something called the the Empire files, right.
Yeah. So I can't.
Resist asking this, Carl. We did talk about it a little
bit, but there are these two big media out well, three with the
radio, but Tucker Carlson and redacted obviously very big
alternative channels in America. How did you end up coming to the
UK column Auk based? How did?
That work. I had.
Tried many times. To get Tucker Carlson a heads
up. But then one day a friend of
mine sent me the link to your website about the Joseph Sweeney
interview and he. Just said this is a radio.
Show guy from Montana, he's not retired from radio, but he said,
Carl, this is right up your alley.
Listen to this. And anyway, I listened to your,
I listened to the interview that you had with Sweeney.
And you know, I, I have touch points with almost everything he
said, right? Just in our.
Investigation of 9/11 indeed,
being from Little Rock, AR my knowledge of the Clintons.
Yeah. So from from that interview.
I think, I think we did actually briefly touch on this in, in one
of the two in the two interviews that we did, but it was very
brief. So you listened to that
interview and you were, you were hearing more than the average
person would have been picking up on what what he was saying
because he, at one point he, he talked about an individual who
broke. The law by.
Going to research documents and then actually destroying some of
those documents. That was the key story, I think.
Sandy Berger, Yeah. I mean, he, he stole some very
key documents of pre 9/11 engines, destroyed them and he
got caught. And basically for 11 felonies he
got hit with a misdemeanour in no gaol time.
Yeah. I mean that that was.
Ridiculously. Why?
I mean, what he violated was the Espionage Act.
Yeah. Which which usually.
Will get you why from prison, yes.
OK, so. Overall, what have what?
What have you. Done, you have.
Thrown another rock into the 9:00. 11 pond and I'm going to
say the ripples have spread and we are now starting to see some
things stirred up as a result of the that rock in the pond.
How? How that's accurate?
How can we? How can we work together?
That, that, that. That's a very big way.
How can people work together now to make best use of the?
Additional. Information that you and your
team have brought to the surface.
How, How could we get more force out of the the 9/11 movement?
All of these professional people who've been fighting for many
years, how do we get them now redoubling their efforts to make
a real impact on the particularly it's got to be on
the Trump regime, hasn't it? Well, right now.
I'm just doing what I know. I'm put, I put a lot of facts on
the table. You know, a lot of people didn't
read my book, so they didn't even know about the book.
One of the things that I'm doing.
Now is I'm trying to make it, you know, more reachable for
other people, like contacting, you know, the nations who lost
citizens on 9/11, going straight to them and say, yeah, we're
that your citizens were murdered.
You know we'd like you to join us in this lawsuit.
You know, small things like that.
I'll be, I'll be trying to communicate with this William
Rodriguez later today, maybe tomorrow.
He's actually in Europe doing speaking to her right now,
trying to get people to wake up because.
A lot of nations. A lot of nations.
In Europe law UK, France, Germany, Sweden.
So spreading the word is is. Always important.
And although I, I focused in the sorry, I focused in on the, the
Trump administration, of course, all of these other nation states
that have been drawn into this morass should be wanting to take
the the right course and getting the truth out about what's
actually happened. So yes, as he is doing,
informing people has got a power of its own.
Yeah. It has some of these nations.
I'm contacting them. I'm telling them point blank,
you know, if if for any reason you don't join with us,
understand that as a Group B plaintiff, who you lost is Group
B plaintiff and we will stand for them.
So. Maybe when they.
Read what I sent them, they will understand they have a duty to
their own citizens to do the right thing.
Yeah. Yeah, now I don't know if they.
Will, but you know, time will tell, OK.
We are absolutely encouraging people to watch the first two
interviews that we did because I suspect there'll be people who
will pick up on this video and they'll watch it and they won't
really know what we're talking about because they won't have
seen Part 1 and Part 2. So I'll say to the audience now,
if you haven't seen either of those two interviews, you need
to watch them because this is the meat of the the discussion
today. And the other bits I just want
to touch on as we're coming, I think we're sort of coming up to
the top of the hour is people have been very fascinated by
you, Carl, because they've they've some people have said to
me, so where's this man come from?
He's appeared out of nowhere. He's got a lot of information.
He's obviously done a lot of work.
You did talk about yourself a little bit in, in, in Part 1,
but one of the one of the things that we didn't really cover very
much is that you've got a particular interest in
nanotechnology and, and it would seem.
Logical to me at least. That this has helped stimulate
your interest in 911 because you were very quick to come to the
conclusion that nano thermite had been used in order to get
these immensely hot reactions. Can you tell us, are you able to
tell us a little bit of a bit more about your interest in
nanotechnology? Well, we started this research.
In 2002 thousand and three, we have established ourselves as
#1. I did a lot of.
Work behind the scenes with DARPA and also what they call
Pentagon Tiswig, which is technical science working group.
I practised. Architecture for a while, but I
mean, I always had a feeling that there was something more
dynamic and something even stronger, you know, even
different, different approach and steps forward in material
science. That's what engineering and
architecture is. It's the application of material
science, you know, with the design process.
So we jumped off into that and by two December 2003, we had
established ourselves. Number one.
I mean, we're dealing directly with some major issues in
America, but we also made a big discovery about why.
I mean, we can make our nano machines on 50 or 60 Hertz, but
to do industrial volume, high purity, high strength, we have
to be on 50 Hertz Ridge. So that's why I moved to Europe.
You know, I didn't move to Europe because I wrote the book,
spoke about George Bush. So.
We I. Got invited to the Berlin Air
show to be the keynote speaker because we're the only company
that can produce enough to do what Russia had ordered they.
Ordered eighty of those huge. Antonov jets and they had an
option to order 80 more and Kiev made and killed all that.
You know, it's, it's been a constant.
Clash with the US over here, Even at the air show, they tried
to drown me out. They didn't want anybody hearing
what I had to say, right? So, so so what's?
The what? What was the connection between
the air show and nano technology then?
These big jet, these big jets, they have to have a lot of the
carbon nanostructures in the tail sections and the wings.
But otherwise the people way too much, you know, you're having to
look for wider materials. They're strong.
So yeah, we were the only one that could fulfil that contract.
Russia moved it all to back to Russia, including the jet engine
plant. But they're not using our
nanotechnology level, they're using it weaker.
So over time. They're going to have to.
Reorder the just sooner. But I had.
I had quite a few clashes with the US over here, right, but.
Essentially. In this in this sector, this is
the creation of lighter, stronger composite materials
that can be used in aircraft construction, and those
composites are created by the use of nanotechnology.
Exactly and. For example, once you reach our
purity level in compressive strength, the carbon nanotubes
23 times the strength of steel and carbon nano fibres are 15
times stronger than Kevlar, and Kevlar will stop the building,
right? So this is.
This is a type of. Advancement.
I had a feeling when I was practising architecture in the
early 80s that there was something like this.
I didn't even know what to call it, you know the word nanotech
and not even not even come up yet and.
Right now we're working on. Some things very exciting people
are concerned about, you know, the pollution and a lot of
people. Were starting.
To turn their back on these EV cars, I mean to build 1 EV
battery for a car, you have to excavate about 500,000 tonnes of
earth and then you have to do the the processing, metal
refinement, everything. If it's with the am ion, those
ponds where they leach, it will be dead zones forever.
And we're we've already talked to two major automakers about
what we're calling Nano EB. The high purity.
Nanostructures when they're spinning.
You'd have an electric generator under your car hood.
No fuel input whatsoever, no fire hazard hazard, no toxic
issues creating the battery or trying to dispose of the
battery. So it's it's a Paradigm Week 4
and what we're doing right now, I'm working behind the scenes on
a $2.5 billion financing package.
But it's going to take months to get there.
Right. And here's what's that are you
able to hear? Here's what yeah, here's what's
interesting. That is a AAA rated insured
loan. I've already been through six
months of due diligence with the London one than experts on
insurance. I got approved for a billion and
Bush, Bush did everything in their power to block me on
getting that done. So I went back to them and I
said take a look at narrow EV and they said how much do you
need? I said it's going to take about
2 1/2 billion, right? So they said OK.
Start talking to banks and tell them the term sheet and all
three parties to start talking soon.
Are you are you able to mention? The name of your your company?
Yeah, Tokata. Nanotech group and I own, I own
that group outright and the patents and everything are
protected by my family office, family office structure.
But this Nano EP thing is going to be the only operation we have
for outside people that are stepping in to help me because
of what the United States has done to me.
Yeah, they're going to have an interest in that new company.
It's privately held, right? This this is.
Carl, this is a very interesting subject in its own right
because, well, I, I'm happy to say I, I have long shared
concerns about the existing EVs because of, of of 1, the way the
government has has sort of enforced A changeover towards
electric vehicles, but also because of the human and
environmental damage done in creation of the batteries, which
you've touched on there. Oh, it's colossal, the.
The environmental damage is colossal, yeah.
And and that's largely. Been swept under the media
carpet because we don't see any of the bigger channels really
talking about this. But it is.
It is a shame that we live in a world now where because so much
new technology gets used for the wrong purposes or is used in a
way where we're not actually helping mankind, we're
suppressing mankind. There's a tendency for people to
be suspicious of all new technology, but it is it is.
Sorry if I just finished this. It is very clear that we we do
have technologies that, if they were to be used properly, would
bring huge benefits to mankind exactly early.
On when I moved to Europe, we were we teamed.
Up with the Hungarian company. They got a €250 million grant to
deal with the Teessa River and the Teessa Aquifer because of a
huge problem. And that problem was high levels
of arsenic and cyanad in the in the table water.
You know, people trying to take a shower over there.
You need more to brush your teeth with the tap water.
And we have. Nanofilters as part of our
process that allows us to get to 95 to greater than 99% purity,
that could trap that. It's called specific trap
technology and you can't do it unless you're in our level and.
I mean they, the Hungarian government, even the EU got real
excited about it until Bush put his cousin over there and
basically knifed that whole project in the back.
Not not just the tease of River my company, right?
And that's because I wrote the book on him.
And I I will not retract one word of that book or the 200
articles I've written and. We just asked the simple
question, why. Why would why would Bush want to
do this? Because the technologies that
you and presumably other people are working on would undermine
his business interests. Is is that the motivation?
No, no, this would just. Childish crap because I I expose
him and his family for what they are.
Right. And you know, understand.
Understand, once 911 truth is on the table, George Bush is in
deep trouble. Yeah, and so is Dick Cheney and
a whole long line of people. Like I said, I won't.
Retract a word of what I've written or said on the radio.
Because the truth is, like a lion, you just let it out there.
It'll defend itself. Yeah.
That that's, I think. That brings us to a close,
really, Carl, Let's ask the key question.
I always like to ask this. So you've got, you've got the UK
column audience at the moment. What, what would you like to say
to them? What, what should they be doing?
What would you like to see them doing with the information that
you have put out? I would I.
Would ask them to spread. It far and wide and you'd be
amazed how many people in the United States and even Japan and
Europe are also watching these three videos.
They've they've already seen the the 1st 2 right?
Well, I'm, I'm going to say thank.
Thank you. Very much for for that it it is
very encouraging that UK column does what it does.
As a result you have somebody has seen us and put you in
contact and and now we are managing to do something which
hopefully is going to help your work and initiative over the
last few years. So that's a very positive point
to end on, I think that is and thank you for.
Having me on it's it's been a. Pleasure.
Thank you very much, Karl.