Christopher Bollyn: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Christopher Bollyn. Thank you for coming.

 

 

 

And I want to thank the people that organized this conference today. Today we’re going to do a 58 minutes presentation to keep it within constraints for a video. And I’m talking about “Tricked into War”.

 

 

Now, I’m not going to go into great detail about the 9/11 crime. The details of the 9/11 crime would take up hours and hours of discussion. I’ve talked about 9/11 and the evidence in other videos, and they’re on YouTube. And I’ve written several books about 9/11.

 

 

Today I’m talking about how 9/11 and the War on Terror are connected and linked. This nation has been at war for 17 years. As Donald Trump said the other day, we spent $7 trillion and got nothing for it.

 

 

The United States and Syria are at face to face confrontation in Syria as we speak. Russian planes are being shot down with Israeli involvement, off the coast of Syria. And the media in this country barely touches it. All the media in this country talks about is sexual peccadilloes between Kavanaugh and some girl in high school. They say nothing about the situation in Syria, which is very important.

 

 

So, I’m the author of Solving 9/11. And as I’ve said in previous presentations, Solving 9/11 ends the war! I was an investigative journalist in Washington, DC when 9/11 started. Here I am presenting evidence of the first citizens Grand Jury in Los Angeles.

 

 

And I’m the author of the Solving 9/11 set of books. And the latest book is the War on Terror, which is a very small book about the War on Terror.

 

 

The Solving 9/11 set of books investigate various aspects of the false flag of terror atrocity. But my main focus is who is behind 9/11 and why was it done? This is the book of original articles. This is the latest book. I wrote this last summer, The War on Terror, the Plot to Rule the Middle East.

 

 

911 was a policy coup. It was blamed on Muslims. 9/11 was blamed on Muslims in order to initiate, to start the War on Terror as an operational war. But behind the War on Terror is a covert strategic plan to redraw the map of the Middle East. You might ask yourself, why is the United States in Syria? We have no national interest in Syria. We haven’t had it for a long, long, long time.

 

Yet we have troops there. We’re occupying the third eastern part of the country from the Euphrates river to Iraq. And we have also occupied the southern part of the country where Syria butts up against both Jordan and Iraq. Why are we there? What’s the purpose?

 

 

Well, 9/11 and the War on Terror were both conceived by Israeli Military Intelligence in the 1970s when Menachem Begin, the head of the Likud Party, came to power. Menachem Begin is known as the “father of terrorism”. Here he is.

 

 

He’s the founder of the Likud Party. He was born in Russia, came to Palestine in 42, became leader of the Irgun in 44, which was a terrorist group. Bombed the King David Hotel, killing 93 people. British headquarters in 1946. Then was involved in the massacre of the Dir Yasin village, which was meant to scare the Palestinians to fleeing, which many did. And he created the Likud Party in 1973, became prime minister in 77, and promptly invaded Lebanon in 1978.

 

 

This is the emblem of the Irgun which he was the head of its a jewish terrorist group and it’s connected to the Netanyahu family, because Mr Netanyahu’s father was the director of this movement, the Irgun, and the New Zionist organization since 1940.

 

 

Here is both Mr Begin and Netanyahu. These men are cut from the same cloth. This is the group that they belong to the great group that they have allegiance to is a group of terrorists.

 

In 1974, a British journalist asked Mr Begin, he said:

 

“How does it feel in the light of all that’s going on to be seen as the father of terrorism in the Middle East?”

 

And Begin said:

 

“In the Middle East?”

 

He said:

 

“In all the world!”

 

So he put on himself the mantle of being the father of terrorism in all the world. That’s his words.

 

Well, 9/11 was a false flag terror atrocity that was designed to instill fear and rage in the American population, so that we would accept and we would get behind this War on Terror.

 

 

And I have to say it succeeded very well. 17 years later, we are still involved in the War on Terror. There is virtually no public resistance to it, and there is no political resistance to it.

 

But starting the War on Terror, the open ended War on Terror, was the primary reason for the false flag terror attacks of 9/11.

 

 

911 was a policy coup that brought us a Global War On Terror and a series of disastrous wars across the region. They call it “The Long War”.

 

 

The War on Terror is a suitable title because the War on Terror is the longest and most expensive war, foreign war in us history, yet there is no resistance to it. How can that be? How can the American people be so numb to American war fighting in a dozen countries across the Middle East?

 

Well, the main reason is because it’s out of sight, out of mind. Unless you have family involved in the war, you don’t hear about it on TV. You don’t hear about it on the radio. You don’t read about it in the newspapers. Not like Vietnam. Vietnam, we heard about, we saw pictures on Life magazine. Today we see nothing. Nothing!

 

[05:51]

 

This is what Donald Trump said in April [April 28, 2018]. He said:

 

 

“We have spent $7 trillion. Trillion with a that, $7 trillion in the Middle East. You know what we have for it? Nothing! Nothing!”

 

And he’s absolutely right! As the author of the Art of the Deal, you would think that he would see that this is a very bad deal and rectify it as soon as possible.

 

The War on Terror is all based., … It’s not just a name, it’s an authorization, it’s a title. It’s an authorization and funding. And it was passed two days after 9/11, three days after 9/11, by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which basically gave the president the authority to wage war against anybody he thought was behind 9/11.

 

 

So these are some of the places where we, where the authorization used military force has been invoked.

 

 

Was Eritrea? Was Somalia? Were they involved in 9/11? Was Libya involved in 9/11? We, of course, heard about Afghanistan. But are all these countries involved in 9/11? No, of course they’re not! But the authorization to use military force based on 9/11 crime has been abused, terribly abused! It opened up the pandora’s box for American open ended war fighting across the Middle East, around the world actually.

 

 

The fraudulent War on Terror is based on the official myth of 9/11. They go hand in hand. The War on Terror is a criminal fraud.

 

 

We are spending about $400 million per person, per US victim of terrorism per year. So for a cause of death, if you have cancer or influenza, you get pennies! This stack of bills would have to be 1,000 times higher to reflect the amount of money that’s being spent per victim of terrorism. Terrorism is not a leading cause of death in this country.

 

 

The War on Terror is an Israeli stratagem pushed by Netanyahu since 1979 to trick the United States into waging war against Israel’s enemies.

 

 

The War on Terror is based on the 9/11 lie. And unfortunately, Donald Trump has adopted that lie. He said in August of 2017:

 

“9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists.”

 

And he said that as he increased military presence and effort in Afghanistan.

 

 

Wesley Clark, who was running for president, this was the man who ran US military forces in Europe during the Yugoslavia campaign. And he said:

 

“Whether you’re a Democrat, or a Republican, if you’re an American, you ought to be concerned about the strategy of the United States in this region. What is our aim? What is our purpose? Why are we there? Why are Americans dying in this region? That is the issue.”

 

He said:

 

“What happened on 9/11 is that we didn’t have a strategy, we didn’t have bipartisan agreement, we didn’t have American understanding of it, and we had instead a policy coup in this country. A coup! A policy coup! Some hard nosed people took over the direction of American policy, and they never bothered to inform the rest of us.”

 

 

 

He should know. Who’s he talking about? He’s talking about the Zionist neocons. These three people here, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith. They’re three of the Defense Policy Board members who crafted the policy for the Pentagon that was put into effect after 9/11.

 

 

Here they are a few months after 9/11, meeting with the Israeli Chief of Staff right here, Shaul Mufaz. He’s the highest military person in Israel. And they’re discussing, what will America be doing? Well, Wesley Clark heard about the memo. He got the memo ten days after 9/11. He said:

 

 

“I went through the Pentagon and I saw Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. One of the generals called me in and said, ‘Sir, we’ve made the decision, we’re going to war with Iraq’.”

 

He said:

 

“We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?”

 

“I don’t know.”

 

He said:

 

“I came back a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing Afghanistan. I said, ‘are we still going to war with Iraq?’.”

 

He said:

 

“Oh, sir, it’s much worse than that. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.”

 

And as you can see from this shopping list of this agenda, all of those countries have been done with the exception of Iran.

 

Now, what’s going on here is that an Israeli plan known as the Yinon Plan, which was articulated in 1982, is being put into effect. So that countries are being balkanized. That is, they’re being broken up into ethnic statelets.

 

 

They’re causing friction between the various ethnic groups, breaking them up into ethnic statelets. That’s the name of the game in Syria. That’s what they did in Iraq. That’s what’s happened in Libya. Etcetera. This is the Israeli plan to dominate the Middle East by breaking up the large Arab states and breaking up their armies and breaking the countries into pieces like Yugoslavia. There will be no competition for Israel, and Israel will have hegemony over the entire region.

 

 

Here’s Hillary Clinton. Some people point out that her emblem here is very reminiscent of 9/11.

 

But in 2012, Secretary of State Clinton wrote that:

 

“The best way to help Israel vis a vis Iran’s nuclear ambitions is to use force in Syria to overthrow the government.”

 

This email proves that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton sought to overthrow the government of Syria, elected government of Syria, to save Israel, to serve Israel.

 

So if you understand that, you will understand why we are doing what we’re doing in Iran today or in Syria today.

 

I just read an article yesterday that says that the United States presence will continue in Syria beyond the end of the year because the mission has changed. The mission now is to prevent, is to kick Iran out of Syria. So American forces are now in Syria to battle with Iran and push Iran back. Did we choose that? Has Congress chosen that? Has anybody spoken about that? Of course not.

 

[11:43]

 

This photograph is from the Yarmouk, a Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus.

 

 

And this is one of the ways that terrorism is used to destroy the lives of common people. The Palestinians are refugees since 19 47, 48 in Damascus. And what happened is that ISIS was infiltrated into this camp, ISIS, the terror group. And that brought about fire into the camp. Syrian, Russian, American, whoever was fighting against ISIS in this place, and it destroyed the camp. This camp used to house 120,000 people. Today it houses 200.

 

So these Palestinians were made a target, just like the people of Raqqa, Mosul, or any other place. ISIS is the target, and they put that target wherever they want and then destroy everything around the target.

 

 

So the question is, this is from Linda Heard, a British expert in the Middle East. She says, is the United States waging Israel’s wars? She said:

 

“There is one thing that we do know. Oded Yinon’s 1982 Zionist plan for the Middle East is in large part taking shape. Is this coincidence? Was Yinon a psychic? Maybe.”

 

She says:

 

“Alternatively, we in the West are victims of a long held agenda, not of our making, and without a doubt, not in our interests.”

 

 

So we’re waging war for another entity, for another nation, for another interest that’s not ours, and we’re paying for it. Our sons and daughters are fighting it.

 

 

And this is the partition of Palestine. When it happened in 1947, Menachem Begin rejected it. He said:

 

“Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. And Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel, all of it and forever!”

 

This is to give you an idea what Eretz Israel means. It means the land of Israel. And according to people like Menachem Begin, it extends from the Nile river to the Euphrates.

 

 

And this area right here is the Kurdish area, which happens to be occupied by the United States. This is all Syria right here. This is where the United States is occupying one third of Syria.

 

 

These are the various ethnic communities, religions, factions in Iraq and Syria. And from the Yinon plan, Yinon said:

 

“The dissolution of Syria in Iraq is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern Front. The dissolution of the military power of these states serves as the primary short term target.”

 

This is exactly what we did when we went to Iraq first 1991, and then again in 2003, we destroyed the Iraqi military.

 

If you remember, one of the first things that happened is when we got into Iraq, we disbanded the entire military, sent everybody home. No more jobs, no entitlements, nothing!

 

So the military went away. And in Syria, we’ve been trying to do the same thing for the last seven years.

 

 

Now, this is another break here. This area, this area here, periwinkle, is the area of the Kurds. And this area is where most of the oil is. And the United States and Israel are supporting the Kurdish independence. This area here in northern Iraq and this part of northern Syria. And in pursuing that, the largest holder of the reserves in this Kurdistan area of Iraq is a company called Janelle Energy, which is a Rothschild company.

 

So they’re going after the strategic assets. And these two cities, Mosul and Raqqa, were targets of the American anti-terrorist attacks last summer, which destroyed those cities. Destroyed them!

 

 

Here’s Mosul in June of 2017. The great mosque of all Nuri, destroyed in the battle of Mosul. The Americans put our artillery around the cities and just pounded them for months. And that has a price. Here’s Syria, the other city in Raqqa, in Syria, October 2017, at least half the city is totally destroyed.

 

 

Now, here you have to understand that these are on the edge of the Kurdish area. But these cities are, Mosul is the second biggest city in Iraq. They contained a lot. They were inhabited by a lot of Sunni Muslims, and that’s why they were pounded. So we said we were fighting ISIS, but under the pretext of fighting ISIS, we destroyed the cities and pushed a lot of people into become refugees.

 

 

The northern part of both Iraq and Syria are peopled by the Kurds. And this was the leader of the Kurdish movement in Iraq. He resigned shortly after his failed attempt to separate the country.

 

 

But I’m showing you the relationship with Israel. Here’s his father, Mustafa, meeting with the Mossad chief in 1966.

 

 

Here’s his father in Israel, meeting with Moshe Dayan.

 

 

And this is the Israeli flag flying along with the Kurdish flag in a protest, or a rally in Irbil.

 

 

So 9/11 happened. We were very quickly given this narrative, I call it the “Zionist Narrative”, about what happened. And the media has imposed on the public a false story that radical Islamic terrorists were to blame for 9/11.

 

 

Now, the only way to liberate ourselves and our nations from the madness that we’re currently in for 17 years is to expose and understand the true source of the terrorism. If you go away from this presentation or if you believe that Muslims did 9/11 with all nano-thermite and destroying the buildings and fooling the US military, then you will support the logic of war. If you understand we’ve been deceived about 9/11, the logic of war evaporates.

 

What happened after 9/11 is that the media and the government declared it to be an “Act of War”. Now that’s a very important legal term because that meant that there would not be a criminal investigation, but rather we would treat it as an act of war by 19 Arabs, who happened to be supposedly coming from Afghanistan. And based on that logic, we went to war in Afghanistan.

 

[17:37]

 

But Larry Johnson, speaking about the terrorists, or the alleged terrorists in Florida – he is a former director of counter-terrorism in the State Department – he said:

 

“We don’t have anything in history to compare with this. The only thing that comes close to it is a former Soviet intelligence operation.”

 

 

Because these are the 19 led hijackers. But 15 of them lived in Florida, where many of them had been issued duplicate licenses, others had passports had been stolen, which meant that somebody was using their identity for them and leaving behind a trail in their name.

 

 

And we now know from the BBC News shortly after 9/11 that I think seven of them were well, and alive after 9/11. And they said:

 

“My picture is being used. My name is being used, but I’m fine. I’m alive.”

 

 

 

So that raises the question, if at least seven of the hijackers were still alive after 9/11, who were the people playing the roles of the real hijackers? Were there real hijackings? Was it all a show? Well, about the 19 hijackers. Robert Mueller, who was then head of the CIA, FBI, excuse me, said in September 2002, he said:

 

“There is no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.”

 

 

Now, this is an old Mossad trick. If you read the book The Little Drummer Girl, you’ll see that the Mossad tells the actress who’s leaving a trail for a Palestinian. The Mossad man tells the woman, the actress:

 

“Terror is theater. Theater is a con trick. Do, you know what that means? Con trick? You’ve been deceived.”

 

And that’s what we are as a nation. The whole deception is meant to deceive us.

 

I went to Germany after 9/11, shortly after, because I knew it was dangerous to be pointing out the lies of the government story when the government was going to war.

 

So I went to Germany for a couple years and worked out of Berlin. And I spoke to some of the former German intelligence agents, heads, chiefs, and they told me, this guy told me that it looked like:

 

“A Hollywood production.”

 

 

And he talked about:

 

“The deathly precision and the magnitude of planning would have required years of planning. And the absence of leaks.”

 

He said:

 

“Was further indication that the attacks were state organized actions.”

 

So what state are we talking about?

 

Another German guy, Andreas von Bulow, told me without hesitation:

 

“It’s Israel, Mossad!”

 

But when I wrote that in my newspaper, he was a little bit surprised because he said that:

 

“He told that to every journalist in Germany, but it had never been printed.”

 

And he thought it wouldn’t be printed in my paper as well, but it was printed.

 

So I’m going to point out some of the key connections, Israeli connections to 9/11.

 

 

One of the first ones is that when Israel was becoming a state in 1948, before it became a state, the joint chiefs of Staff did 13 papers about what this would mean for the American military. And they wrote in the 13th paper that:

 

“The Zionist strategy will seek to involve the US in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum jewish objectives.”

 

 

And the maximum jewish objectives were:

 

“The expansion of Eretz Israel.”

 

That means the land of Israel:

 

“Into Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and the establishment of jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

 

 

Well, this is what’s going on today and this is what the United States is facilitating.

 

This is the short list of Israeli terrorism attacks prior to 9/11.

 

In 1944, they killed the British minister, Lord Moyne, in Cairo. This was done by Lehi, or the Stern gang. PIn 46, they sent letter bombs to British officials, including the foreign minister, Ernest Bevin.

 

In 46, they bombed the King David Hotel, killing 93 people. That was British mandate headquarters. It was under the British at that time.

 

 

In 1947, Irgun placed a bomb at the colonial office in London, which failed to detonate.

 

In 47, Lehi sent letter bombs to the Truman White House.

 

In 1948, Irgun and Haganah bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing 26 people.

 

And in 1948, Irgun and Lehi massacred the entire village of Deir Yasin.

 

That’s all before Israel even became a state. This is the bombing of the King David Hotel. That’s Menachem Begin.

 

 

This was the worst terrorist attack in Israeli-Palestinian history to this point.

 

Then Irgun bombed the British embassy in Rome in October 46.

 

 

So they were global in their reach. They would go to London, they would go to Britain. I mean, they would go to Italy. They would even send bombs to America. They sent bombs to the Truman White House.

 

And this is one of the bombers. This is Yitzhak Shamir. He was the head of Lehi. He was the head of the Stern gang when they killed this man, the UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte, in 1948.

 

 

Now, when Menachem Begin came to the United States in 1948, in December, Albert Einstein penned a letter with, 26 jewish intellectuals about what Americans should know about the Israeli terrorists, the jewish terrorists. He was talking about Menachem Begin’s party at the time. And he said:

 

“The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatsoever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism. Whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character. From its past actions, we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.”

 

 

Bingo.

 

[23:22]

 

Now, if Americans had paid attention to what Einstein told them in 48, we would not have had 9/11, because the same people are involved, the very same party, ideology and people. What happened is that these terrorists, these are the terrorists of zionism. Begin, Shamir, Sharon.

 

 

They came to power in 1977. I happened to live in Israel at the time. And this was a very sad day for Labor people because they said:

 

“This is the day that the terrorists have taken power.”

 

They knew what they were talking about.

 

Then the terrorists went to work right away. Begin invaded Lebanon in 78, and there was a Palestinian attack in Nahariya.

 

And the response was, this man said:

 

“Kill them all!”

 

And they set up a terrorist squad that operated in Lebanon for four years. And this is Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan.

 

 

And he set up an organization called the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, in which he used car bombs and truck bombs to destroy Palestinian and Syrian targets and to foment conflict between the various ethnic groups of Lebanon. It was very successful. He did it for four years!

 

 

This was revealed in a recent book that came out this year, Rise and Kill First, by an Israeli author named Ronan Bergman, New York Times bestseller. But when they interviewed Ronan Bergman, the New York Times, or when they write about the book, they leave out that little bit of history, that Israel was using a terrorist squad. They would hire, they would recruit people from the Sunni community, the Shiite community, Druze community, to drive the trucks. And then they would blow them up in places that they needed to blow them up.

 

 

Because this is not discussed in American media, because this shows that Israel is a state that has openly practiced terrorism! There’s no question about it. Remember the years 1979 to 1983? And they say:

 

“The aim was to cause chaos amongst the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon without leaving an Israeli fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and instill them with a sense of insecurity.”

 

This is exactly the same strategy that was applied to Iraq in the 1990s, since the war. Remember car bombs going off every day between the communities, driving the people against each other?

 

And this is exactly what they did to us after 9/11, the bombing in Bali, the bombing in Madrid, the bombing in London, 9/11, so that they went global then, and they wanted to put fear into the entire Western world that were all insecure! And that’s exactly what the terrorism is all about. They want us to feel insecure so that we will support their war agenda.

 

Then in 1983, a nondescript group that had never been heard of before bombed US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 marines.

 

 

Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary at the time, said:

 

“There is no knowledge, we have no knowledge about who did the bombing.”

 

This is exactly the same time that Israel was doing exactly this. And we now know from Viktor Ostrowski, who wrote Mossadnik, who wrote about Mossad’s actions in a book By Way of Deception. He said that:

 

“Mossad knew the specific time and location of the bombing, but only gave the US skimpy general information, which was worthless.”

 

So they knew about the bomb. They knew what it was going to be, where it was going to be, what the truck looked like, but they didn’t tell us. That’s like, either “let it happen on purpose” or “made it happen on purpose”. And it’s the worst, it’s the largest [single] loss of life among the US Marines since Iwo Jima.

 

 

Here are a couple of Israeli terrorists from the 1950s. Shimon Peres, Pinhas Lavon and Moshe Dayan. These two characters play a big role in Israeli history, especially in the use of false flag terrorism. This photograph was taken a few months after they were busted for the Lavon Affair in Egypt when they put bombs, nitroglycerin bombs, in American libraries and British libraries and cinema theaters and cultural institutions in Cairo, in an attempt to drive the British and the Americans away from Nasser, away from Egypt. But they were caught. And they’re still smiling!

 

 

After it was discovered by the prime minister at the time, Moshe Sherrett. He said that:

 

“Shimon Peres shares the same ideology as Pinhas Lavon. He wants to frighten the West into supporting Israel’s aims.”

 

And this is exactly where we are today. The whole name of the game of the terrorism is to scare us into supporting Israel’s aims, to drive us as a nation, as a people, as a military, right behind the Israel camp, so that we become the fighters of their wars for them, because we are affected by the fear.

 

In 1967, some people would say:

 

“Israel would never do that. They’re our ally.”

 

I would point them to read about the USS Liberty attack in 1967 during the Six Day War in which Israeli planes and boats bombed the USS Liberty, a spy ship, which was in international waters off the coast of Egypt, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171.

 

 

Two thirds of the crew was destroyed, was murdered or injured. It’s the most decorated ship in naval history. And it’s the one subject of this war, the Six Day War that Americans know virtually nothing about because it’s suppressed. Because if Americans understood. The pilots were asked by the ground control:

 

“Identify the ship!”

 

The pilots called back:

 

“It’s American. It’s American!”

 

The order came from the ground:

 

“Sink the ship! No survivors.”

 

Now, if Americans understood that history, which has been revealed since 2006, they would realize that Israel is a state that will attack the United States when it suits their purposes.

 

 

This is an attack in Libya in 1986 in which the United States was tricked. Israel tricked the United States into attacking Libya. They rented an apartment in Tripoli. Then they broadcast radio transmissions to the apartment in Tripoli, which then went up into the satellite. The American signals intelligence picked up the information thinking that it was coming from Libya and then went and attacked Libya. This was when they killed Qaddafi’s daughter and all that, back in 1986.

 

 

[29:31]

 

 

 

So the War on Terror. I’m going to talk a little bit about how the War on Terror evolved. It’s an Israeli stratagem. How it developed.

 

 

In 1978 is when this all started to come into fruition. In 1978, Israeli intelligence agent Arnon Milchan made his first film called the Medusa Touch, in which a Boeing 747 crashes into the Pan Am building.

 

 

 

Here they are setting up for the film. This is the cover of the book. And here we have the same year he made the film. Here we have Arnon Milchan meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ezer Weizman.

 

So you can see he’s at the very highest level of the Israeli military. They’re making a movie predicting something that’s going to happen in the future.

 

 

Here he is. He’s a big Hollywood producer. Made JFK, Pretty Woman, Brazil, other films. He’s said to be worth $5 billion.

 

But the point is, if you read the book about Arnon Milchan called Confidential, you’ll see that he is the external banker who controls the slush funds that Mossad uses for external operations. That’s where the money comes from.

 

And he made this film in the year 2000. Well, his partner, his business partner, a man named Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, Rupert Murdoch’s company, made this film in 2,000 in which a Boeing passenger aircraft is flown into the World Trade Center.

 

 

And this aired on TV. This plane in the movie was a half an hour film, worth watching. It’s called The Lone Gunman, pilot episode. And in this movie, the plane is remotely hijacked with passengers on it. And the blame is put on the American Military Industrial Complex, looking for a new enemy.

 

 

In 1979, the head, this is one year later. The head of Israeli intelligence, this man, Isser Harel, predicted that:

 

“The Arabs would attack the tallest building in New York City.”

 

He made that prediction to this man, Michael Evans, a Zionist, a jewish Christian Evangelist from Texas. And Harel predicted that the Arab terrorists would attack the tallest building in New York City. That was 22 years before 9/11.

 

 

And you see the relationship here between Mr Evans and Menachem Begin. The prediction went like this. You know, they were meeting, and Mr Evans said:

 

“Do you think that terrorism will come to America? And if so, where and why?”

 

 

This is 1979. Harel said:

 

“I fear it will come to you in America. America has the power, but not the will to fight terrorism.”

 

Et cetera, et cetera.

 

As to the where, Harel said:

 

“New York City is a symbol of freedom and capitalism. It’s likely they will attack. They will strike the empire State Building, your tallest building, and symbol of your power.”

 

He pretended to be ignorant about the tallest building.

 

 

And in 1979, this man, Bibi Netanyahu, came back from his., … He had been working in Boston for a Rothschild company called Boston Consulting Group, in Boston. He went back, this is his father. And they started something called the Netanyahu Institute, in which they began promoting the idea of:

 

“Terrorism being the scourge that the West has to fight.”

 

And they had a conference in 1979 called The Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism. They blamed all the terrorism in the world on Russia, on the Soviet Union. And George Bush spoke on the third day at the final conference and spoke in support of these pre-emptive strikes against nations that are supporting terrorism.

 

 

And Begin, I mean, Mr Netanyahu went on to make a career promoting the War on Terrorism. Terrorism, How The West Can Win, Fighting Terrorism, and calling for the United States to come to the Middle East to wage war against those terrorist entities that were plaguing Israel. Because Netanyahu logic goes like this. He says that:

 

“Israel is attacked because the Arabs are opposed to our Western identity, our Western values, our Western way of life. We’re a Western nation.”

 

He says, and:

 

“Therefore the West is the target. Therefore it’s incumbent on the West to come and fight the terrorists for us, because we’re all the target.”

 

 

So what they did in 1983, in order to have a War on Terror, you need to have a foe. So they created the foe. They created the foe in Pakistan using a guy named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was a very anti-Western militia group he had called Hezb-I-Islami. And the CIA and the Saudis bankrolled the operation. And Israelis trained and armed these people in Pakistan.

 

 

It was done in 1983, in 85. It began when this man, Ehud Barak, was the head of Israeli Military Intelligence. And they sent their men and weapons they had taken off the battlefield of Lebanon, took them to Pakistan and trained these characters, people like Osama Bin Laden, in the arts of terrorism. How to make a bicycle bomb and a car bomb and how to fight urban battles against the Russians. These jihadis were meant to fight against the Russians, the Red Army in Afghanistan.

 

 

And in 1983 it was done by Charlie Wilson, this Congressman from Texas. He’s the one who led the whole thing. And he arranged with the Israelis to provide the weapons and the trainers in Pakistan. And this is him shaking hands with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

 

But the question is, why would the United States and Britain, why would they be funding and training the most anti-Western of the Mujahideen? This man was rabidly anti-Western. Why would you do that? Because they were creating the boogeyman. They were creating the enemy for the next War on Terror, which was Al-Qaeda. And it was done.

 

 

This is the man. This is Zvi Rafiah, the head of Israeli Intelligence in Washington, DC. And he was this man’s handler, Charlie Wilson’s handler. And this man, Zvi Rafiah, used Charlie Wilson’s office as if it were his own office.

 

 

And this is the Hebrew speaking double agent named Ali Mohamed, who was Osama Bin Laden’s first trainer.

 

[35:33]

 

Now, he’s supposedly Egyptian, but he speaks fluent Hebrew. Where did he learn the Hebrew? He’s a double agent. So he was working with the Israelis, training Osama Bin Laden. And this guy, he set up the cell that bombed the US embassies in Africa. He trained the men who were blamed for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993. And he trained the men who killed Rabbi Kahane in New York City.

 

And then he was finally arrested and put in jail for bombing the embassies in Africa. He was put in a federal penitentiary in this country, from which he disappeared without a trace.

 

 

And this is the Gulbuddin’s gang. This is when they became Al-Qaeda. In 1994, the Arabs became Al-Qaeda and the Pashtun speakers became Taliban. Then Israeli Mossad got the contract for the World Trade Center in 1987. Security contract, anti-terrorism security contract.

 

 

And it went to this man, Avraham Shalom Bendor. He was the head of Shin Bet. He was involved in a murder in Palestine, in Israel of a couple Palestinians. And he came to America and was the president of this company Atwell Security who got the contract for the World Trade Center.

 

 

But when the Port Authority discovered, this is Zvi Malkin and Shalom Bendor, when the Port Authority discovered that this man was using a fake name and he’d been convicted of murder in Israel, they tore up the contract. Had they not torn up the contract in 1987, 9/11 probably would have happened in the 1980s or early 1990s. But they were rejected by the Port Authority.

 

 

They didn’t go home to Israel. They didn’t give up the plan. They went to work for a couple American jews who did have inside in the Pentagon, Maurice Greenberg and Jules Kroll. And Jules Kroll had a company called Kroll Associates who got the security contract for the World Trade Center in 1993, after the first bombing.

 

And at that point, Shalom Bendor was working for him.

 

 

And in 1992, this son of a terrorist. This is Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago right now. His father was a member of that Stern Gang, the Lehi Gang. This man became the senior advisor to Bill Clinton. This is the guy that set up the whole Lewinsky thing. But he was also instrumental. He was the Mossad’s man in the White House, so that he made sure that the right people got appointed to the bench. The right appointments were made of under Clinton to make the 9/11 project move forward. And his father was a member of Lehi. He served in the Israeli army, yet he was the senior advisor to the White House.

 

 

This is the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And in this case, Michael Chertoff was the US Attorney for the District of New Jersey. He played a key role in the prosecution in which Muslims were blamed for the bombing. The six people were killed. Chertoff oversaw the prosecution. And Mukasey, Judge Mukasey, oversaw the actual trial.

 

 

And in the trial, the FBI, who was involved in actually making the truck bomb, they paid this man $1 million.

 

 

This is another Egyptian colonel. This man was the guy who ran the sting operation in which these guys were stung. And he used wires and recorded so that they became indictable. And he testified. He was paid $1 million. This guy, Emad Salem, was paid $1 million to testify against these other fellows that he had rounded up. And then he went into the witness protection program, you know, new name, new face.

 

 

And then this ideation of the War on Terror, or of the 9/11 came out in this article in Foreign Affairs, in which Philip Zelikow, John Deutch and Ashton Carter wrote about “Catastrophic Terrorism”, how this would be something that:

 

“Could happen next month!”

 

And in this article, they had a study group. They imagined the “transforming event”. They imagined the event, like 9/11, that would change America, fundamentally change our policies, our foreign policy, our domestic policy, change the nation. This was printed in Christmas 1998.

 

 

Two of the authors, Ashton Carter and John Deutch, worked for a company called Global Technology Partners, which is an exclusive affiliate of Rothschild North America. I point out these Rothschild connections because there are throughout the entire saga. You find that one step removed from the crime, you find a Rothschild, a Rothschild connection. And the Rothschilds are, of course, the bankers that control our Federal Reserve system and other countries central banks.

 

 

So, 9/11, the New Pearl Harbor. The Zionist neocons had called for a New Pearl Harbor in order to effect the change they needed to see.

 

 

This is the Project for a New American Century run by the Kagan family. These are some of the signatories to the document. And they had imagined that this revolutionary change that they saw turning America into the global police force:

 

“Would require a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a New Pearl Harbor.”

 

 

And in 2001, an Israeli Mossad company, Rothschild company, called ICTS, controlled security at the US airports. And these are the three principles. Here is Yitzhak Shamir’s son, Yair Shamir. This is Cukierman, and this is Boaz Harel. They ran the company that either let these guys on the airplane, or didn’t. But their company was excused from the process. And so we’ll never know unless we have some change in the attitude about 9/11.

 

[41:04]

 

 

And then in July 2001, Zionists, that’s strong supporters of Israel, got the lease for the World Trade Center. It became their property. And that was done through a man named Ron Lauder, the son of Este Lauder.

 

 

 

And in Israel, he works together with Major General Daniel Rothschild at Mossad University. He has a school there, and he runs the Institute for Policy and Strategy. This man was put in charge of privatizing New York property for Governor Pataky. He oversaw the privatization efforts of New York State in which they decided to privatize the World Trade Center, because the World Trade Center was public property prior to 9/11.

 

 

And then it went from the port authority. This man, Lew Eisenberg, he transferred after negotiations, the property to this man, Larry Silverstein. But these men are connected through something called the UJA Federation of New York, which is a Zionist fundraising operation, where he’s the national chairman and he is on the board of the Planning Board.

 

 

And again, Larry Silverstein, the man who got the World Trade Center lease for 99 years is this man here. He had weekly phone calls every Sunday afternoon with Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

 

Then on July 24, 2001, he got the keys to the front door of the World Trade Center.

 

 

This is what was left five weeks later.

 

 

On 9/11 Ehud Olmerttt, Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister, was on a secret visit to New York City.

 

 

This was taken about two weeks later, but he was there on September 10 and September 11 in New York City.

 

 

Here he is with Netanyahu. By the way, he wound up spending a couple years in jail recently for bribery.

 

 

Here he is after he came back from his ten days away in Israel, he came back to the United States.

 

And since New York City and Jerusalem are sister cities, and he was the Mayor of Jerusalem and the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, he acted like the Big Brother to Rudy Giuliani.

 

 

But on September 11, when all civilian flights were grounded in this country, one full El Al Boeing 747 took off from JFK bound for Tel Aviv. The flight departed at 4:11 pm with US military officials on the scene authorizing and clearing the flight for takeoff. Who was on that plane? Well, obviously, Ehud Olmertt was one of the people on the plane.

 

This is about the Put Options. You may have heard about the Put Options in which people profited by knowing that the stocks of the airlines and insurance companies would tank on 9/11. And 95% of these options were put by this man’s former company.

 

 

Now this man is “Buzzy” Krongard. And on 9/11, he was executive director of the CIA. But before he became executive director of the CIA, he was the director of Alex Brown, the company that placed the put options.

 

 

And here’s the relationship between Alvin Krongard, Alvin Krongard and his wife. And his wife works directly with Rothschild Asset Management.

 

And then there were thousands of Israelis who were warned about 9/11, and there were 4,000 who were expected to have been at [in the area of] the World Trade Center that day, or the Pentagon.

 

 

And that comes from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. That’s not Arab propaganda. It’s from the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

 

And apparently they got the message through a system called Odigo, which warned people who had that Israeli system of messaging not to go to the World Trade Center that day. The warning message went out about two or 3 hours before it happened. It warned people:

 

“Not to be at the World Trade Center at 8:45 because all hell would break loose.”

 

 

So apparently those 4,000 Israelis who avoided harm got the message, they got the memo.

 

 

And then there were these “Five Dancing Israeli” who were seen celebrating and high fiving the attack at the World Trade Center before [after] the first plane struck. They were on the New Jersey side of the river, and they were photographing and high fiving, and they were observed, and they were arrested on the afternoon of 9/11. It was written about in the New Jersey newspapers, but it was not reported in any other paper outside of New Jersey.

 

 

The two men that did not appear, they’re on a TV show. These three guys are on TV show. They said:

 

“We’re not Mossad!”

 

No, because the two Mossad guys are sitting in the audience. The Kurtzberg brothers were sitting in the audience because they could not go up on the stage and say:

 

“We’re not Mossad.”

 

They are Mossad. And US law enforcement knew it from the minute they arrested these guys that they were Mossad.

 

And one of the guys, this is one of the minions, he said:

 

“Our purpose was to document the event.”

 

Here’s the head of the company behind these foster grants here, Dominik Suter. He fled the country on the 12th or the 13th, and when the FBI went to get him again, he was gone.

 

And this is one of the trucks of their company. They had this truck that was reported by New York police, Urban Moving Systems. It wasn’t a moving company at all! It was a front company. It was set up to facilitate the 9/11 attacks. And they had this truck with the picture of the World Trade Center being struck by a plane.

 

Now on 9/11, when it happened, in the studio, the London studio, the BBC, world television, the largest English speaking broadcasting in the world, who was there except Ehud Barak! Ready to give the interpretation. Remember, the General, Wesley Clark said:

 

“We did not have American understanding of it.”

 

No, what he’s implying is that we had:

 

“A foreign country’s understanding of it.”

 

We had Israeli understanding. The Israelis interpreted 9/11 for us.

 

 

This man, the head of former Defense Minister, Chief of Staff, he said:

 

“The world will never be the same from today on! We know who’s behind this, Osama Bin Laden, and we know where he is!”

 

He said:

 

“It’s time to launch an operational, concrete war against terror, full stop!”

 

[46:46]

 

And that’s what we’ve been doing for the last 17 years, following the Israeli diktat! Living our lives according to the Israeli interpretation of 9/11. That’s what they’ve imposed on us. They’ve imposed a Zionist narrative to explain what happened on 9/11.

 

 

Here’s Bibi Netanyahu. And on 9/11, he praised the attacks because they had kickstarted his War on Terror that he’d been pushing uphill for the last, 20 years.

 

 

He told the New York Times. He was asked:

 

“How will this affect American Israeli relations?”

 

He said:

 

“It’s very good!”

 

When 30,000 people are expected to be in the pile, he said:

 

“It’s very good. It will generate immediate sympathy.”

 

And the relationship between Netanyahu and Barak is that Barak was his commander in the Sayeret Matkal, a covert commando force of Israeli military intelligence.

 

 

And Bibi Netanyahu spoke the next day, September 12, in Jerusalem.

 

 

He said:

 

“We must build a coalition against terror today. It’s time to take on the militant Islamic regimes with a great deal of strength. We should crush the terrorist infrastructure that threatens the entire free world.”

 

Yet if you look at the coalition that’s put together in Syria or in Iraq, you will never find the Israeli flag, because the Israelis are the ones who are running the operation, but keep their fingers out of it.

 

But you see now in Syria, you see the Israelis are now bombing every day. They’re attacking Syria on a daily basis. And they were the ones who actually got the Russian plane shot down.

 

Their four fighters came over and were striking Syria, putting the slow moving Russian reconnaissance plane in the middle, and it got shot.

 

And he also said, Netanyahu said in 2001, he said:

 

“I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”

 

That’s what they’re doing to us. They’re pulling us around like an ox with a ring in its nose. And he said:

 

“We are benefiting.”

 

This is him speaking to an Israeli audience.

 

 

He said:

 

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the twin towers, the Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq.”

 

He said that in 2008.

 

 

And then there was an Israeli son of the Mossad who controlled the 9/11 investigation.

 

 

This is the man, Michael Chertoff. He was put in charge of the investigation, which became a non-investigation in which the evidence was destroyed. And for day to day decisions, Chertoff had the last word.

 

 

Then he became Homeland Security Czar in 2005. In this position, he maintained his control of the evidence of 9/11.

 

 

Controlling the evidence, destroying the evidence, was a key aspect of his work. And the evidence was destroyed from the day one. This is some of the steel that was piled up. That was a big steel pile of steel.

 

 

And they began right away carting the steel off to a couple Zionist junkyards where it was destroyed 24/7. Cut into small pieces, mixed with other scrap and sent to Asia for destruction.

 

Because the steel would provide evidence of what really caused the towers to fall.

 

 

And then the Zionists presided over the 9/11 lawsuits and litigation. This is the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein. There was a fundamental conflict of interest, though.

 

 

His son worked for a law firm in Israel that represented ICTS, the company that was overseeing security at the airports on 9/11 in Boston, in Newark, in Dulles. Here’s the relationship.

 

 

His son was working for a company that was the parent company of ICTS. And that same group of people, ICTS, was in the tort litigation that he oversaw for the families of 9/11. That’s a primary conflict of interest. And the Zionists also oversaw the settlements of the money.

 

 

This man dished out the money for the first, 2,900 families. His name is Kenneth Feinberg, very high level Zionist. This is Sheila Birnbaum. She oversaw the war of attrition against the 96 families. There are 96 families who held out for a day in court. They never got it. One by one, they were settled out of court.

 

And the Zionist control the 9/11 myth and the legacy. This is the Ground Zero. This is the World Trade Center memorial.

 

 

And they control the interpretation of the event was given to us by this 9/11 Commission Report by this man, Philip Zelikow, who’s an expert at creating public myths.

 

 

And he came to the table as Executive Director of the Commission with a complete outline already finished, before the staff even began working.

 

So he had prepared the myth in advance. Then they would pick information that they would put into the myth to make it work.

 

 

But the people who worked on the 9/11 Commission, like the senior counsel John Farmer, said that:

 

“What government and military officials told Congress, the Commission, the media and the public about who knew what when, was almost entirely and inexplicably untrue.”

 

Here are the co-chairmen of the Commission Report.

 

 

They said:

 

“To this day, we don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth!”

 

So these are the people who actually wrote the report or worked on the report telling you that it’s a pack of lies!

 

Then the Israelis constructed the memorial, the legacy, where the kids go in the school buses and get the walk around and go to the museum.

 

 

The World Trade Center memorial was designed by an Israeli, this man here, Michael Arad, who’s the son of Moshe Arad, the former Israeli ambassador of the United States.

 

 

So from A to Z, from ideation to legacy, it’s all been an Israeli project. For 17 years the media has given us this story, a false narrative about 9/11 and the War on Terror, all the while suppressing real evidence that disproves the official myth.

 

 

Like the molten metal that poured off the building. Like the molten metal that was found in the basement of the World Trade Center. Like the tiny droplets of molten iron that were found in the dust. Because the attitude of the media has been this is from three years later. New York Times.

 

 

“In the three years since 9/11, we’ve begun to understand that it’s possible to know what happened without knowing what happened.”

 

That’s their position! We don’t need to know!

 

[52:46]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

[1:28:31]

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 9/10/2024 = 1)

GorgonIII
30 weeks ago
I have linked to a lot of Bolly’s work on 9/11 in this substack essay: Israel and elements of the US government did 9/11 https://binkylarue.substack.com/p/israel-and-elements-of-the-us-government
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript

Andy Steele: Welcome to another episode of 9/11 Free Fall. I am the host, Andy Steele, and today we’re going to be talking with Roland Angle, our chairman here at AE911 Truth.

 

AE911 Truth Chairman’s Qualification and Background

top

 

Now, I don’t know if it’s going to run before or after this particular Free Fall episode, but at some point this week, you’re going to see him giving an awesome presentation on our new show called The Focus. So we bring on a panel of engineers we’re presenting on topics that are within the controlled demolition issue, but it zeroes in on a particular aspect, questions not before asked.

 

So if it’s not out yet, keep an eye out for that bulletin and Roland’s presentation. If we have put it out already by the time you see this show, then certainly go to our YouTube channel and check it out.

 

But who is this guy? Well, he’s been on this show before. He is the chairman of AE911 Truth. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, with a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering and also served in the US. Army Special Forces, where he was trained in the use of explosives. That’s very pertinent to our issue.

 

He became a licensed civil engineer in California, and his 50 years of engineering experience has included designing and testing blast hardened missile launch facilities and designing US. Naval explosive containers, harbor terminal facilities, earth foundation systems, and hydraulic systems. He’s owned three different construction companies, and he’s taught engineering subjects to high school students.

 

And of course, he heads up AE911 Truth’s Project Due Diligence, which we’ll be talking a little bit about today. It’s getting engineers out into the grassroots of the engineering community, also out into local citizens groups as well. Talking about the World Trade Center evidence, the points clearly showing that these buildings were brought down with explosives. Along with that, Roland has a book that is going to be coming out. We announced it earlier this week.

 

So let’s just go ahead and bring him in. He’ll be talking about that today. Roland, welcome back to 9/11 Free Fall!

 

Roland Angle: Thanks for having me back, Andy. Always good to be here.

 

Andy Steele: Yeah, and it’s great having you here. You’re doing a lot of work, and it’s work that when we see the fruit of it, we talk about it.

 

But a lot of stuff that happens behind the scenes, people don’t get to see. So I love to be able to highlight the heroes here that don’t always get out into the spotlight and don’t really seek it.

 

But we wouldn’t have this Project Due Diligence going on if you hadn’t stepped up and really put all of this together, had the idea and devised it. And you work with a lot of engineer volunteers. In doing that, we’re probably picking up new people, don’t know what the heck I’m talking about when I say Project Due Diligence. So just briefly remind our audience what that is, what those engineers are doing, and essentially what it’s all about.

 

[03:35]

 

Project Due Diligence

top

 

Roland Angle: Project Due Diligence is our attempt to educate our fellow engineers, particularly the structural and civil engineers, in regards to the evidence that we have uncovered regarding the failure of the three high rise buildings at World Trade Center in New York City on 9/11 [2001]

 

We have examined the reports that were issued by the National Institute of Standards of Technology [NIST] on the Twin Towers in 2005 and on the Building Seven in 2008, as they were required to do by the law that was passed by Congress in October of 2002, more than a year after the event. Tasking them with the job of investigating the collapse of the buildings and coming up with the reasons why the buildings collapsed.

 

So we started reading those reports as architects and engineers individually back in 2005 when the first one came out. By 2006, it was already evident that the report on the Twin Towers was seriously flawed. And we knew that because it never did explain what it was supposed to explain, which is why and how the buildings collapsed.

 

It was a 13,000 page document that ended at the beginning of the initiation of the collapse of the building. And they explained the collapse of the building with three words:

 

“Global collapse ensued.”

 

And that was their total technical explanation for how that building came down.

 

Well, that’s not what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to give us a model, an analysis, and a reason why that building came down, both of them, in the manner in which they did, which was in about 10 seconds. And that was a totally unexpected event. Everyone in the world was shocked by what they saw that day.

 

NIST Report Utterly Failed to Explain the Collapses

top

 

And it was our engineering expertise that was called upon to explain why and how that happened. And that report utterly failed to even address the question! It went into the plane impacts. It went into the fires. It went into the structural damage due to the plane impacts, the damage caused by the fires. But once the collapse began, the narrative left off, and didn’t give us any explanation for why the entire lower parts of the buildings collapsed.

 

So in 2006, an architect in the East Bay, Richard Gage, began to question this report, and he began to make appearances to his fellow architects, to engineers, to the general public, to anyone who would listen. And I attended one of those performances back in 2007, or so right around there is and he made a great deal of sense. He made a good argument that the report on the Twin Towers actually raised more questions than it answered.

 

So he had a petition there that people could sign asking for a new investigation, and he had one for architects and engineers as experts in the field. I signed that petition is and a couple of years later, the report on Building Seven came out, and it took several years to analyze that report. We did get the details of a collapse mechanism in that report that NIST compiled.

 

[07:45]

 

But as we began to look into their what they called a “progressive collapse theory”, the details of the report indicated that there were decisions made that did not follow the evidence and did not give a scientific explanation for why the building came down that made any sense.

 

The Founding of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

top

 

So we simply added Building Seven onto our questions about the Twin Towers. And in the meantime, Richard had founded the Architects and Engineers for 911Truth that we are currently operating within. And the organization since then has grown and involved literally thousands of people. More than 3,500, 3,600 architects and engineers have since signed the petition calling for a new investigation. I think more than 30,000 lay persons have signed that petition. We presented it to our Congress people and to NIST, and we’ve made every attempt to get the engineering community to look at this event with new eyes is and we have met with a lot of resistance.

 

So when I came on the board in 2017, I believe it was, I was asked if I would oversee an outreach to the engineering community is under Richard [Gage] they had focused on the architectural community, and they had gone to the national conventions of the American Institute of Architects [AIA] for three years in a row and raised a proposition at the conventions calling for a new investigation and asking for the AIA to endorse that request. And the AIA refused! The vote in favor of that never got more than about ten or 11% of the attendees.

 

911 as an Engineering Issue Not an Architectural Issue

top

 

So my impression of that was that the architects didn’t want to get out in front of the engineers. This was really not an architectural failure. Architects, of course, and engineers worked together to design and build structures of this nature. But architects, that’s not their bailiwick. They’re not going to go into the structural details of a collapse of this nature. And I could understand their reluctance to pre-empt the engineering community when it was really an engineering problem.

 

The Start a Project Called Project Due Diligence

top

 

So I proposed that we start a project called Project Due Diligence to take the information that we had put together our analysis of the NIST Reports and the FEMA report before it and take it out to the engineering community because it was clear that the leadership of our professional organizations did not want to have this discussion with their members. And that was made clear to us by their attitude when we approached them and said:

 

“Listen, we’ve got this information. We think it’s important for our community. We’d like to make presentations at your conference. We’d like a venue so that we can have this discussion and everyone in our profession can benefit from it.”

 

That wasn’t happening.

 

So we took on an approach of instead of going to the leadership, we decided to go to the membership at the grassroots level. And we focused on the American Society of Civil Engineers is because that organization is the big gorilla on the block in the profession. They’ve been around since 1857. They have an established reputation of looking out for the interest of our profession.

 

[11:50]

 

And in fact, when I was in college, I joined their honor society, Kai Epsilon, because it was an organization that said that it was going to promote the ethical and professional interests of the profession.

 

And I thought that was a good thing to do.

 

Training Engineers to Do Presentations

top

 

Well, Tony Szamboti and I put together a PowerPoint based upon a lot of other information that had been collected by Richard and others before him. And we started taking that information out. Then I went, oh, I took the petition signers that, the petition that I had signed. We had the record of everyone that had signed that since is at that time there was something like 1,000 signatures there.

 

And I went through there with the help of the staff, and we selected the civil and structural engineers that had signed. And I began calling them up, and asking them if they were interested in an effort to take this information that we had compiled out to the rank and file branches of the American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE] all across the country, of which there are about 161 local branches.

 

So I was successful in recruiting about 40 engineers that said that they would be glad to do that is they thought that that was an important thing to do is and they volunteered to learn the material and to make presentations in their area if the opportunity arose.

 

So we got that information out to them. We had some training. We went through the information. We felt satisfied that it made sense. And we began reaching out in 2018 to the local chapters of ASCE.

 

Results – 100% Agreement That NIST Reports Did Not Meet Professional Standards

top

 

And what we found was that wherever we made these presentations, wherever we got accepted and then we went out and we made the presentations, we found that the engineers that were in attendance were 100% in agreement with us is that the NIST Reports did not meet our professional standards. They had a lot of anomalies, a lot of omissions, a lot of problems with those reports that we felt needed to be addressed. And we asked them if they felt the same way after we made our presentations is we always got 100% agreement.

 

So in the course of the last four or five years, we’ve made that presentation to more than 1,000 engineers at the grassroots level, all across the country is everywhere from Florida to Alaska, to the New York area, to California, the Southwest, the Southeast, the Midwest. Everywhere we’ve gone, we’re getting 100% agreement from the rank and file that the issues that we’ve raised need to be addressed.

 

[14:56]

 

The American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE] Preventing Presentations to Its Members

top

 

And yet we have come across extremely recalcitrant leadership that insists upon branding us as “conspiracy theorists” and whenever they can, preventing us from making any kind of presentations to their chapters. And that has happened. We’ve been accepted and then later rejected more than 30 times in the last four years. And we’ve managed to make 50 presentations, many of them to ASCE chapters, but also to the National Society of Professional Engineers and some other engineering organizations and some public presentations as well.

 

Project Due Diligence — A Coherent Explanation of What Went Wrong with the Gov Reports

top

 

So that’s what Project Due Diligence is all about. And the book that I’m putting together, this is not my information. This is information that’s been collected by all those volunteers and by all the researchers that went through the reports and came up with the anomalies that we were able to put together in a coherent strategy, a coherent explanation of what we thought went wrong with the reports.

 

So that’s Project Due Diligence. That’s what the book is about. I’m not taking credit for it myself. This has been a huge effort over many years, and we now need to make a report to the profession and to the public that explains what the process has been, what our findings have been, what the reaction has been t11

 

And we’ve gone a little further and identified a lot of the engineers that were involved in the preparation of the NIST Reports, the FEMA reports, and all the periphery people, the contractors, the academics, all the people that had anything to do with this question. We have tried to identify them, and we call them persons of interest.

 

Because we believe that somewhere in that group of people are persons who were somehow coerced into making decisions that were not consistent with our professional standards, that justified the official narrative. And that narrative is what is currently being bolstered by our professional organizations. And there’s really no basis in reality for it. And we’re unable to get them to engage in a dialogue.

 

So the book is our next step.

 

Andy Steele: I consider it sort of the ignition test for these professional organizations. And what do I mean by that? Let’s just going back to the nano-thermite evidence when they actually do ignition tests to actually get the thermitic reaction on the samples there.

 

And sometimes you have to test what you’re up against just to see the reaction that they give you. For instance, when we did the, Span campaign, the defensive and ridiculous answers from politicians was outlined by somebody in a video saying:

 

“We’ve got a major problem here, because asking them these direct questions about this evidence brought this out of them and showed where the real problem is.”

 

[18:26]

 

Professional Organizations Unable to Debunk AE911truth So They Try to Cancel It

top

 

And so through Project Due Diligence, by going to try to give these presentations, you’re basically testing these professional organizations. And I don’t know if that was the main motive when you started, but that’s what it’s turning into. And we’re seeing the resistance here. Because if there is nothing to what we’re saying, then they should be able to debunk it. They don’t debunk it. Or to have some kind of open dialogue. If they think it’s just a ridiculous conspiracy theory, what better opportunity is there to try to shoot holes in it, take it down and show it for what it is? But they won’t do that either because they can’t argue with that.

 

So now their only recourse is to try to cancel presentations, get ahead of them, do the politicking behind the scenes. And I don’t want to get into too much details about some of the things that our engineers are going through, but there is a lot of pressure on these engineers to maintain the status quo, to not rock the boat and to not bring up this issue at all!

 

So kind of going into some of what I perceive going to be some of the themes in your upcoming book Roland, what skin does organizations like the ASCE and the other professional organizations have in this game? I mean, if the NIST Reports are wrong, seemingly they should want to be the heroes for taking the first step towards spotlighting that or at least acknowledging it and coming off as an unbiased and science-first organization. So why do you think there’s such a strong cover-up there?

 

The People That Committed This Crime Also Planned the Cover Up

top

 

Roland Angle: It’s pretty clear that the evidence shows that the analyses that NIST has come up with are wrong. We’re 1000 to nothing on that case, from the rank and file! Unfortunately, the people that committed this crime also planned the cover-up. You can divide the crime into three sections; the planning, the execution and the cover-up. Clearly the people that committed the crime did not want to be held responsible for what they did.

 

The Cover-Up Sequence

top

 

So the cover-up involves planning a false narrative, creating some patsies that are going to take the fall, and then monitoring that cover up over time, as time goes on, to make sure that nobody deviates from that narrative and anybody that does is going to be punished.

 

So we saw on the day of the event there were multiple recordings and eyewitness reports of explosions in the buildings, overwhelmingly, some 40 plus. And almost every one of them, the talking head that was representing the interviews described and interviewed people that also described multiple explosions in the buildings.

 

So you would think that the narrative that would follow from that naturally would be:

 

“We’re going to investigate what could have possibly caused those explosions in the building.”

 

Instead, what you saw was a narrative that took over the very next day saying they:

 

“Had already identified the 19 hijackers. They knew who they were, we had their faces, we had their names. And what must have caused the buildings to collapse was the airplane impacts and the fires that weakened the structure afterwards and that’s why the buildings collapsed.”

 

And that became the narrative from there on.

 

NIST Reports, Didn’t Even Examine the Evidence of Explosives

top

 

And even NIST, when they compiled their reports, didn’t even examine the evidence of explosives. And they admitted that! Very strange! Very strange! If you have all these eyewitness reports, you have buildings that were previously the target of a terrorist attacks using explosives, 1993. And the Fire Code called for in collapses of this type, you would always check for incendiaries and explosives. They ignored the Fire Code.

 

[22:57]

 

So these were all problems, problems for their narrative. And in order to get around that, they had devised a plan where they would work with the primary professional engineering organizations to provide the investigators and look into why the buildings collapsed with them. So FEMA took over the examination immediately upon the event, which is their job. They’re supposed to, they are the Federal Emergency Management Agency. So they go in whenever there’s an emergency. This was clearly an emergency that fell within their purview, and they went in. And they were supposed to be the ones that sort of made an initial assessment and then came up with a plan for whatever needed to be done to further the investigation, take whatever remedial action that was necessary.

 

From Sep 2021 to Oct 22 Most of the Evidence was Destroyed

top

 

So it took a year and a month, October the first, 2002, for Congress to act to pass a law that specifically designated the National Institute of Standards and Technology as the agency that was going to conduct those investigations.

 

So in the intervening years, in the intervening months, from September of 2001 to October of 2002, most of the evidence was destroyed. They picked up all the steel debris. They destroyed it. They sent steel off to China for recycling. Nobody seemed to be able to stop them, even though there were many people on the scene that realized that they were destroying evidence that was going to be necessary in order to conduct a forensic examination of what had happened. But at any rate, NIST was designated as the agency to provide the investigations in October of 2002, and they took that responsibility up.

 

NIST Shouldn’t Have Been the Organization to Investigate 911 Due to Conflict of Interest

top

 

But there’s a lot of evidence that they shouldn’t have because they were not immune from the kind of pressures that was going to be brought on them to alter the events and save face for people that might have been responsible. Because the executive branch of the government was responsible for protecting us that day, and they failed to do so. And this is part of the Department of Commerce, which is also an executive arm of the government.

 

So essentially, you had a case where you were asking the executive branch of the government to examine the executive branch of the government, and the executive branch of the government was a party to the event.

 

[26:03]

 

So the director of NIST should have declined that directive from Congress and cited a conflict of interest, which was actually in the law. He could have referred to the law that they had just passed and said:

 

“I can’t do this. We have a conflict of interest.”

 

But they pursued it.

 

And then they went out and hired subcontractors to do a lot of the work, do a lot of the analysis, gathering of the evidence, what was left, and so on.

 

Professional Engineers Associations Involved in the Cover-Up

top

 

So that presents the problem that we’re faced with which is that the big mucky mucks in the professional engineers associations, primarily from ASCE and the Structural Engineers Association, were the ones that actually conducted the investigations and wrote many parts of the reports that NIST produced.

 

So they have a vested interest. They are signatories to the original NIST Reports and it’s going to be difficult for them to admit that the reports are not consistent with the evidence.

 

So that was a bit of genius on the part of the people that planned the crime. They knew that they were going to have to plan the cover-up as well. And they did that by dragging in the luminaries of the engineering field, had them participate in the report and control the outcome of the reports by having people in strategic places that were able to pull the strings to make sure that the conclusions that they came to were not consistent with the evidence.

 

Now let me just be clear. I don’t believe that anybody in the engineering field, in any part of these organizations was a criminal that planned the crime. I think that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and they were somehow incentivized to make decisions in the process of those reports that weren’t consistent with the evidence. And I’m quite sure that there’s many of them that are aware of that.

 

But when you’re dealing with a criminal activity of this nature that plunged the whole world into World War it can be quite intimidating. And I can understand that. I have compassion for these people.

 

We’ve Identified 23 Decisions in Those Reports That Are Not Consistent with the Evidence

top

 

On the other hand, they are the ones that could possibly lead us to the perpetrators because somebody pulled their strings. Somebody told them:

 

“No, you’re not going to make that decision. You’re going to make this decision.”

 

And we’ve identified 23 decisions in the process of all three of those reports that are not consistent with the evidence and don’t make sense in the sense of the people that made them couldn’t have possibly believed that that was true, unless they were incompetent.

 

And I can’t believe that 23 separate decisions were made randomly all in favor of the alternative narrative that they had created, and all dismissive of the notion that explosives could have brought the buildings down.

 

[29:17]

 

So that’s where we are. It’s politics! Politics! Somebody within power had the ability to influence the leadership of our professional organizations in the engineering field, and we took the black eye! Because all three of those buildings came down due to what we call “design loads”. The two towers were designed to take a hit from a commercial airplane. And Building Seven, which supposedly collapsed according to their narrative due to normal office fires, had never occurred in the history of steel frame buildings.

 

So when you have a failure of that magnitude, of any magnitude really that where the structure fails under a design load, something that was designed to withstand, then you have a problem. Something is wrong with your theory! There’s something that you don’t understand. Why didn’t it hold up under the loads that you thought it would?

 

So you have to investigate that. And that usually involves an investigative team and then issuing a report, having it peer reviewed by other organizations.

 

And then there’s a debate that goes back and forth about the findings. And over time, you narrow down the field of possibilities, and you eventually come to the correct conclusion. And that’s the practice. That’s the engineering practice that’s been going on for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

 

The Investigative Process was Derailed by the Very Organizations Creating the Reports

top

 

So in this case, that whole process was derailed by the very organizations that had been involved in creating the reports in the first place, at least at the top levels.

 

So that’s a problem for us as engineers. We cannot allow that kind of misinformation to creep into the reality of our practice, because it will only spread like a cancer. And we’ll then begin really having problems with our designs and with our construction procedures because we have allowed ourselves to be conned by an investigation that’s not accurate, and a reliance on a theory of failure that doesn’t match the facts.

 

Andy Steele: That’s right. And once you start letting science get infiltrated, muddied, by politics, by just pre-designed stories that they wanted to cement in people’s heads early on, once you allow that to happen and you keep on redrawing that line, then it’s hard to stop it from happening again in the future. All science gets politicized, and then people start believing in something that has no scientific backing behind it whatsoever, because you’re already set down the precedent.

 

Everything that happens in government and in our society is all based on precedent. You let people get away with one thing here, then they can get away with something else even bigger in the future. And there definitely was a decision at some point, sometime, to not look or take seriously the possibility that explosives were used in those towers. They were throwing it out right from day one.

 

[32:37]

 

Peter Jennings’ Strange Question About Building Seven

top

 

In fact, I have a clip of Peter Jennings from ABC Nightly News the evening of September 11. This is after Building Seven had already come down. He brings on an engineer, and I think it’s somebody of some importance in the engineering community giving his initial thoughts on why the buildings possibly came down. And can’t remember who that was off the top of my head. But at one point, Peter Jennings speculates, and he says:

 

“Have we gotten a lock on why that third building come down there?”

 

And you can see sort of like a little bit of suspicion in his eyes. And he asks the question. He said:

 

“Do you think that possibly a structural engineer had some hand in the planning of this event?”

 

This is a really strange question to be asking after asking about World Trade Center Seven. So even at that moment, you could sort of tell that Peter Jennings mind was spinning a little bit, wondering how these buildings could have just come down from the airplane impact. And in the case of Building Seven, no airplane hitting it at all!

 

And then, of course, I never heard him mention anything else about that afterwards.

 

But they had to get ahead of this as quickly as possible. And I believe that at some point the word had to be put forth that:

 

“We are not going to consider the possibility that explosives were used. We’re going to dismiss them outright!”

 

And that is part of the cover-up, whether willing or unwilling!

 

It’s fascinating to see what happens sociologically, professionally, to contribute to cover-ups. Not everybody who participates in a cover up really sees the full picture of it or even knows that they’re in a cover-up, but that is all part of the cover-up.

 

Book: Engineering the 911 Cover-Up – How the WTC Evidence was Kept Secret from the World

top

 

And from my understanding, that’s what some of your book is going to be getting into.

 

Now I just want to tell our audience the name of the book is; Engineering the 9/11 Cover-up-How the WTC Evidence was Kept Secret from the World. If you donate $35 to help us keep our operation going while we put this book together and do all the great stuff that PDD [Project Due Diligence] is doing, you can get early access to the book. You get the chapters sent to your inbox every month, a nice little flip book format that we’ve got set up for this. You can send your commentary in. We certainly want to hear your suggestions and thoughts about it. And then, of course, there will be a final volume that goes out.

 

Roland, what do you want the legacy of this book to be? What do you want people coming away with when they read it and taking forward into the future with regard to this issue?

 

[35:05]

 

Roland Angle: Well, that’s a good question. We feel strongly that our profession has been misrepresented, and we want to set the record straight. We may not have the political clout at this particular time to bring this information to the public in a way that has the kind of impact that it should have, because we don’t control the media and we don’t control the government agencies that were involved.

 

But we can publish our findings and make it available to the public and to other members of our profession so they at least understand that there were some of us that understood that there was a real problem here. And we made every effort to bring it to the attention of our fellow colleagues and to the public at large so that we could come to a realistic and accurate appraisal of why those buildings failed, causing such great loss of life and becoming the event that was used to project foreign policy into the future for the next decades.

 

911 is a Major Event – Hundreds of Thousands, Millions of People Died as a Result

top

 

So this is a major event. This is not just a dam failure, or a road failure, or a minor failure, every failure is a failure. Some failures don’t cost anybody their life, and that’s a fortunate thing. There are other failures that do and cost maybe dozens of lives. But this failure resulted in a loss of something like 25, 27, 2,800 people in the buildings and in the planes. And resulted in further loss of life because of the changes in direction that the foreign policy of the United States took after that. Hundreds of thousands, millions of people, died as a result of those events.

 

So we have a heavy burden!

 

And as engineers, civil engineers and structural engineers, of course, we always have the foremost notion that the safety of the public is our number one priority. And in this case, the buildings came down under design loads that they were supposed to withstand. And we have to explain why! The government has issued reports.

 

And when we look at those reports, we say those reports fail. They have too many anomalies, too many omissions, too many things that are unexplained. And there’s an absolute refusal on the part of the authorities and the engineering profession leadership to have any discussion of this whatsoever!

 

So that’s very suspicious. As you say, if they had an answer for the questions that we raised, believe me, they would come forth with those answers and they would say:

 

“This is why you’re wrong.”

 

That’s the process that we normally go through. But to be met with silence, that’s a telltale event right there. They don’t want to discuss it. Why not? Only because they don’t have an answer!

 

So we already have our answer. We know they’re wrong. We know the reports are wrong. We know they were taken over by political forces that are outside of the field of engineering.

 

As Engineers, We Still Have Our Duty to Tell the Truth as We Understand It

top

 

But as engineers, we still have our duty. And our duty is to tell the truth as we understand it to the best of our ability, for how those buildings fail. And that’s what we’re going to do. And we’re going to make the record for history. And we know that history is going to exonerate us at some point. Things will have progressed on to the point where this becomes a historical event. And those people that are responsible for the cover-up and the crime are long gone. Perhaps at that point the truth will be able to emerge.

 

[39:19]

 

But we don’t want to wait that long. We think that there are still people around that were involved in the crime, and we’re going to make every attempt to bring them to justice with what we can do, which is through a competent forensic examination of the evidence.

 

So that’s what we’re going to do. And we’re going to point out the people that were involved in those investigations, and hopefully somebody among them will have the courage to come forward and give us more information about how exactly these strings were pulled and these decisions were made.

 

Andy Steele: Right. And we’re also going to be sending this book to engineers when we can, because engineers, like anybody in a profession, if they’re really into what they do, they read about it, right? Just like doctors read medical journals or read about some new development, or a new disease coming out. They do it in their spare time, a lot of times.

 

Engineers will do the same thing. They read about topics related to their profession, and certainly this is related to their profession. And it’s almost a dark story of what happened here, what happened to try to perpetuate this official story, make people not even question it.

 

They Try to Stop the Discussion from Happening at All!

top

 

And as Roland has pointed out, again, they don’t even want to have the discussion! They go out of their way to try to stop the discussion from happening at all!

 

Now, if we were just full of it and they were just putting out a wild conspiracy theory, they could easily dismiss that they could talk about it right out in the open.

 

The fact that they’re trying to cover it up shows that they know they don’t have a leg to stand on, but they have to still defend it in some kind of a way.

 

And what’s interesting is that there’s so many people over the years, and I’ve been doing this a long time. When I first started out, Debunkers would say:

 

“Well, you only got however many architects and engineers we had at the time, (maybe 1, 500 or so) how many architects and engineers are there in America and in the greater world, even?”

 

Right? Well, number one, the only people that are doing the work of trying to educate engineers on this topic is AE911Truth!

 

Now, I think we do a pretty good job for the resources that we have.

 

But, you know, we’re not the ASE. We’re not these professional organizations with the millions of dollars and manpower and resources to be able to get the materials out there. So we have to do it one presentation at a time. Videos like this is how we do outreach.

 

[42:00]

 

Most Engineers Aren’t Even Aware That a Third Tower Fell

top

 

So we have to rely on our supporters to help us, too, and send that stuff out when they can. Send it to engineers that they know. Most engineers aren’t even aware that a third tower fell on September 11!

 

Now, even to this day, even after all of this controversy and all of this discussion, they don’t even have an opinion one way or the other about whether it was controlled demolition, because they don’t know that World Trade Center Seven exists!

 

And to me, that is a huge failure of these professional organizations, which are supposed to be leading the way for the engineering community, educating engineers, and they don’t even talk about the worst, …

 

Again, just put the whole issue of controlled demolition to the side for a moment. If you go with the official story, it’s the worst structural failure in modern history! A few random office players can bring down a steel frame high rise in 7 seconds. And most engineers don’t ever hear about it from the ASCE. They’re not studying it repeatedly over and over again to keep it from happening anymore. They just kind of put out a story and then let it die! Just didn’t want to talk about it anymore.

 

ASCE Doesn’t Want Any Discussion of WTC Building 7

top

 

What’s your comment on that role? On the fact that they haven’t really done a good job of telling people about Building Seven and most engineers don’t know about it?

 

Roland Angle: I think they don’t want to discuss it because they don’t want to discuss it!

 

In other words, they don’t want to bring it up. They don’t want people to be aware of it because it’s a very suspicious event. You’ve got a 47 story steel frame building that collapsed into its own footprint after some office fires in 7 seconds!

 

I mean, that’s a remarkable event! In structural engineering history it’s a one off! It wasn’t hit by planes. It had some minor debris damage, a few fires, and then it collapsed 7 hours later!

 

So it’s not the kind of event that they want to discuss because first of all, it piques the curiosity just to begin with, once you understand the ramifications of the event. This is something that engineers should be all over! They should be all over this event! They want to understand it in minute detail.

 

NIST – for the First and Only Time in History a Steel-Framed High-Rise was Destroyed by Routine Fire!

top

 

Instead, the story that we were given by NIST was that these routine office fires for the first and only time in history, with no other significant event, caused the collapse of a high rise steel frame building. Well, we build buildings out of steel to the high rise capacity because we don’t want them to collapse when they catch fire! That’s why we do that!

 

Now, here you have an event where the fires brought the building down in 7 seconds. Had there been anybody in the building, they, of course, would have perished. But they had evacuated the building at the time when the first two towers were hit.

 

[45:15]

 

And then some very suspicious events occurred. They said that there was no water to fight the fires. Well, that’s been proven to be false. There was plenty water to fight the fires. They said that they knew the building was going to come down. How did they know that? No other building in similar circumstances had ever come down. So they quote some engineer that told the fire department that the building was going to fall down in a few hours. Gee, that was some remarkable information coming from an engineer, who still is anonymous to this day! We have not found out if that person really existed or not. Who was it?

 

NIST Gave a Complicated Series of Rube-Goldberg Progression of Events Explanation for WTC-7

top

 

How did some engineer on the scene perceive that the building was about to collapse? When the explanation that NIST gave for actually why it collapsed was a complicated series of Rube-Goldberg progression of events where some long Beams were heated, pushed a girder off of its seat at a column, the floors collapsed, the column collapsed. It caused other columns to collapse, caused more columns to collapse, and then the whole thing came down at once. That is, frankly, unbelievable!

 

And when you look at the particular mechanics, every one of those events can be disproven and could not have happened!

 

So that’s why they don’t want to bring it up. That’s why they don’t want to discuss it. It’s easier, and the only answer they have is to say:

 

“Well, these guys are conspiracy theories!”

 

And we’re practicing engineers. We’re people that represent more than 50,000 years of engineering experience! And these are not people that are going to lightly throw away their reputation by signing a petition that they know is not going to be met in a friendly manner from the establishment.

 

These are people that know that when they sign that, they’re going to be castigated. They’re going to be punished, if possible. And many of them have. And we’re not funded by anybody. There’s nobody making money on this. We rely entirely on donations from our supporters to exist. Nobody’s getting rich off of this.

 

University of Alaska Said the NIST Report on WTC-7 Wasn’t Possible

top

 

We paid the University of Alaska at Fairbanks Structural Engineering Department something like $325,000 that we had to raise from our supporters to come up with a peer reviewed report of the Building Seven report that NIST produced. Couldn’t reproduce it. Said it wasn’t possible.

 

And the only way that the building could come down like that was to remove eight floors of columns simultaneously all throughout the building. Which is a description of what happens in controlled demolition!

 

Engineers Have Been Betrayed by Our Professional Leadership

top

 

So, yeah, we’ve been betrayed by our professional leadership. They have their reasons for doing. So they have connections with the federal government. They have contracts, they have prestigious positions. They have a lot to answer for.

 

And unfortunately, I don’t think we can rely on them to come forward spontaneously. They haven’t done so in 21 years.

 

So we’re going to have to make the record and hope that at some point in the future, sooner than later, we’re going to begin to get some answers about who was influenced, how they were influenced, and that trail can lead back up to the perpetrators.

 

[49:07]

 

Andy Steele: That’s right. You mentioned about how our supporters funded the World Trade Center Seven study out of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. I want someday, when this is acknowledged, when this is out there in the open and get the proper prosecutions, I’m not pessimistic. I think it’s going to happen. But I want those people who donated to that project to get some kind of tax break or whatever, because if you think about it, their tax money already went towards paying for the NIST Reports, and what they got in return was a bunch of garbage!

 

So they had to pay again just to get an accurate report on the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

 

And that’s another thing, this is a reputable engineering school, prestigious one. And now you’ve got this report out of there that completely contradicts what NIST puts out. And these professional associations just act like:

 

“Oh well, whatever, it’s nothing!”

 

But that’s a huge deal! Two different reports with two different conclusions. I mean, someone should sit down and rectify why they’re coming out with these two different conclusions, but they have no interest in doing this.

 

So we have to do the work of the government for them! And what we are doing is we’re recreating the country. We’re creating a new culture here through AE911 Truth, through the Internet. And it’s not just with this issue, but other issues as well. We are undermining the system. Nobody takes the mainstream media seriously anymore. Nobody takes the politicians seriously anymore. I don’t think anybody even respects the people in the White House, regardless of what party they’re from or out there in Congress. They’re just sort of there! They’re just sort of like we’re all kids in a school and nobody likes the principal.

 

So we’re just all sort of doing whatever we can get away with here, as long as it’s ethical and good. But we’re basically talking about these issues and bringing it out there on the Internet, and then they try to ban us or mess with the algorithms. And I don’t know how all that specifically works, but to keep messages like this out there and it’s not going to work. People are wising up and they know that there’s problems with things like September 11.

 

And I also like how you mentioned too, about supposedly this engineer on the street that is seeing that Building Seven is going to come down. And I mean, even BBC is predicting it, 20 minutes before it happens.

 

But it’s an unprecedented event and everybody’s evacuated from the building. And all of this is happening on the inside of the building. According to NIST, these Beams pushing the girder off it’s seat, is happening on the inside of the building. Nobody can see it yet. They’re predicting that this is all going to come crashing down. It doesn’t make sense on its face!

 

[51:51]

 

So here we are over 20 years later Roland, we’ve got a lot of problems going on in this country. Insane division among the political parties. We got inflation has just gone crazy! It’s like $8 for a medium cup of ice cream at the Dairy Queen right now. That’s how I measure inflation.

 

We’ve got I mean, the very first time I’ve ever been nervous about nuclear war breaking out in my entire lifetime. A lot of major issues going on, but here we are every week coming back to 9/11 Free Fall, talking about some buildings that came down back in 2001. I mean, what are we crazy or something? With all this stuff going on, why are we focusing on this still and writing books about it, not just doing the same show, but inventing new shows about it? Answer that question.

 

The Importance of 911 Truth

top

 

Why do we need to keep on beating on this, even in spite of everything that is going on elsewhere in the world? Why does it all come back down to what happened to these buildings on 9/11? And how can that set us straight as a country?

 

Roland Angle: Why do we study history? Why is there an academic department in every university that attempts to explain what happened in the past? It’s important. Unless we understand what happened in the past, we can’t understand how we got to where we are today. If we have a faulty understanding of the past, our understanding of our present circumstances will be faulty as well.

 

So that’s why we study history. The old saying:

 

“Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.”

 

Is an old saying, because it’s true. You have to understand what happened, or you’re going to be making the same mistakes that were made in the past. Mistakes were made in the past. Mistakes are made today. How are they related? Unless we understand?

 

Simply as professional engineers you go to school, you go to college, you go to university, they teach you subjects that are really nothing more than the compilation of all the studies and the experience of all the engineers that came before you in history. Why do they do that? Why not just start over fresh?

 

Well, the reason why they do that is because there’s a lot of lessons that were learned there. And those lessons, a lot of them were painful, and they came out of failures. And in the effort to understand those failures, studies were made, and a greater understanding of what was happening came out of that study. And then things got better.

 

[54:48]

 

The engineers that went forward from that point didn’t make those same mistakes anymore because they were trained. They knew better. That’s the process!

 

If we think that steel frame buildings can be brought down by fires, alone, and we go forward with that knowledge and that understanding, we’re going to be doing things wrong. We don’t think that’s true! We think it flies in the face of all the reasons why engineers built steel frame buildings out of steel. If that isn’t true, we’ve got a real problem.

 

And unfortunately, right now, our professional organizations are turning a blind eye to this contradiction. And we can’t allow that. As painful as it might be, as difficult as it might be to understand what really happened, we’ve got to face it! If we don’t face it, there’s more pain ahead.

 

When You Run Away and Hide Your Head in the Sand, Things Only Get Worse

top

 

And literally, 9/11 opened the 21st century, and it seems as if it’s a century that seems to be bound up in one catastrophe after the other. If it’s not financial, it’s political, it’s military, it’s technological. We have so many problems, we’ve got to deal with them. And we’re not going to deal with them by hiding from the truth, no matter how painful it might be, unfortunately. It would be nice if we could run away and stick our head in the sand and everything would just turn out fine. But that’s not the way things work. When you run away and hide your head in the sand, things only get worse.

 

So that’s what we’re doing. That’s why we call it Project Due Diligence. We’re doing our due diligence. And we’re doing our best to bring that word to our professional colleagues and to the public at large. And hopefully we can come to some sort of an understanding that we have to reinvestigate this matter. It’s not a dead historical issue. It affects our future and it has affected our present.

 

Andy Steele: Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but the book is called Engineering the 9/11 Cover-up: How the World Trade Center Evidence was Kept Secret from the World. We’ll be talking a lot about that in the next coming months and year. And of course, we’ll make that available when it’s finished and be sharing that far and wide. Roland, thank you for doing Project Due Diligence, taking up this project and of course, coming on 9/11 Free Fall today.

 

Roland Angle: It’s been my honor, Andy, to work with all of you and all the other engineers and the researchers that have collected this information and made this record, and we’re going to take it now and make a hard copy out of it so that we can use it going forward.

 

[57:55]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 9/12/2023 = 186)

@qwerty90615
3 months ago
Brave and ethical engineers, voicing reasonable concerns, at great personal risk.
24

@jacobnichols4907
3 months ago
After 9/11 I trust no one. I was 21 on that day now I’m 42 with 2 kids 9 &13. I home school and did a whole 2 week lesson on false flags.
64

8 replies

@raymondjames5035
3 months ago
The Hearst newspaper chain started the Spanish-American War to grow readership.
9

@1DaTJo
3 months ago
Your kids are going to be such great adults!
11

@12TwoHit12ThreeHit
3 months ago
Great comment, sir! I was sitting in a university Chemistry class when I got the news. I’m 43 now. One of the strangest “facts” that always stuck out to me (besides building 7 falling due to sporadic office fires) was an FBI agent finding one of the hijacker’s passports, undamaged, on the sidewalk. That, along with all the put options placed on the airlines, reeks of an inside job. I have zero faith in our Alphabet agencies now, and it’s sad I have to say that. Have a good one!
12

@TheMountainGoat
2 months ago
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the building and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
1. Building 3 (Marriot Hotel) – 14 Survivors – It was a 22-story building – 90% of that building completely went away, all the way to ground level and the 10% of it that was still standing (about 3 floors of the stub left standing) is where these 14 people survived.
2. Building 4 – 9 stories – 75% of it, also went away – all the way to ground level – Poof gone. There was virtually no rubble on this building, except for a small remnant of the building.
3. Building 5 – 9 stories – Had cylindrical holes in it, 24 feet wide, that went all the way to ground level. Once again, virtually no falling debris ended up on top of this building.
4. Building 6 – 8 stories – Had the middle of it scooped out, all the way to ground level as well as 13 cylindrical holes, 24 feet in diameter on the edges and close to the scooped-out centre of the building and all these holes went down to ground level. The centre hole in this building had MINIMAL RUBBLE inside it, it was virtually EMPTY!
5. Building 7 – 47 stories or 4 and a half Titanic’s’ stacked on top of one another – Was frothing away the whole day until just the outer skin of the building was left and at 5:20pm SILENTLY fell into its own footprint, it left the seismic reading of just 0.6 on the Richter scale, equal to just 2 stories hitting the ground.
6. The Twin Towers – 16 Survivors (“9/11 surfer” included) – 110 stories, equal to 10 Titanic’s in weight, stacked on top of one another. The survivors heard no loud explosions, no flashes of bright light, no molten steel raining on them, they did not go blind or deaf due to light flashes or explosions, they weren’t hit by falling debris – POOF they are gone into a HUGE DUST cloud. The seismic readings were that of a 20 and 16 story building hitting the ground respectively – Why was it so low?
7. Bankers Trust Building – (Across the street from the WTC complex) Was heavily damaged and rebuilt, just to be completely taken apart 5 years later due some lingering aftereffects affecting the structure of the steel in the building. Show me how a building that was not hit by a plane, had no office fires, because something affects the steel in the building?
Why has the 9/11 truther movement been “distracting” from all these points and why would the main talking heads, Richard Gage and AE911Truth, only be focussing on WTC 7 for the last 8 years, ignoring everything I’ve pointed out and never discuss the lack of seismic reading for WTC 7 hitting the ground? If you believe the official government narrative that it is all due to some jet fuel and office fires, then you have some serious problems in your thinking.
Has the 9/11 “truther” movement forgotten about ALL 7 WTC buildings that had massive anomalies that don’t fit the NIST Report and the “9/11 truth” movement’s THEORIES regarding “controlled demolition”, squib explosives, nukes, or mini nukes?
Can’t the 9/11 “truther” movement count past 3?
8 x Buildings were affected, why only focus on those three for the last 14 years?
Why have they not intensely investigated the observable evidence that was left at the crime scene that was ground zero?
the 9/11 “truther” movement keep on asking for an “independent forensic study” of WHAT happened at the WTC complex, when such an “independent forensic study” has been done and the EVIDENCE was submitted as high up as the Supreme court of America, via a Qui-Tam case against NIST and the subcontractors who wrote the NIST Report, for SCIENCE FRAUD, way back in 2009!
If this court case was heard and not illegally dismissed by the judge, the governmental subcontractors with links to advanced weaponry, who were tasked with the secured clean-up operations at ground zero and tasked with helping to write the FRAUDULENT NIST Report, these companies would have been DEPOSED back in 2009 already!
14 years of theories by the “9/11 truth” movement have been regurgitated to a point of exhaustion and it is currently turning into a waste of time, as they aren’t bringing anything new to the table.
Why does the 9/11 “truther” movement censor anyone who brings this up and why is the 9/11 “truther” movement keeping mum about this 2009 Qui-Tam case?
Are we not searching for truth about WHAT happened to those buildings with a WTC prefix?
Time for the 9/11 “truther” movement to stop focussing on just 3 buildings, when indeed there was MAJOR anomalies with 8 BUILDINGS!
Why aren’t you talking about the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Why not discuss the anomalous Banker’s Trust building, that was repaired, just to be dismantled a few years later due to the integrity of the steel that was waning? What does that?
I suggest anyone wanting to investigate the 9/11 orphans, to have a look for the documentary “9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality” and decide for yourself what the agenda of the 9/11 “truther” movement and really is. Also look for the documentary series “9/11 The Essential guide” which you can also find on this Odysee channel. – @911revisited:7

Antonio Garmsci
3 weeks ago
I became a Federal Marshal after that day!
1

@growthandunderstanding
3 weeks ago
Bravo and awesome! You children are fortunate to have you as a parent!

@strongfoot2009
3 months ago
An excellent job folks: continue doing what is right.
36

@StressMats
3 months ago
I was 8 years old when this happened and can remember the day, setting and reactions of the people I were around. I even remember my dad which is a clever engineer replaying the fall and telling me that it is impossible. He was inside one of the buildings earlier the same year.
25

1 reply

@garybryson1900
3 months ago
To keep people quiet you offer them money AND you threaten them. I’m sure that is what has happened.
34

5 replies

@747fa
3 months ago
I tend to think it is the fear factor that is very persuasive in regard to 9/11.
8

@kindGSL
3 months ago
Plus the Epstein blackmail machine.

@louislemire6691
3 weeks ago
My theory is that they weren’t in the loop. They did what the were told, no questions asked.

@garybryson1900
3 weeks ago
@louislemire6691 That’s probably true of some people.

@gregharrison3289
3 months ago
Everyone’s local obituaries silently speak of a horrible crime that’s been committed & is still ongoing.
Engineering leadership failure in part begot medical leadership failure.
17

@irukandji2246
3 months ago
great to see your esteemed org still uploading videos!
16

@EJ-74
3 months ago
Thanks for exposing the truth
27

@-LightningRod-
3 months ago
We need Good LEADERS,…
LEADERS like Roland Angle.
Your attempt to shine light on an anomaly will illuminate much more than a simple failure of your organization’s Leadership shortcomings.
I am grateful for Your efforts and the choice to share this information.
10

@dietrichwecker942
3 months ago
Excellent work, thank you guys!
11

@aprilholton1150
2 months ago
My heart goes out to everyone affected by this horror, which is a lot of people!! God bless you for your tenacity and efforts in getting the truth out. Some will never see it, some already know and some may wake up someday. One thing I know, God knows the truth and the ones responsible will face justice on judgement day! I wish we could see justice here in our lifetime but it is doubtful. God bless you all to overcome till the end
3

@streetwisepioneers4470
3 months ago
You guys are phenomenal!
8

@lionelfischer8240
3 months ago
Thank you from France. We also paid here for the liers through assurances fees. Billions of dollars stolen from so many companies…
8

@h2opower
3 months ago
For me I am tired of those in high places getting away with murder and other high crimes and misdemeanors. If it were you or me behind these demolitions of the buildings we’d have a jail named after us by now. Because of these events over 1 million people died and even more have been affected by those events in a negative way. Since murder has no statute of limitations those responsible need to be brought to justice.
10

4 replies

@Frannie12
3 months ago
As you probably know, it didn’t start on that day. Great book (yes it’s long) called JFK and the Unspeakable by Douglass…..same patterns, a legacy within our institutions.
2

@clinteranovic8075
2 months ago
There was no controlled demolition. That is a stupid idea. You know why it’s a stupid idea? Because it would be a stupid idea to do it, or even consider doing or even coming up with the idea of doing it. It’s a stupid idiotic idea that would never work, that could never be hidden or covered up, besides the fact that it would be a pointless idiotic idea to do it in the first place. Roland Angle and all these other people though don’t consider that. They think they don’t have to.

@jonhjlundarnfred3248
2 months ago (edited)
​ @clinteranovic8075 Ok, then let’s consider it for a while. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of someone or a group of individuals who would consider doing such a thing. Whether it’s a stupid idea (and hence not to be done) is proportionally related to what we estimate we are to gain from doing it, it’s overall implications, and our abilities to carry out the action. Strictly speaking whether an action is “worth” the risk depends on the outcome, and therefore indirectly our ability to control the outcome. So what might look completely idiotic from one perspective, may be very rational for us (in a cold calculated sense), it solely depends on our objectives and resources.
A cascade of events in world history followed this event, and someone stood to benefit from these events. So for someone it might have been “worth” doing. In regards to the ability to cover something up, many people who believe it was a controlled demolition don’t think that the evidence is well covered, but in plein open sight. Our goal in such a case is not to cover it up completely, but to cover it up sufficiently. Today most people probably don’t think it was a controlled demolition, but again most people haven’t looked that deeply into it.
3

@danhumphrey5755
3 months ago
Larry Fink, Larry Silverstein, Dick Cheney, the Bush crime family, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Rumsfeld, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX…
18

2 replies

@thesoundsmith
3 months ago
A list of targets? Good job.

@jairoacosta2894
3 months ago
“The truth is the truth, even when it is too painful. If we not know the truth, to correct the error we are to repeat it..”
7

1 reply

@thesoundsmith
3 months ago
Well, i think THIS one is pretty safe from a repeat.

@martyalmberg9317
3 months ago
Great job! you guys are determined.
3

@Turdfergusen382
3 months ago
Good luck with the new show. Thanks for the time Roland. Keep carrying the torch forward.
2

@buckmaster7185
3 months ago
Here is another fact that y’all do not report about, which is both a mitigation against the official pretext and motive. Most girders were fireproofed by asbestos and the cost to remediate was prohibitive. Instead, they made $Billions from insurance and let the citizens of New York suffer with chronic, if not ultimately fatal mesothelioma.
12

2 replies

@CinemaStudies1
3 months ago
I’m glad Roland is at the helm now … a brilliant guy.
7

@raymondjames5035
3 months ago
In Sept 2016 Lloyd’s of London filed suit against the Saudi royal family for the planes lost in 9/11. It was quickly settled so the evidence was never exposed.
9

1 reply

@davepowell7168
3 months ago (edited)
15 years ‘quickly’..
1

@waynedaves5089
3 months ago
Yes, that’s the point. We have to investigate who said the building was coming down? Great work as always. naming names is a must
1

@tdc8795
3 months ago
How many building codes changed due to the 9/11 event? Aren’t all steel framed buildings now at risk for total collapse because of fire?
20

2 replies

@thesoundsmith
3 months ago
If NIST were correct…
3

@russellherdson5763
1 month ago
Roland is the right man for this job. Respect.

@ShillDozer
3 months ago
“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.”
Maurice Samuel
10

1 reply

@TNG_Klingons
3 months ago

1

@FreeCorps1984
3 months ago
Recently watched Seven and this is a great follow up. Gonna try to pass it along
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
A discussion has started in the comments that perhaps Andy and Roland would like to give their views
on.
This 90 second video shows the collapse zone in wtc2 and illustrates the point in question:

The question is, can we really expect that the falling section of the buildings would neatly align with the standing section, so that core columns would land back on core columns, and wall panels land on wall panels?
Or is the possibility that core columns and wall panels would be pushed sideways, while cross bracing structures would be loaded vertically rather than horizontally?
All comments welcome

@PuffensPuffens
3 months ago (edited)
YES! This must be the Crime of the Century! “Pull it down” -Larry S
4

@chineechik
3 months ago
One of the better videos produced
1

@mikeklassic78
3 months ago
Funny I was just talking this with a coworker….they said ” oh that was a long time ago”…an folks wonder why were currently goin to hell in a hand basket!
4

1 reply

@psikeyhackr6914
3 months ago
I searched the NCSTAR1 report for ‘concrete’. It appeared more than 3,000 times though less than 4,000. I read every paragraph using concrete. The NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers though sources before 9/11 say 425,000 cubic yards for both towers.
Those previous sources report 200,000 tons of steel with which the NIST agrees. So why is there agreement on the steel but not the concrete? That concrete would have to affect the collapse time if it was just mass impacting mass because of the conservation of momentum.
7

3 replies

@qwerty90615
3 months ago (edited)
The pulverization of the concrete, reportedly extreme in its totality, represents a quantity of energy consumed during the destruction. How does this compare to the officially recognized potential energy of the purely gravity-driven destruction? That potential energy is the integral of mgh. Both of these quantities it appears are easily determined within a margin of error.
I pity the present engineering professors who must face inquiring young minds, and dare not speak truth.

@Interdiction
3 months ago
@qwerty90615 I have ZERO pity for anyone who does not tell the truth
1

@qwerty90615
3 months ago
@Interdiction Truth absolutists tend toward self-deceit. This is an observation confirmed in many aspects of human activity. An engineering professor who did what Professor Hulsey was able to do is extremely rare. I deeply admire him.
1

@davidmudry5622
3 months ago
Steel Can’t Change Its Role
The steel components in a building are there to make up the support that prevents collapse, but here NIST tells us that the steel changed its role from preventing a collapse to one of abetting a collapse. NIST is crazy.
NIST FAQ 31 Answer:-
” Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
6

6 replies

@davidmudry5622
2 months ago
@clinteranovic8075 When your head goes upward and hits the steel column that is standing still in mid air, it will kill you. When 95 floors with its massive inertia goes upward into the upper 15 floors of much less inertia, who wins? NIST wants you to believe that the inertia from above took the inertia from below to use as its own. LOL https://youtu.be/MxE8N5IAFWg

@TheMountainGoat
2 months ago
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the building and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
1. Building 3 (Marriot Hotel) – 14 Survivors – It was a 22-story building – 90% of that building completely went away, all the way to ground level and the 10% of it that was still standing (about 3 floors of the stub left standing) is where these 14 people survived.
2. Building 4 – 9 stories – 75% of it, also went away – all the way to ground level – Poof gone. There was virtually no rubble on this building, except for a small remnant of the building.
3. Building 5 – 9 stories – Had cylindrical holes in it, 24 feet wide, that went all the way to ground level. Once again, virtually no falling debris ended up on top of this building.
4. Building 6 – 8 stories – Had the middle of it scooped out, all the way to ground level as well as 13 cylindrical holes, 24 feet in diameter on the edges and close to the scooped-out centre of the building and all these holes went down to ground level. The centre hole in this building had MINIMAL RUBBLE inside it, it was virtually EMPTY!
5. Building 7 – 47 stories or 4 and a half Titanic’s’ stacked on top of one another – Was frothing away the whole day until just the outer skin of the building was left and at 5:20pm SILENTLY fell into its own footprint, it left the seismic reading of just 0.6 on the Richter scale, equal to just 2 stories hitting the ground.
6. The Twin Towers – 16 Survivors (“9/11 surfer” included) – 110 stories, equal to 10 Titanic’s in weight, stacked on top of one another. The survivors heard no loud explosions, no flashes of bright light, no molten steel raining on them, they did not go blind or deaf due to light flashes or explosions, they weren’t hit by falling debris – POOF they are gone into a HUGE DUST cloud. The seismic readings were that of a 20 and 16 story building hitting the ground respectively – Why was it so low?
7. Bankers Trust Building – (Across the street from the WTC complex) Was heavily damaged and rebuilt, just to be completely taken apart 5 years later due some lingering aftereffects affecting the structure of the steel in the building. Show me how a building that was not hit by a plane, had no office fires, because something affects the steel in the building?
Why has the 9/11 truther movement been “distracting” from all these points and why would the main talking heads, Richard Gage and AE911Truth, only be focussing on WTC 7 for the last 8 years, ignoring everything I’ve pointed out and never discuss the lack of seismic reading for WTC 7 hitting the ground? If you believe the official government narrative that it is all due to some jet fuel and office fires, then you have some serious problems in your thinking.
Has the 9/11 “truther” movement forgotten about ALL 7 WTC buildings that had massive anomalies that don’t fit the NIST Report and the “9/11 truth” movement’s THEORIES regarding “controlled demolition”, squib explosives, nukes, or mini nukes?
Can’t the 9/11 “truther” movement count past 3?
8 x Buildings were affected, why only focus on those three for the last 14 years?
Why have they not intensely investigated the observable evidence that was left at the crime scene that was ground zero?
the 9/11 “truther” movement keep on asking for an “independent forensic study” of WHAT happened at the WTC complex, when such an “independent forensic study” has been done and the EVIDENCE was submitted as high up as the Supreme court of America, via a Qui-Tam case against NIST and the subcontractors who wrote the NIST Report, for SCIENCE FRAUD, way back in 2009!
If this court case was heard and not illegally dismissed by the judge, the governmental subcontractors with links to advanced weaponry, who were tasked with the secured clean-up operations at ground zero and tasked with helping to write the FRAUDULENT NIST Report, these companies would have been DEPOSED back in 2009 already!
14 years of theories by the “9/11 truth” movement have been regurgitated to a point of exhaustion and it is currently turning into a waste of time, as they aren’t bringing anything new to the table.
Why does the 9/11 “truther” movement censor anyone who brings this up and why is the 9/11 “truther” movement keeping mum about this 2009 Qui-Tam case?
Are we not searching for truth about WHAT happened to those buildings with a WTC prefix?
Time for the 9/11 “truther” movement to stop focussing on just 3 buildings, when indeed there was MAJOR anomalies with 8 BUILDINGS!
Why aren’t you talking about the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Why not discuss the anomalous Banker’s Trust building, that was repaired, just to be dismantled a few years later due to the integrity of the steel that was waning? What does that?
I suggest anyone wanting to investigate the 9/11 orphans, to have a look for the documentary “9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality” and decide for yourself what the agenda of the 9/11 “truther” movement and really is. Also look for the documentary series “9/11 The Essential guide” which you can also find on this Odysee channel. – @911revisited:7

@davidmudry5622
2 months ago
@TheMountainGoat The WTC buildings closest to the twin towers, WTC 3-4-5-6, were heavily damaged and were roaring infernos, but none suffered total collapse. The Deutsche Bank building suffered more damage than building 7 did since it was closer to the south tower than building 7 was to the north tower.

@Blue-qr7qe
3 months ago
Thank you, Mr. Angle –
3

@sladwig4094
3 months ago (edited)
47 interior columns x 4 connections per column x 110 floors = 20,000 bolted and/or welded connections.
5” deep concrete floors x 110 levels high can be visualized as a solid block of concrete 45 feet tall and almost as long and wide as a football field. Somehow this mass of concrete turned into dust before it hit the ground.
3

2 replies

@organboi
3 months ago
True. You can see it turning ans churning into dust before hitting the ground.

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
What percentage of it turned into dust before it hot the ground?

@LuigiTrapanese
3 months ago
Can we get Corbett on this show?
10

1 reply

@LuigiTrapanese
3 months ago
Also Mazzucco, the author of “9 11 new pearl harbor”
7

@Frannie12
3 months ago
Interesting comment about precedent. Turning point was 11/22/63 in Dallas.
4

1 reply

@kindGSL
3 months ago
We have had so many. When you study the history, you see it is a string of them one after another. They just keep doing them over and over.
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
7. 43 mins Talking about building 7 Roland says ; “I don’t think they want to discus, because they don’t wish to discuss it.” A few minutes later he said that it is the kind of event that piques the curiosity. He then says this “Is something engineers should be all over.”
Will you be presenting any videos about Building 5 and Building 6 in the future?
Do these partial collapses pique your curiosity?
Do AE9/11Truth believe the partial collapses were caused by fires or demolition explosion?

@jerryplenda381
3 months ago
Philip Zelikow managed the 911 commission information.
6

@mikebyrd8278
2 months ago
So how did your supposed explosives cause the exterior walls to be pulled inward moments before the building collapsed??
How did they put explosives exactly where the Jets hit???
How did the explosives survive the impact of the Jets and the fire???

@davidmudry5622
3 months ago
Kissinger turned 100 today lucky Larry turns 92 in 3 days
7

1 reply

@TNG_Klingons
3 months ago
I suspect the towers were wired to well before Larry’s purchase and insurance policy.
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
3 months ago
Andy and Roland, I think that you are well justified in expecting other organisations to be open and honest, and to expect them to be prepared to answer questions of a technical nature.
The cost of this is of course that AE9/11Truth also take that approach.
So for example (21m30s) you Roland raise the issue of witnesses reporting explosions, and of recordings of explosions.
In return may I ask you to make a compilations of the recordings so we can judge for ourselves. I have watched many without hearing any explosions, the video from the Hudson river has good sound quality, so you might start with that one.
Also will you explain why the survivors in stairwell B didn’t report any explosions despite apparently being in close proximity to the one listed as registering 2.3 on the Richter scale ?
Also why the vast majority of those interviewed did not report hearing any explosions, or using language ‘indicative of hearing’ explosions?
With thanks,
Simon
3

25 replies

@davidmudry5622
3 months ago
Steel Can’t Change Its Role
The steel components in a building are there to make up the support that prevents collapse, but here NIST tells us that the steel changed its role from preventing a collapse to one of abetting a collapse. NIST is crazy.
NIST FAQ 31 Answer:-
” Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
2

@noelleleger232
3 months ago
The term inertia comes from the Latin word iners meaning idle, referring to the amount of resistance an object has to a change in its velocity.
The INERTIA of the top 14 floors, being constructed for obvious reasons out of the thinnest steel in the tower, then collapses onto the 96 floors below that are constructed out of heavier stronger thicker steel (like a pyramid from top to bottom if you will) and the lower 96 floors would therefore have a lot more INERTIA than the top 14 floors. The idea that NIST says the small INERTIA above kept getting larger while the large INERTIA below kept getting smaller, is just laughable.
NIST WTC FAQ 31 ” As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

@simonthorneycroft1339
3 months ago
@noelleleger232 I don’t always believe what NIST have to say, but if the falling elements of the upper floors, break apart the material at the top of the towers, releasing those to fall, then the amount of material falling will increase. Do you agree?

@noelleleger232
3 months ago
@simonthorneycroft1339 I disagree. Anything falling has to meet resistance. The forces in those collisions will be equal, hammer hits nail & nail removes energy from the hammer.
1

@kindGSL
3 months ago
@simonthorneycroft1339 My favorite video of 9/11 is a short clip where you can actually see the spires of broken columns turn into dust and evaporate. It is the most amazing thing ever. Evaporating steel. Wow, I wonder how that happened. It was not glowing, just turning into dust. When a tower of dominos falls, NONE of them are destroyed.

@simonthorneycroft1339
3 months ago
@kindGSL I am aware of the footage and the claim that steel was turned to dust.
I don’t think that the thermite and high explosive model espoused by AE9/11T agrees that this happened, it seems more of claim by those who believe in the directed energy weapon model. Is that your view of it?
What do you think caused the steel to turn to dust?
Also what kind of dust? Steel dust?
Simon

@simonthorneycroft1339
3 months ago
@kindGSL Maybe a couple of things to consider if you think that steel core columns were turned to dust:
What was supporting the core columns just prior to them collapsing and why were the structures holding them up not affected by whatever was turning the columns you could see into dust?
The dust created by the collapse was analysed – what did the analysis show in terms of steel dust?
Has the mechanism used to turn the steel to dust subsequently (20 years later) been used in other industries or weapons systems?
If a steel beam is covered in dust, and then falls along its own axis, will it leave a trail of dust in the air where the column was previously standing?
If steel dust is as dense as steel, how long would it remain in the air?

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
@kindGSL Do you have an explanation as to how the steel core columns turned to dust, and what the dust was made of?

@nunyabisnis1448
2 months ago
Bobby Mcelveen ,Geoff Campbell, what happened to those guys ?
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
@nunyabisnis1448 I don’t know, what did happen to them?

@alwagner9722
2 months ago
​ @simonthorneycroft1339 your analogy is comparing the wtc tower to a stack of dominoes?
Let’s try this; you build a scaled down replica of North tower, say 20 ft. high.
With every bit of the structure scaled down precisely. Then you cut off the top 15 floors above the so called damaged area. That top portion is then raised 10 ft in the air and dropped on top of the existing, undamaged part.
You really think that top section is going to crush and pulverize the rest of the building?
Keep in mind, the actual collapse didn’t have the benefit of the top portion lifting up above the tower. It just sat there, somehow gave out, crushing pulverizing the tower, according to NIST, “essentially at free fall.”
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
@alwagner9722 An interesting question.
Firstly, neither the North or South Towers collapsed essentially at Freefall according to David Chandler’s calculations, they fell at 66% of freefall.
Putting that aside, let us take away the big drop you describe, and try this;
Imagine from your model above that you build the model up to the 87th floor, then in a slightly random pattern build up sections of the next 5 floors with material that is half the strength it should be to mimic the floors weekend by the fires.
Then with the upper section of the building do the same kind of thing with the structure upside down, so that when you turn it over the two sections more or less match up.
Then you lift up the top section and turn it the right way up over the bottom section.
You then lower this sections until it is almost touching the bottom section, and misalign the two sections very slightly to allow for the fact that the building as heated unevenly, the steel might have expanded, shrunk, twisted or folded when softened by the heat.
Would that be a fair starting point for your experiment?

@alwagner9722
2 months ago
@simonthorneycroft1339 that was kind of a gobbledygook theoretical scenario.
I was implying that even if you were to pick up the top section and drop it on top of the rest of the building, you or anyone else would see the logical scenario that it would be impossible to crush/ pulverize and turn the majority of the building and almost all of its office contents into a pyroclastic flow, like that of a volcano, see? Where’s the momentum/ forces / energy coming from, since it’s just a “progressive gravitational collapse”? I’m no expert but you appear to be in denial- or your cognitive dissonance is clouding your reality.
As for rate of collapse goes, I’m just going by NIST’S own words. Though I do admire Chandler’s work, as far as the 9/11 truth movement goes, especially with WTC 7.

@TheMountainGoat
2 months ago
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the building and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
1. Building 3 (Marriot Hotel) – 14 Survivors – It was a 22-story building – 90% of that building completely went away, all the way to ground level and the 10% of it that was still standing (about 3 floors of the stub left standing) is where these 14 people survived.
2. Building 4 – 9 stories – 75% of it, also went away – all the way to ground level – Poof gone. There was virtually no rubble on this building, except for a small remnant of the building.
3. Building 5 – 9 stories – Had cylindrical holes in it, 24 feet wide, that went all the way to ground level. Once again, virtually no falling debris ended up on top of this building.
4. Building 6 – 8 stories – Had the middle of it scooped out, all the way to ground level as well as 13 cylindrical holes, 24 feet in diameter on the edges and close to the scooped-out centre of the building and all these holes went down to ground level. The centre hole in this building had MINIMAL RUBBLE inside it, it was virtually EMPTY!
5. Building 7 – 47 stories or 4 and a half Titanic’s’ stacked on top of one another – Was frothing away the whole day until just the outer skin of the building was left and at 5:20pm SILENTLY fell into its own footprint, it left the seismic reading of just 0.6 on the Richter scale, equal to just 2 stories hitting the ground.
6. The Twin Towers – 16 Survivors (“9/11 surfer” included) – 110 stories, equal to 10 Titanic’s in weight, stacked on top of one another. The survivors heard no loud explosions, no flashes of bright light, no molten steel raining on them, they did not go blind or deaf due to light flashes or explosions, they weren’t hit by falling debris – POOF they are gone into a HUGE DUST cloud. The seismic readings were that of a 20 and 16 story building hitting the ground respectively – Why was it so low?
7. Bankers Trust Building – (Across the street from the WTC complex) Was heavily damaged and rebuilt, just to be completely taken apart 5 years later due some lingering aftereffects affecting the structure of the steel in the building. Show me how a building that was not hit by a plane, had no office fires, because something affects the steel in the building?
Why has the 9/11 truther movement been “distracting” from all these points and why would the main talking heads, Richard Gage and AE911Truth, only be focussing on WTC 7 for the last 8 years, ignoring everything I’ve pointed out and never discuss the lack of seismic reading for WTC 7 hitting the ground? If you believe the official government narrative that it is all due to some jet fuel and office fires, then you have some serious problems in your thinking.
Has the 9/11 “truther” movement forgotten about ALL 7 WTC buildings that had massive anomalies that don’t fit the NIST Report and the “9/11 truth” movement’s THEORIES regarding “controlled demolition”, squib explosives, nukes, or mini nukes?
Can’t the 9/11 “truther” movement count past 3?
8 x Buildings were affected, why only focus on those three for the last 14 years?
Why have they not intensely investigated the observable evidence that was left at the crime scene that was ground zero?
the 9/11 “truther” movement keep on asking for an “independent forensic study” of WHAT happened at the WTC complex, when such an “independent forensic study” has been done and the EVIDENCE was submitted as high up as the Supreme court of America, via a Qui-Tam case against NIST and the subcontractors who wrote the NIST Report, for SCIENCE FRAUD, way back in 2009!
If this court case was heard and not illegally dismissed by the judge, the governmental subcontractors with links to advanced weaponry, who were tasked with the secured clean-up operations at ground zero and tasked with helping to write the FRAUDULENT NIST Report, these companies would have been DEPOSED back in 2009 already!
14 years of theories by the “9/11 truth” movement have been regurgitated to a point of exhaustion and it is currently turning into a waste of time, as they aren’t bringing anything new to the table.
Why does the 9/11 “truther” movement censor anyone who brings this up and why is the 9/11 “truther” movement keeping mum about this 2009 Qui-Tam case?
Are we not searching for truth about WHAT happened to those buildings with a WTC prefix?
Time for the 9/11 “truther” movement to stop focussing on just 3 buildings, when indeed there was MAJOR anomalies with 8 BUILDINGS!
Why aren’t you talking about the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Why not discuss the anomalous Banker’s Trust building, that was repaired, just to be dismantled a few years later due to the integrity of the steel that was waning? What does that?
I suggest anyone wanting to investigate the 9/11 orphans, to have a look for the documentary “9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality” and decide for yourself what the agenda of the 9/11 “truther” movement and really is. Also look for the documentary series “9/11 The Essential guide” which you can also find on this Odysee channel. – @911revisited:7 – You are being fooled.

@russellhodin1382
2 weeks ago
@simonthorneycroft1339 , obviously the domino tower is not falling at anything resembling a free-fall rate, in contrast to Buildings 1, 2 and 7, which did so for a portion of their collapse, a physical impossibility and at odds with your physics explanation

@davidmudry5622
2 weeks ago
NIST Oxymoron?
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show…
”Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance the building section above came down essentially in free fall*, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further *increasing the demand on the floors below.”
Essentially in free fall = LESS DEMAND on the floors below. https://youtu.be/pwx12kwgOAM?t=338

@ClaudioMarty911
3 months ago
Thank you.
4

@DorksterJr
3 months ago
C’mon, Morty, that was decades ago now. We’re on the same team. What’s good for the Rick is good for the Morty. Trust in the trickle.

@redroseofsummer2979
3 months ago
What date is the book being released ?

@jamesdunn1434
3 months ago
The Yinon Plan of 1982 , The Greater Israel Project and PNAC
6

@johnbelden-br3hw
3 months ago
I saw Michael c Ruppert speak in grass valley ca and he was talking about Paul wellstones plane being brought down
2

@miket8250
3 months ago
Covered? You mean committed. Where did the Gold go?
3

@rezakarampour6286
3 months ago
‘ Solving 9-11 By Christopher Bollyn . ‘
28

6 replies

@chadthunderjock6520
3 months ago
Everyone should read that book. To my knowledge no one in the 911 truth movement has never acknowledged that book.
13

@DWayne-fk9rp
3 months ago
Here’s a link to his audiobook, Solving 911.

9

@mtm4a
3 months ago
@rezakarampour6286 – There’s a handful of people who consistently and endlessly provide this bare title and name of author under most AE911Truth uploads, but they express no opinion themselves. Are they being paid to publicise a book… or is it perhaps a video?
We already know that Christopher Bollyn provides helpful insight into the 9/11 story – his talks have been available on YouTube for years.
3

@kindGSL
3 months ago (edited)
@chadthunderjock6520 I do. I have seen him at 9/11 events in person. What there is is a competition about who is at fault for 9/11. Some people want to say Israel was involved and others refuse to accept that idea. I am one who thinks nukes were used, so pretty much no one is on my side of the argument.
2

@kindGSL
3 months ago
@mtm4a You already know about him, but for any new-by just trying to figure it out Christopher Bollyn is the absolutely BEST source to understand what happened, and not one you will ever find if no one tells you to look for him specifically.
2

@christopheklinger3217
3 months ago
I saw recently on Youtube people from PNAC (Project for aNew American Century) having a video. Comments were not allowed.
1

@FreeCorps1984
3 months ago
Lotta misinformation knocked down by Roland. Don’t need to have an engineering degree to understand that part of this. The movie Seven helps too
1

@K4ReeL187
3 months ago
52:19 why focus on events from 20 years ago…
people need to know the truth so they can proactively stop these type of events re-occurring
4

@jophoenix3919
2 months ago
I AM ILL-EDUCATED IN THE ENGINEERING FIELD, BUT THAT SAID I CAN FELLOW ENGINEERS FACRS, I WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE AND KNEW IT LIKE A PALNED DEMOLITION. THE FACTS DO NOT COME CLOSE TO ADDING UP AS TO WHY THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESERVED BUT SHIPPED TO CHINA?

@bettymobley763
3 months ago
Andy’s
1

@CreigerMcGreger
3 months ago
Is the evidence there for people to see the thruth? Yes. Is the evidence coming from mostly engineers, firefighters and pilots? Yes.
So why don’t people believe? Because they don’t want to.
You have to deal with that first before you can show them the facts.
1

3 replies

@kindGSL
3 months ago
It is the same reason why people don’t want to believe people who claim to be sexually abused. Dealing with it is just too difficult.
1

@CreigerMcGreger
3 months ago (edited)
@kindGSL good point. I think it’s important to realize. What we believe doesn’t always line up with the facts. But it’s what we can emotionally handle.

@nunyabisnis1448
2 months ago
cognitive dissonance , and its easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled!

@JohnDoe-rp3mx
10 days ago
Please enhance your sound

@bubblegumKUSH
3 months ago
#ednacintron

@CreigerMcGreger
3 months ago
Can we please. Please. Get a new interviewer.? Andy steel might be a nice guy but he is not helping your cause by being the face of the 9/11 truth movement.
1

1 reply

@CreigerMcGreger
3 months ago
It doesn’t matter how many facts you have. I can’t recommend these videos to anyone.

@geminijune5173
2 months ago
Remember the dancing Israelis

1 reply

@clinteranovic8075
2 months ago
Remember the dancing Palestinians…
1

@raymondjames5035
3 months ago
The demolition crew was getting paid at the accounting office when the missile hit the Pentagon…. Lose ends.
4

2 replies

@mancuniancandidatem
3 months ago (edited)
I think the “art students” who were living in the towers layed the explosives. They are even photographed in the towers in a room full of boxes that are labeled as fuse switches, of a type that are used in demolition.

Antonio Garmsci
3 weeks ago
You guys have NO idea how to organize!!!!

@TheMountainGoat
2 months ago
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the building and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
1. Building 3 (Marriot Hotel) – 14 Survivors – It was a 22-story building – 90% of that building completely went away, all the way to ground level and the 10% of it that was still standing (about 3 floors of the stub left standing) is where these 14 people survived.
2. Building 4 – 9 stories – 75% of it, also went away – all the way to ground level – Poof gone. There was virtually no rubble on this building, except for a small remnant of the building.
3. Building 5 – 9 stories – Had cylindrical holes in it, 24 feet wide, that went all the way to ground level. Once again, virtually no falling debris ended up on top of this building.
4. Building 6 – 8 stories – Had the middle of it scooped out, all the way to ground level as well as 13 cylindrical holes, 24 feet in diameter on the edges and close to the scooped-out centre of the building and all these holes went down to ground level. The centre hole in this building had MINIMAL RUBBLE inside it, it was virtually EMPTY!
5. Building 7 – 47 stories or 4 and a half Titanic’s’ stacked on top of one another – Was frothing away the whole day until just the outer skin of the building was left and at 5:20pm SILENTLY fell into its own footprint, it left the seismic reading of just 0.6 on the Richter scale, equal to just 2 stories hitting the ground.
6. The Twin Towers – 16 Survivors (“9/11 surfer” included) – 110 stories, equal to 10 Titanic’s in weight, stacked on top of one another. The survivors heard no loud explosions, no flashes of bright light, no molten steel raining on them, they did not go blind or deaf due to light flashes or explosions, they weren’t hit by falling debris – POOF they are gone into a HUGE DUST cloud. The seismic readings were that of a 20 and 16 story building hitting the ground respectively – Why was it so low?
7. Bankers Trust Building – (Across the street from the WTC complex) Was heavily damaged and rebuilt, just to be completely taken apart 5 years later due some lingering aftereffects affecting the structure of the steel in the building. Show me how a building that was not hit by a plane, had no office fires, because something affects the steel in the building?
Why has the 9/11 truther movement been “distracting” from all these points and why would the main talking heads, Richard Gage and AE911Truth, only be focussing on WTC 7 for the last 8 years, ignoring everything I’ve pointed out and never discuss the lack of seismic reading for WTC 7 hitting the ground? If you believe the official government narrative that it is all due to some jet fuel and office fires, then you have some serious problems in your thinking.
Has the 9/11 “truther” movement forgotten about ALL 7 WTC buildings that had massive anomalies that don’t fit the NIST Report and the “9/11 truth” movement’s THEORIES regarding “controlled demolition”, squib explosives, nukes, or mini nukes?
Can’t the 9/11 “truther” movement count past 3?
8 x Buildings were affected, why only focus on those three for the last 14 years?
Why have they not intensely investigated the observable evidence that was left at the crime scene that was ground zero?
the 9/11 “truther” movement keep on asking for an “independent forensic study” of WHAT happened at the WTC complex, when such an “independent forensic study” has been done and the EVIDENCE was submitted as high up as the Supreme court of America, via a Qui-Tam case against NIST and the subcontractors who wrote the NIST Report, for SCIENCE FRAUD, way back in 2009!
If this court case was heard and not illegally dismissed by the judge, the governmental subcontractors with links to advanced weaponry, who were tasked with the secured clean-up operations at ground zero and tasked with helping to write the FRAUDULENT NIST Report, these companies would have been DEPOSED back in 2009 already!
14 years of theories by the “9/11 truth” movement have been regurgitated to a point of exhaustion and it is currently turning into a waste of time, as they aren’t bringing anything new to the table.
Why does the 9/11 “truther” movement censor anyone who brings this up and why is the 9/11 “truther” movement keeping mum about this 2009 Qui-Tam case?
Are we not searching for truth about WHAT happened to those buildings with a WTC prefix?
Time for the 9/11 “truther” movement to stop focussing on just 3 buildings, when indeed there was MAJOR anomalies with 8 BUILDINGS!
Why aren’t you talking about the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Why not discuss the anomalous Banker’s Trust building, that was repaired, just to be dismantled a few years later due to the integrity of the steel that was waning? What does that?
I suggest anyone wanting to investigate the 9/11 orphans, to have a look for the documentary “9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality” and decide for yourself what the agenda of the 9/11 “truther” movement and really is. Also look for the documentary series “9/11 The Essential guide” which you can also find on this Odysee channel. – @911revisited:7

@coolk3dat754
3 months ago (edited)
Direct energy of some sort
1

2 replies

@organboi
3 months ago
Agreed. This is no normal demolition. Nor thermite. Why was “smoke” pouring out of Building 7 on one entire side from top to bottom well before it demolished.

@mariol8735
3 months ago
#911TruthNow
3

1 reply

@mean7429
3 months ago
Thank you.
2

 

==========================

 

See Also

top

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

============================================

 

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 8,462

• Total words in post = 17,945
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Wed, Sep 13, 2023 — Updated See Also links.

Version 1: Tue, Sep 12, 2023 — Published post. Includes Youtube comments (186).

Simon: Okay. Hello everyone! I hope the stream has started. Welcome to European Freedom livestream number 25. And this one’s called “The State of the Art”. And we’ve got some two great guests. Jeff Winston from the White Art Collective, and Nick Cotton! We were just talking about this. Not everybody knows Nick Cotton. But Nick Cotton is Unwashed, and he also is running the project Vile, Vile Media. So we’re gonna have a really interesting show.

 

But before we kind of get started before I talk about Horus’s dinner which is the traditional thing we do to start the stream. I just wanted to mention, well I just wanted to admonish listeners and subscribers, and give a shout out to a guy called “katana 17” who has a website. Let’s see if I can find a website. Yeah, here’s the katana 17 website. And what katana does is he transcribes, he uploads lots of documents, books, PDFs. But his main work has been transcribing speeches. He did various speeches of the both the PA conferences, and videos, and livestreams.

 

Basically what he’s doing is he’s documenting the intellectual basis of this movement. I think it’s incredibly important work! He’s a member of my forum, and I’ll put the forum in the chat. I’ll put various links in the chat. And we were kind of hoping when he got into the forum — I’m just putting the link in there now — that he gets some help doing this incredibly important transcription work. And I’ll put the link to his, … Yeah I mean, look at it! He’s got all this stuff here, this stuff by me, this stuff by Morgoth, Morgoth’s last video. I mean, loads and loads of really important stuff. Let me put his link in.

 

And, you know what he needs is he needs help doing this important work. I kind of get loads of people saying to me:

 

“Simon! Simon! What can I do to help?”

 

And the moment you say well something really useful would be transcribing five minutes of such and such a live stream, and helping katana with his work. And. What do you get? The sound of crickets. So I’m a little bit pissed off with people in general. I would suggest you can either go straight to his website, and he’s got instructions and you can help him by taking a piece of a live stream, or a document and using the comments section.

 

Alternatively you can go to my forum and you can interact with him there. Just sign up to the forum. And it would be nice to get a kind of community of people doing, … One of the reasons for the forum is that is to coordinate people. It’s where people have time and interact with each other. So those are your two options. Please help him! He really needs some help. It’s very, very important.

 

Anyway, after that little rant, I’ll say hello to my mate Horus first. How’s it going? What have you had for dinner today mate?

 

Horus: I had a Thai green curry, which I made myself.

 

Unwashed: Booo! [chuckling]

 

Horus: What it’s not British?

 

Unwashed: Well it’s normally fish and chips, or a pie, or something! [chuckling]

 

Horus: We don’t have pies often enough, actually. Yeah, no we do often have fish and chips. But green curry and rice, and broccoli, you know, the classic accompaniments with Thai green curry [word unclear] goes well.

 

Simon: And for pudding?

 

Horus: I had sort of Tesco’s own brand “After Eights”. Two of them, really nice. Do, you know what’s different tonight though?

 

Simon: Yes I know. We already knew this, so [trumpet sounds] come on, tell us!

 

Horus: You don’t know what I’m gonna say. Well, there’s that as well, I’ll tell you that after. The less interesting bit is that normally after dinner on a Tuesday, like ready for European Freedom, I’ll go for a quick walk to walk off my dinner. I come in and put my dressing gown on. But it’s just too warm!

 

So tonight I’m just sitting in shorts! No one really cares, but, … The other thing is I put out my new, well I started putting out my new videos — in six parts. There might be seven. I might do a seventh part. But yeah, they’re on my BitChute channel. Part 1 & 2, are on my BitChute channel. So thanks to everyone who’s watched in them. You know, check them out, they might be interesting.

 

Simon: Okay. I haven’t watched it yet, but I’m sure I will. As I was putting the links in the description box I noticed that you’ve done it. So this is the big news for this week!

 

[05:01]

 

Horus: And there’s another thing as well. I got banned off YouTube! So anyone who’s looking for me on YouTube I’m banned now. But I am still on BitChute, so yeah. Sorry, carry on.

 

Simon: Okay and the next person, the first person we got to say hello to is Nick. How’s it going Nick? Unwashed, Vile Media, man of many faces, and many things! How’s it going mate? We’d not talked for a while, actually.

 

Unwashed: Not on a stream, but, you know,

 

Simon: We have we talked privately, obviously, but not on a stream. So, I know what’s up with you, tell the viewers what’s up.

 

Unwashed: The viewers, what’s up with me? I’ve got Vile episode, six season finale, on Sunday. And I’ve set the bar too high for that one. So I haven’t started editing it, because I’m nervous! Like, I just want it to be this enormous White pill of all of our successes so far this year, and any sort of nostalgia that that we’ve missed, that we haven’t put in the past five!

 

So yeah, I’ve got to pull that one out of the bag for some day. But then I can have a rest! I’m really happy with what we’ve done over there. And the submissions that we’re getting for articles are just great. And Simon submitted a playlist for a mixtape! It’s all going well! It’s all good fun, the stuff that I’m involved in at the moment.

 

Simon: Yeah, yeah, I think it’s really cool. It’s kind of reclaiming recent culture isn’t it? That’s is that a fair summary of what you’re doing?

 

Unwashed: That’s a very good way to put it. Yes this reclaiming stuff, because.  So I’m a refugee from the UK music scene. And I noticed that every single sub-genre is hard Left, for no good reason. But that every single, little, micro genre has been captured! And they all babble the same talking points about multiculturalism, pro-choice, whatever. And I just think it’s time to say:

 

“No! As British nationalist we get to be proud of anything that was by British people, fundamentally!”

 

So Sex Pistols, having that! All the British comedy that we love that other people around the world wouldn’t get, because it’s not from their culture, we’re having that! And that’s my logic for it, it doesn’t have to be like, you know, nationalists. We can’t go around just going:

 

“Oh Morrissey’s our boy, and no one else’!”

 

I think there’s a better way to do it. So that’s what we’re attempting.

 

Horus: Morrissey’s Screwdriver?

 

Unwashed: Yeah, exactly! You know, [chuckling] and yeah I’m not the biggest fan of their imagery, if I’m honest.

 

Horus: Or their pony songs?

 

Unwashed: I’ve never listened to them. But I did ask Mark about them. I was like:

 

“So is it overblown, or were they, you know, as the media’s described them?”

 

It’s like:

 

“Yeah, they went pretty full-on!”

 

Alright, okay. That’s not really what I’m about, and what I’m endorsing.

 

Simon: Okay let’s get on to the guest who we don’t know yet. And finally get to him. Jeff, Jeff Winston of the White Art Collective. How’s it going mate? It’s really nice to talk to you for the first time.

 

Jeff: Yeah it’s nice to talk to you guys. Hello, and thanks for having me on. This is the first time I’ve done a show in a different time zone. And it makes sense for it to be our brethren across the pond. So thank you guys very much for having me.

 

Simon: Yeah you had a bit of a problem didn’t you? Aren’t we on your lunch hour now?

 

Jeff: Yeah, thereabouts. Actually, I miscalculated that. It’s a little after my lunch hour. But I adjusted, because I badly wanted to be on here and talk to you guys. So I’m technically working from home. So, you know how that goes [loud laughter]

 

Simon: So you could move things about a bit.

 

Jeff: Exactly.

 

Simon: Okay. Really, I mean, I think the truth is lots of our audience in the UK aren’t that familiar of what the White Art Collective is about. You seem to be mainly US based. But there are exceptions. There’s our own very good Jack White, who I had on a stream over Christmas. And there’s a few people here in Europe. But I think it’s fair to say that most of you are based the US, although we’d like to encourage more adherents here in Europe. Can you give us some kind of an introduction? However, you like, how it started, when it came together, and who’s involved, really.

 

Jeff: Yeah, first of all I’ll kind of give you our main mission statement. So the White Art Collective is a collection of artists of European descent whose mission is to preserve promote, celebrate and expand upon our shared European culture. And definitely like you said there, we are American centric. I’m the founder and director so, you know, I’m an American. And that went into like how I’ve shaped it, the reason I use the term White, rather than European, even though, I kind of obviously, we use that somewhat exchange to be very synonymous, obviously. And then turn around and defined as a collection of artists of European descent.

 

And we do have quite, we’re definitely American centric, but we do have quite a few people from across the euro sphere. We got quite a few from the UK. We’ve played some of Nick stuff as well. Looking forward to getting to some more stuff from him. And Jay Ray Do who’s also affiliated with Nick and Vile, he sent us the song “Jack is White”, is one of our main featured artists. Jack is great! Jack’s brilliant! And he’s a pillar of the White Art Collective community. He’s involved in a number of other shows and goings on behind the scenes. The Decency, also super talented guy. And we’ve worked with Zerious a lot. Hiris has done a couple collaborations with him. She’s one of our, she’s an American with a Welsh name there. And let’s see, Mama P from Mamas and the Pepe’s. She’s also done a couple collaborations with Zerious.

 

But yeah, we got people from Romania, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Hungary, Poland, France, Norway. One of the Whiter countries in South America. I cannot remember it off the top my head. It’s been a while since I talked to that gentleman. And also France. We just got a couple, got in contact with a couple of French guys. So it’s cool that we’re kind of expanding out in that way. And that one of the reasons that we wanted to come onto the show here, is to do that.

 

[11:44]

 

So the way it kind of got started was that I’ve been playing music, I’m an artist and a filmmaker myself, and I’ve also done some DJing and some event organizing. I’m also a writer as well. And so for a long time I’ve just seen the need for organization amongst artists. I see artists kind of get kicked around. You know, I’ve gone and lived in some of these like artist enclaves, like Nick was saying. These places and a lot of the genres and everything involved are very leftist. And there’s no reason that they should own those things. But they are at the moment for the most part. And so I’ve gone and lived in those places, and just seeing artists kind of get the short end of the stick from the business side of things, and just in general.

 

You know, artists are very independently minded people. It’s kind of hard to get them to organize. They’re probably the most non-conforming types you’re gonna come across. So it’s almost oxymoronic to try to get them to come together. But this isn’t the first time that artists have been organized. There was a time when there were, you know, guilds and things like that and different types of organizations that back in different parts of Europe where people organized in these types of ways.

 

But, so yeah, I just recognized that artists needed to be organized. And then when I saw, so I’d kind of had that in the back of my mind. But then in the last few years when I saw all of this very anti-nationalist, anti-traditional, anti-White, sentiment, I saw the need to organize to protect that culture and protect that art. Because we’re constantly under critique. And there really isn’t a meaningful organization that I’ve seen to push back against that.

 

And, you know, artists kind of need something, you need to have some kind of entity to get people to organize around. Like one of the elements of what we do, is just getting people to collaborate. Like a lot of people have met each other through the White Art Collective that would have never otherwise, you know, been affiliated with one another. Because everybody’s got their own channel, they’ve got their own page on Bandcamp and whatever deviantART, wherever they might be posted. And there’s not necessarily anyone like an entity encouraging them to come together.

 

So yeah, I started this back in January of 2018 with just me and a couple friends. Like I built a very simple DIY website, which we’re working on updating. I really want to get that set up for that to be where people go to find out what’s going on with White Art Collective and also for artists to be able to log in there. And for it to actually facilitate the collaboration itself.

 

But yeah, so we’ve been building this up since January of 2018. Started out with just a handful of musicians, and I’ve been slowly building a rapport with all these different artists. Started American centric, I mean, still American centric. But I started getting people all across the euro sphere, like I said before. And now we do have a pretty good blend of people and perspectives from different places. Like, sorry go ahead.

 

[15:00]

 

Simon: No, you continue. I thought you stopped.

 

Jeff: Yeah, that’s, I was about to I guess. I think that pretty much sums up what we’re doing, what we’re about. So the kind of the main functions, like that mission statement is fairly high-level. So like I said, one of the things we’re facilitating is collaboration.

 

It’s also community building. Just so that you have people, friends, you know, we live in a fairly alienated time, just modernity in general. This whole kind of global era. And so artists are gonna float around and kind of struggle more than a lot of people, just anyway. So we’re here to support them on that front as well. But also to try to get them resources. It’s my job, that’s kind of part of the collaboration, but I’m constantly looking at, like I have a couple people in the queue I need to get back in touch with. One of them is a like a metal singer, you know, he sings to metal stuff.

 

And then I have people submitting music to me that are, they like created an entire metal song, but they don’t have any vocals, right? So, I’m constantly looking for ways to help people get the pieces they need to kind of make the full and complete piece. And we have quite a few shows too. Like, we want to feature people, because another part of it is I think a lot of our folks have been, because the art scene is so inherently anti-White, whether it’s the fine arts, whether it’s the music industry, Hollywood, the film industry, anywhere is very leftist! And so our perspective, especially of a White male, but just White people in general, and people of European descent in general, is very much pushed out of that.

 

So just having a place where you feature stuff from our perspective inspires people to create! And I can’t tell you, I’ve had quite a few people who just come to me and said:

 

“Thank you so much for doing this! It just it inspired me to want to do something!”

 

Like that in and of itself is a huge part of what we’re doing.

 

 

Jeff: No we definitely have a very free concept. I think initially it just kind of inherently drew people who were more oriented towards that, because we’re kind of like rejuvenating this thing and not everybody had quite internalized all of the ideas to where they could just create without, you know, kind of unintentionally putting, or putting that in there, you know, more than you probably normally would.

 

But I think as we’ve been developing and as we’ve all kind of gotten that out of our system, we’ve started to attract more people who kind of come from an apolitical perspective. Which is exactly in my opinion what we want to do is, you know, like you said, and I agree with you. You and I had been discussing this a little bit, that we definitely need to be a united front, the political realm and the cultural realm. And what we’re doing as artists. But at the same time they are distinctly different things and they serve a different purpose.

 

So I want people to be making genuinely inspired art. And if they feel that they have to shoehorn in propaganda into that — not that I’m against propaganda, that’s an art in and of itself and we’ve discussed that and some panels and things with the White Art Collective.

 

Another one of the things we do is kind of address these concepts. But still, we’ve actually had a number of people recently, … And a guy actually messaged me as a visual artist, actually a New Zealander, and so I guess I forgot to say New Zealand earlier! And he said, he was telling me, he was like:

 

“I’m not overtly traditionalist, or nationalist, so I don’t know if this is something you’d be interested in.”

 

But he sent me his links to his stuff and I responded that no, I was like:

 

“No that’s exactly what we want! That’s great!”

 

Because it doesn’t need to be overtly that, it’s basically just that we’re genuinely expressing the ‘bio-spirit’ as Jason Kohne would put it, of our people. We just want our essence and our perspective to be represented in it. And I want people to freely express themselves

 

[21:18]

 

 

Simon: Yeah. I mean, that sounds great. Nick? Horus? You got anything to chip in here? Let’s make this a free-for-all! Let’s grill Jeff on where the White Art Collective are coming from.

 

Jeff: Bring it!

 

Horus: Well I had a question, I suppose it could go to anyone. Would you say that often when people decide, we as a movement, we as like nationalists, need art, you know, we need to produce and compete in the cultural realm, that it can often be overly self-conscious? And be not really enjoyable in the way that other art is? And therefore not really penetrate beyond those who are already politically committed to liking it. Have you ever encountered that?

 

Jeff: Yeah, I mean,

 

Horus: I’m sorry, I would just to add, I was a libertarian before and like there was a few groups, or poets, or whatever, and they were known as libertarians. And they were like, you know, there are our movement’s musicians. But it was a bit shit, you know. [chuckling] Because it was self-consciously saying:

 

“We need to make such a thing as libertarian art.”

 

Whereas like, Simon asked you Jeff that like, you don’t have to be overtly political. And I assume that’s, you know, that goes a long way to not having that problem.

 

Jeff: Yeah, exactly! I mean, like I said, I think starting out it was kind of that way a little bit but the I think it had to have and another important part of this too of what we’re doing is like artists need the opportunity to develop, you know, there was a time when like record labels, you know, back in the 90s 80s 70s, you know, back into the classic rock they would have bands that would have two, or three albums before anything really hit with the public and that’s just totally unheard of now, because it’s like if it doesn’t sell like you were out it is a product it is a commodity. And if it doesn’t move then you’re just you don’t exist anymore so that’s another thing we’re doing like that can’t business can’t drive the art world there needs to be the opportunity for artists to develop so that’s another thing we’re doing and to that like I said when we kind of started out, you know, myself and I think some other people too we kind of were a little more overt, you know, maybe we weren’t as maybe, maybe sometimes you be a little trihard this, you know, it just it’s part of the developmental process of eventually kind of honing and refining not only people’s individual craft. But I think just our the honing the overall movement in and I think we have I think we’ve gotten to that place now like I said that we are starting to attract more people and our artists who are already with us feel more comfortable just expressing themselves and not necessarily feeling like they have to try to intentionally put some kind of political message in there. And I think that’s where we’re gonna have the greatest amount of success because, you know, when you’re doing I think when you’re doing art right it’s just gonna feel people are gonna identify it’s only gonna like you said about the British humor, right? Like it’s a perspective well and I do like some British humor and it is different than American humor obviously, you know. But I enjoy it, because it’s not it’s we’re still fairly closely related so it’s relatable and but, you know, it comes from a clear perspective it’s not really meant for out-groups they’re not going to understand it, you know, so if you do your perspective right then the [25:02] people will identify with it and like it and I think the less that we try to put a message in there, the better it will probably be. But again that is separate from propaganda and I think propaganda is kind of an it’s an art in and of itself but when artists are just expressing themselves freely they should just do that just let go, you know, be yourself.

 

Horus: Ingenious propaganda can be something that you admire artistically even if it’s from someone evil.

 

Jeff: Yeah I mean, as we’ve probably all done I’ve certainly been studying the propaganda of communist pretty extensively over the last few years and it is something to behold how especially in film but music — but film is just so immersive that I think it’s some of the most effective propaganda, because — like — the subconscious mind, or the unconscious mind it almost feels like a lived experience so people they see these historical events and they feel like that that image of that historical event is more real to them than the abstract information and data that they gather from like a history book, or something, you know, so that’s they felt that event when they see it on film and the way that the kind of globalists and communist types and Marxist types the way that they crafted propaganda when it was subtle I mean, it is something to behold and it is evil but it is like it’s impressive you gota, you know, again I don’t like him but it’s you got a study it to understand like wow how effective it’s been. And I think that’s what people lean leaning to the right and the traditionalist and nationalist I think they haven’t taken that seriously they don’t take art seriously enough in how powerful it is.

 

Horus: That sense of something well worth study news well, because on the Communist side you also have what I mentioned before about the very self-consciously politically agitated art and when communists do that is corneas when I mean, what anyone else does it but they do also, as you say, have things that are what wholly immersive what kind of thing all kind of like films, or whatever you refer to that are examples of them doing that very well on the Communist side the Marxist side?

 

Jeff: Good question.

 

Horus: I mean, I think of Eisenstein.

 

Jeff: Yeah I’m thinking like I don’t know Schindler’s List alright, you know, any basic Eleni thing from World War Two and the power of that also is that there’s just the insane the just the quantity of World War Two and “Holocaust” films is so plentiful that that narrative is so deeply burned into people’s minds, you know, it that is really something incredible, you know, because let’s say if you compare that to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, I and actually it’s fun there’s like a there’s a Wikipedia page for the “Holocaust” and there’s a Wikipedia page kind of for like Bolshevik films, or whatever and I mean, it’s not even close and then, of course, most of the Bolshevik films like they’re, you know, no one’s ever heard of them they’ve barely been translated to English, or other languages, you know, so it’s just not even comparable as far as how the narrative of that event has reached of the world.

 

Horus: Yeah I mean, chambers listen list alone is enormous impact human people who almost don’t even need to watch it and know they were I imagine those people who on the way to the cinema were already letting themselves be emotionally offense. But I didn’t know they’re gonna go see this, you know, they’d heard these reviews described them as powerful and so on, you know, any but and he said this is going to make me more righteous in some way see it’s incredible I mean, that’s marketing as well isn’t it?

 

Jeff: Yeah yeah that’s why there has to be there’s a whole mechanism and ecosystem as to what legitimizes those messages to like it’s the critics that’s a part of its the marketing all of those things kind of combined and that’s why I’m excited about what Nick is doing with vial is, because I’ve been saying thinking for a while and cuff set it on some podcast and things that we needed like a non-communist rolling stone, you know, something that’s like chic and hip and has like youthful energy in it that kind of captures that same kind of vibe but from our perspective and I’m not saying that vial is necessarily doing that, but it has elements of that I mean, it’s definitely it’s very aesthetic and it is chic and hip and I’m just saying, you know, it’s not quite ruling stone, or non-communist really [30:00] Rolling Stone is a mess, you know, its own thing over there, but that’s why I really like what dick and Lucy are doing, because I think it’s incredibly important I got really excited when I saw that they were doing T

 

Simon: That’s the perfect moment for Nick to come in really isn’t it and do you think Nick that there’s a some kind of crossover between what you’re doing and watch what Jeff and his collective are doing.

 

Unwashed: There’s a huge crossover I mean, I’ve already we hosted their mixtape last week and I think we’re both being interviewed by them soon and we’re gonna return the favor and cross-pollination is the best thing that we can do in the cultural side of things. I mean, it’s the best thing that you can do in the political wing as well but like I just said one inch at four for the serious and high earth collaboration, because that made it further than any of the stuff that they’ve done before I think it was a really big deal that the two people that were sort of separately respected had to come together to do something it felt like a nice leap forward and there’s been lots of these in 2020. I do want to talk about like we’d already touched on the fact that you don’t have to be like a tub-thumping nationalists in your lyrics to fit in this that’s not what we’re aiming for and I seem a lot of people won’t know this but like before I started the channel I’d actually written a whole album of songs and I wasn’t an ethno-nationalism dabao things and I’d started writing about them so that’s like an example of how yeah I wasn’t where I am now. But I still needed to write something that was like a rejection of everything that I was being fed by my crap leftist music scene so there must be tons and tons of people out there like that and what’s really interesting about some of the songs I’ve written is they’ve actually become a lot more pertinent since then like I did one about the Covington kids where when I wrote it I thought I was just honing in on these kids and the fact that they were demonized and they’d been highlighted for being White and privileged and stuff by actually looking back on it a year later I’m like oh that’s a song about White people so I don’t know the fact that so many artists will feel unwelcome in the current paradigm and they’ll have that desire in them to create art, because Europeans have that stronger than anyone else I think. They’re gonna want to create and that doesn’t mean that it’s going to have to be addressing what really happened around the 1930s no it’s just gonna be what’s in them and what they’re concerned about what the real thoughts are but it started happening, you know, I think that the White Art Collective is people that were so desperate to do this that they found each other I’ll gonna pass it back to Jeff to see if that’s true but most of the people actually started writing before discovering that this was a thing, because that’s what I’ve heard.

 

Jeff: Yeah, I think there’s kind of a mixture there I think everybody was already, you know, an artist that had done something to some extent but maybe they’d kind of put it away, because you kind of implicitly pick up on the fact that what you’re creating if you just naturally create something that’s an expression of your European people that it, you know, comes from that perspective it’s a distinct thing you already know that’s like not wanted in society. They’re trying for more diversity they don’t want any of that Hollywood is too White the music industry is too White supposedly right and so people just feel disincentivized if that’s a word, you know, to create so you well yeah, I think like for me I’ve been doing this I mean, I’ve been creating independently for like 20 years. So I I’d yeah it is I’ve basically for me yeah was just like a frustration of like there’s there is no thing that’s there is no organization, or entity that I can join that it’s gonna help me do what I need to do so I guess I’ll have to create it, you know, that’s just the kind of guy I am. And I think you’re correct that there were people there were artists out there who were kind of seeking something even if they didn’t know it and then when they came across us they’re like oh cool, you know, this is exactly what I kind of need I need a group of people who think more like I do that I can work with on this kind of stuff, because you just can’t be an artist in a vacuum. And if you were it would kind of suck.

 

Unwashed: Well what’s really wonderful about the White Art Collective is I’ve seen it already today anytime [35:00] that one of you guys is guesting on someone else’s podcast the chat fills up with your guys and they’re so supportive and so happy and people are like keen to pitch in and help one another and it’s markedly different from the music scene that I was used to where it was a bit false, because it was a hierarchy and a ladder which everyone was trying to climb and everyone’s really rivals with one another but can’t really say it out loud and obviously everyone’s doing their whoa cover to signaling the whole way along so everyone’s just lying all day every day anyway. But there’s a desperation within this network where if you’ve got, you know, one talent, or one ability and someone else needs it boom you’re together and you’re going to be helping each other for free, because you’re working towards something much bigger, whereas the leftist music scene that I came from it was nothing more than self aggrandizement it was just like how big can I make my platform what’s the biggest gig that I can get how many people can I get looking at me whereas what we got over here is authentic and driven by something else I love it!

 

Simon: Isn’t this a relative oh it seems to me being the old guy here. I don’t know how old Jeff is but I’m pushing 60. So I’ve been around around the park a few times. But back in my day there was a strong sense of community between musicians back in when I was playing in punk and post-punk bands back in Natyam we had the Nottingham musician’s collective and we helped how each other’s out with gear all the hands used to go and see each other all the time when we recorded out for a single I remember people helping us out blending as a van to get down to London I mean, what are the things that has happened certainly during my lifetime is this community sense and it’s the anti-White the anti-White campaign is being successful this community sense is really full and full of their party so I think it’s what Jeff is doing and what we’re all trying to do is recapture something that is really part of very recent memory I don’t know what you think about that?

 

Unwashed: I’d like to hop in on that one really quickly is the scene that you’re describing the people pitching in helping each other out supporting the other bands that does exist that. That was still there in that music scene that I was involved with the problem was that they were unified against an enemy that didn’t even exist they were so anti-racist and anti Brexit and anti gammon and all of that stuff and I seriously mean it every single gig that I went to before just going, you know, will screw all this I give up I need a new life had an orange man bad spiel in it every last one had a Trump rant, or some pro-choice rant, or whatever it become a monoculture! So they still pitched in and helped each other out but they also were continually talking about how much they despised more than half of the country. So that’s where the rock really is.

 

Horus: I remember in about 2003 I think the last song it’s a Reading Festival there was all the hands I saw maybe one maybe two at most made some little spiel on stage about I think it’s holy blare at a time from the Left though and it was cringe-worthy then but it was exceptional and now you’re saying that almost is you almost can’t not do it is that right?

 

Unwashed: Yeah man I went to a Folk Festival last summer and, you know, in my head that’s sort of me getting away from it all this is me reveling in tradition all traditional performers playing instruments that you barely see anymore and still orange man bad every single set every single set and I’m there going you guys don’t actually know what you’re doing you’re actually fighting our fight without even realizing it you might you might say like oh we need to help the refugees but you’re on a stage with your hurdy-gurdy, or whatever holding up European tradition you’re actually fighting I’ll fight and you don’t even know it.

 

Jeff: Yeah the I think what kind of to what we were talking about earlier what the mistake that they’re making is now everything is overtly political in the art that they do and so I think it’s driving out a lot of artists who are not necessarily even political at all and who are not even necessarily leaning in our direction. But I think that the art scene on their side is so terrible and toxic that we could start picking up people who actually lean more left in the spectrum better more sensible reasonable folk who just are so sick of everything being political, because it’s [40:00] art is not supposed to be that political you know, they’ve basically the they’re kind of the people who’ve pushed all of that into art they used like we talked about earlier they used to be very clever it used to be subtle, because they had to be and then when they kind of gained more power and they’ve been consolidating power and now everything’s just right in your face and they’re just like bragging all the time and every single film has a very obvious race-mixing agenda. And it’s just obnoxious and even a lot of non-White people are tired of that, because everyone knows that they know that there’s an agenda behind it so you can’t just sit there and enjoy the music you can’t just sit there and enjoy the film you, you know, that you’re being force-fed this ham-fisted message and it ruins the experience. And I think that’s something that we need to use to our advantage which is why we can’t turn around and do the same thing we don’t want to fight, you know, bad propaganda with bad propaganda ham-fisted garbage we want to make great truly inspired art that comes from our perspective and I think in doing that a lot of people on the other side are just gonna be like I like what those guys are doing over there I don’t agree with everything but they look like they’re having a good time and they’re not talking about orange man bad every five seconds and they’re not pushing this agenda. So I’m just gonna go see what they’re all about, you know, and from there I think we just start winning them over in other areas.

 

Unwashed: There’s a song that I’ve found literally within the last week which touches basically on what Jeff is talking about Harris by a band called Fiddler’s then it’s called too real and I’ll just read some lyrics if I can do that very quickly, because I think what they are is they’re not nationalists they’re not right-wingers but they are people who have in a left-wing music scene that have realized what the problem is and absolutely sick of it so they’re rebelling against like woke authoritarians, rather than being, you know, all the way over our side they are some frustrated lefties from the looks of it so the lyrics are well I’ve been thinking about things I can’t say, because everybody freaks out every single day. And if they weren’t so stupid they’d open their eyes the dudududud drugs man saved my life and so on, but like they’re just frustrated with local authoritarian intersectional leftism and they’ve given up on that and then we did put out an article on vile this week which pointed out that on Twitter if you do one of these parody accounts whether you’re taking a piss out of the write with Barry Stanton or, you know, brixi it means Brexit those kind of accounts, or you’re taking a piss out the Left with titania McGrath, or Godfrey elf wick the joke is always on the Left and the people that get it are always on the right no matter what the target is the Left is just a lull Cal that’s based on falsehood so it’s so easy to take the piss out of it without even being, you know, where we are.

 

Horus: For those of them who are just doing an automatic kind of way as well they just caught up in the idea that you basically you more, or less have to o’clock these political talking points they a lot of them probably can be appealed to right there just caught up in a kind of sad and weak way but they’re not, you know, they’re not doing out of malevolence as such it’s just I would say this applies to so many things there’s just like a leading cadre of like more evil malevolent types. But there’s a lot of people who like what Jeff was describing before like the people having become so overly political that they’re gonna turn around and go what else is on like what else can I watch, because this is just this is freezing me out almost but it does seem like the ideal time for a more other mode joyful I don’t know exactly what the right word with people just like something coming of its cellular art for its own sake once more, you know, like which should never have gone away but somehow has become submerged for them to turn trying to find that right now it seems like a great time, you know, it seems like a great time for that to happen so. But I think what our collective and vile like it seems very, very timely menos.

 

Unwashed: I think because, as you say, like all of the art the mainstream art it’s expected to virtue signal now like everyone knew exactly what was gonna happen with that Doctor Who series as soon as it was announced there was a woman it’s like well that’s not gonna be the only woke thing in there it’s gonna just be a whole series of White guilt. But that gives us the freedom to, as you say, make something that actually appears on the surface quite neutral and might even be neutral, you know, I think up our team is [45:00] essentially fighting to do things that we always used to like village fete and stuff like that it’s all quite quaint.

 

Horus: Your story especially Nick over the last years is this quite a strong emotional strain so we’re talking about like you’ve actually been shunned right for doing nothing wrong and there’s a lot of other people who are ready for some sort of emotional some sort of welcoming once again, you know, not always having to harsh, or antifa as they are not aesthetic but the harsh antifa facet, or don’t know what the word is. But I the harshness of the nasty left, you know, some people are gonna want something that’s absent from which that is absent, you know, they’re gonna want something it’s just enjoyable and pleasant and lovely in some ways, you know, and things like that I mean, vile isn’t particularly lovely, but a vile is very funny but, you know, like lovely meaty like. But I think of higher if not, you know, things that people are just gonna want loveliness for his own sake and, you know, humor for as I say I mean, good I’ve said this before. But I used to love a lot of left-wing comedians I was already on the right I would say buy you some oblong left-wing committee that especially think of Stewart Lee until 2010 when the Tories got back in government and they just all suddenly became political and I was like oh right this is I figure this out over a while. This is a thing they do wooden when Labour are in government they’re funny when the Tories in government there’s just warriors and they’re not funny anymore, you know, they think they forget about laughing for its own sake I forget about is making people laugh just uh you can’t only think that we want we do want satire and stuff as well but the automaticity with which the Left adopted that kind of strategy almost, or something I was just auto response was just ugly and dismal and I would welcome anything that could break that pattern.

 

Simon: I was just wondering Jeff when you were in the communes and everything were you left-leaning back then how long have you actually been a been a nationalist, or White centric.

 

Jeff: So yeah, like when I was younger I mean, I was like I would always say that I was like a left-leaning independent there was a period where I watched John Stewart and thought that that was funny, because they were taking the piss out of the George with bush neocon, you know, corporatism kind of vibe and I liked that. And then, you know, then we went through with the Obama years and I was like wait a second, you know, the anti-White part came out and I still don’t like the neo-cons, you know, so that was like the one side and now there’s the far-left who’s like the global communist faction you got the right which is the Republican types that are more the global capitalist faction and then so now people are realizing like oh you don’t have to like either these guys these are two distinctly different sets of groups that aren’t with us either of them. So I kind of went through that process and also just getting a little bit older and more mature, you know, people tend to start to lean a little bit more to the right become a little more conservative close ranks a little bit and I think it was also just seeing the it was fine when the idea was like hey let’s all just be nice to each other, you know, it was okay tolerate this other groups differences okay sure, you know, and I’m the kind of guy who’s always been interested in other cultures, because I’m just a I’m interested in culture in general. So it’s kind of fascinating that all these different ways that different people are but that never meant I was giving up my own culture I’m very much an American and my family on my dad’s sides been here for four hundred years, you know, I think that’s I feel like that’s plenty of time to develop a very distinct identity so and, you know, so when I felt that they were encroaching on that like. But it’s not okay to be White as like no that was not part of the deal so that all of that I don’t feel like I really changed that much like everything else went crazy to the Left is what how it feels to me.

 

Simon: Yeah, I think that’s quite similar to me if I look back to my musician days which is pretty much 1977 to 1995, 1996 um so it’s a while ago now. But I want really often used the term to refer to myself default leftist I was kind of seriously left when I was at university that kind of rebellious stage when I read Marx and I made all this angry post-punk music but it wasn’t really [50:00] it was default leftist it was left it was rebellion left it certainly wasn’t anti-White it seems to me that this and today actually I was in preparing preparation for this stream is an odd preparation I watched the documentary on YouTube which was 60 years of the Shadows which Cliff Richard for the shadows and just watching it was this was everything was automatically White back then. It didn’t really cross anybody’s mind to be anything else this is typically British culture but looking at their autumn, you know, Brian May Pete Townsend the various Beatles talking about how much the shadows had influenced them and then me moving up into the 70s glam rock punk and even making this post-punk tape mix for Nick it’s only since I’ve stopped music that this anti-White agenda, or that I’ve become aware of its really kicked into kind of hyper mode. I certainly wasn’t aware of it when I was younger although as default leftist I imagine. This is a bit like you.

 

Jeff: Yeah and I mean, I grew up in a very rural Midwest ER and environment might, you know, my dad is the very blue-collar so I kind of was inherently born into this pretty right weaning right-leaning perspective, you know, we were all about collecting guns working on cars, you know, all that kind of stuff driving tractors around.

 

Simon: Having BBQs.

 

Jeff: Yeah BBQs [laughter] but burgers love them hamburgers. But yeah, I it was a very gradual process and it was like you said back then the like, you know, I really started kind of coming of age in the early 90s I started really paying attention to music and I realized I had a knack for it and an interest in it and I started playing and the music of the early 90s which I do think there was a legitimately inspired thing going on there with, you know, grunge movement and a lot of that kind of thing I’m a big fan of Radiohead the I know those guys politics are not the greatest. But I still like, you know, a lot of their music you can’t deny that they’re incredibly talented artists so I and, of course, I think Radiohead is super British right they’re super White that’s in same way with bands like a tool I’m a big fan of tool and all of this stuff was still very inherently White. It was nihilistic it was maybe not going in a the greatest direction, you know, obviously Nirvana to it stuff like that, but it still was very much an expression I think of people of European descent. And then that all kind of started to shift in the mid 90s things got more corporate I think also had a lot to do with the ownership of like record labels and just media in general became very centralized actually in the United States there was a Telecommunications Act of 1996 to where we used to have, you know, certain regulations you could only own somebody rate so many radio stations TV stations newspapers, etc., in a given market and they started breaking down all those regulations to where basically you could monopolize and then this company Clear Channel came in and just bought up all these radio stations and everything became very formatted you’ve probably seen those like Supercuts where they show like all these different local quote-unquote TV stations who are all literally reading the exact same script from, you know, that’s obviously been handed down from high on from the corporate down the ladder. And I think that’s played a huge part in who owns the media like who owns this is something I’ve found in working, you know, with what I’m doing with wack is like curation is an incredibly important important part of culture and art and someone is deciding what gets made and who gets played and it’s as important what is played as what isn’t played and that kind of goes back to my point about it’s clear that the people who get to decide who are very much anti-White those people who get to decide what gets put out there and are kind of the bottlenecks for mass distribution they clearly don’t want the kind of stuff I would make, or that Nick would make or, you know, anybody in the wider collective would make they don’t want that kind of stuff even if it’s they might not even always be aware of it doesn’t you don’t have to have some, you know, they don’t have to get like a handed down [55:00] memo although, at this point, they are they are that overt. But there was a time when they weren’t that over it was just kind of understood but yeah, I think that’s a huge part of like you’re saying it there was a point where it was still it was still an expression of us and then it kind of gradually changed and I just thrown that in there, because I think it has a lot to do with the media ownership was consolidated and now we’re in the situation where there’s just a small handful of companies that own all of this so they decide luckily they’re being their delegate amaizing themselves but they’re still incredibly powerful and I still a lot of people kind of fall for the trick, you know,

 

Simon: Yeah I mean, I come from a generation when Indy really when Indy wasn’t a music category when it was really independent when people really did make their own music and many of them, you know, became successful as on the basis of this I was hoping with the internet, you know, I’m kind of interesting culture I just find it, or interested in music I just find so little very, very inspiring these days and I’m very disappointed that the internet without organizations like the White Art Collective the internet hasn’t yes there’s lots of bands out there doing things getting their own small followings but relatively few people have broken through to the mainstream from the internet and I think. This is a real disappointment in and in many work ways what you’re saying about curating things and forming a collective and turning something like the White out collective whack as you like to call it turning whack into a vanguard that breaks down this barrier because, you know, we’ve got to get out in front of more people we’ve got to get on system onto the mainstream in many respects.

 

Jeff: Yeah for sure and it’s kind of that was another one of the reasons that I did I started the White Art Collective is that I recognize that it’s all about organization these people are able to decide what gets played and they get to shape culture by curating what’s played and what isn’t played what films get produced and what films don’t get produced, or even like how they are critiqued now we see that Rotten Tomatoes and sites like that, or clearly kind of yeah I don’t want to make any definitive statements but it seems like there’s a big difference between audience scores which there sometimes can be in critic scores. But there seems to be some Borg hivemind thing going on with critics on certain films seemingly the ones that are the most kind of politically driven but. But yeah, that’s kind of what we’re up against and I recognized that you have to get organized if you want to do anything about it, you know, you need a mechanism and something I’ve been thinking a lot about is that you need a distribution mechanism and you need an ecosystem of people doing various things like critique there’s the production itself you need the people kind of promoting it and talking about it and hyping it up like vile, you know, and things of that nature so that you can even begin to compete like we know that there’s a lot of people who are really frustrated with what’s going on but right now they’re not really seeing a legitimate alternative. And I think that’s the vacuum that we need to fill I see this as a huge opportunity and it’s not all about making money, of course, it has to be about making great art first. But I do think there’s an opportunity for that too, because there’s just so many people who are so tired everything all the stuff that’s being made with the orange man bad message constantly caulking them over the head there’s a huge there’s a huge vacuum to be filled. And it’s just a matter of us getting organized in a meaningful way as a united front with organizations like vile wack and also in the political realm with what you guys are doing.

 

 

Unwashed: I’ll give you a White pill on that note though, is that everyone who’s within our community is so keen to get on board with anything that’s pushed out that’s art, that’s ours! Like let’s do a quick one in chat – who’s heard “Keep in Mind” by “Xurious and Hiraeth” – you’re gonna get a sea of ones here. But if I was to say:

 

“Right let’s pick a decent song from the mainstream, from the last five years that we all know and we all like and we all agree on.”

 

We probably won’t be able to do it! Because (a) we’ve ducked out the mainstream, but (be) there’s nothing good comes through there. But we unify around this stuff. So as soon as someone pumps out something that’s from our gang we’re all really proud of it and desperate to share it and support it straight away. So I think that gives us a huge, huge advantage!

 

Jeff: Yeah, I agree there. And that was, and is, an excellent collaboration between Xurious and Hiraeth, and very exciting. When I first heard that I got a little behind-the-scenes. I was like “that’s really good” and I had a really good feeling about it. And yeah, I’m so happy that that has had the legs that it has. And there’s no reason that, I mean, it’s of the production value and the quality, talent-wise, that people couldn’t hear that. And it absolutely should be competing on the same level with anything that’s on top 40 radio.

 

But it’s better, because it has real heart in it. And I agree it is a White pill! And that’s just one of many to come. And I think too that that one is kind of more accessible, because it is kind of, somewhat in the style of things what is acceptable and hip right now in the music world. And what I want to do is build a bridge from that kind of thing into, … Because the thing is, there’s other incredibly brilliant stuff that Hiraeth, for instance, is doing. Some of its a little more experimental. Like things you would have heard, you know, it’s been a long time since you’ve heard like experimental kind of quote-unquote “weird music” become popular. But, like I say, in the 90s there was a lot of interesting wild stuff that I don’t think would have ever made it through now, in the music industry.

 

And like, she did a collaboration, another one, with a guy called “Dystopia Park”. And it’s called “Origin”, or “Origins” and it’s really cool! And I mean, I want to build a bridge with kind of like, the stuff that’s more accessible to the more interesting stuff that I think is going to, … That’s kind of what changes culture right? Our culture, everything’s been kind of watered down a little bit. So like, it’ll be interesting to see, you know, as hopefully we can get more people listening to the stuff that’s a little bit more out there, that maybe that will start to cultivate just more thought and kind of a more difference in culture in general. It seems like it’s become very mono, I don’t know, just very kind of myopic, I guess.

 

Unwashed: I’d like to quickly hop back to what you were saying about how the culture was clearly a White culture and that’s just sort of somehow been erased. The bands that you were mentioning. Grunge, name all the grunge artists? You’re not gonna find a black drummer in there are you? And “Tool” is another great example.

 

And I wrote a piece for Vile not too long ago that was all about —because I think Horus might have some insight into this as well — it was all about the Reading Festival and how when I went 50 Cent got booked as a second headliner. And we all knew exactly why that was wrong! Is because you’re stepping on our turf essentially! This is some part of culture that we do not approve of! And it wasn’t a strictly like racist “we hate hip-hop thing”, because there were other artists there who were black hip-hop artists who were, you know, like it was fine.

 

But 50 Cent, specifically — it was like you have wasted this slot on us, and we are really not happy about it! Because, you know, that this doesn’t represent us! We know that this doesn’t represent us! Even 50 Cent up there knows, because there’s a shower of bottles hitting him in the face! But now, Stormzy could be booked as the headliner without anyone batting an eyelid. That’s gone now! It’s not a White rock festival anymore. And you could watch it happen over the course of a decade. And I think 50 Cent getting bottled was the last truly great Reading Festival moment!

 

Jeff: What year was that?

 

Unwashed: 2004.

 

Horus: Yeah like it’s true what you’re saying though, that there was plenty of hip hop elements at least accepted within metal, and, you know, alternative rock. Like you could have Biohazard and loads of other groups who had like sort of metal music, but a rap singer. And you’d have all these people listening to hip-hop, you know, like, but maybe not at the festival, but it was part of their repertoire, or whatever But that was something different.

 

I mean, because you had the same thing with dance music as well. That metallers, you know, if you were in the metal scene in the 90s and early 2000s, you weren’t allowed to like dance music really, right? But you could like “The Prodigy” [chuckling] and a couple of other groups. There was like a selection there. I don’t know what point I’m making here, but it’s exactly true what you said Nick.

 

Unwashed: That all got broken down with Pendulum, interestingly. Then it was okay for you to like both.

 

[65:01]

 

Horus: Who were alright in the first 5 minutes of their career, they were quite good. Then they just went awful!

 

Unwashed: I don’t think we’re gonna delve into the artistic integrity of Pendulum today [loud laughter], but I know what you mean. Another feature of Reading, was that when the dance tent started being expanded, I remember all the rock and metallers — who were there for the lineup, not to get pissed and just because their friends were going – the people actually liked Reading, because it was Reading were really not happy about it! They were like “we’re losing it!”. And they were right, because if you look at the poster now, it’s like, there’s some rock — none of it has any balls! Yeah, tons of grime, tons of dance — it’s gone!

 

Horus: So blending everything together. Jeff, I have a question. I assume you’re sort of like broadly in touch with the political side of things. But in case, like what I’m sure, most people have experienced this, that I’m like, you know, I don’t make any art — I do obviously listen to music and stuff — but I’m strongly politically focused. And I think Nick and Simon would agree as well, that this year there’s been a distinct optimism that has been lacking for well I dunno, I’ve never experienced before, in terms of what we can achieve politically. Like it may even be possible to convert, more or less, millions of people to our way of thinking. Do you find any corresponding sense of optimism on the cultural side? Is it the same, or is there anything equivalent to that?

 

Jeff: Yeah, I mean, I think in the spheres I’m in I think people are very optimistic about the cultural side. We’re kind of up and coming because, you know, I think the political element is kind of the immediate and more obvious thing that has developed. And that’s been around the political element of nationalism. And the cultural and art side of it has been lacking. I think partially just because things weren’t getting dire enough to where it was drawing kind of artistically minded people. Who I do think kind of lean naturally to the Left. That doesn’t mean that they’re – I don’t mean Left like necessarily Marxist, or communist – but just kind of more intuitive and kind of “feeling”, rather than “thinking”.

 

So I think, there’s an optimism there, because it is starting to shift. Like there’s kind of a natural process to all of this to where they, they’ve pushed too far. Like we were talking earlier. Like there was this long trajectory of shift to the far Left since, you know, probably after World War Two, and really gaining steam in the 1960s. And then it’s just been this non-stop, just bulldozer, to the most absurd ideas. Just everything goes, laissez faire, normalization of pedophilia, and all of these things that people couldn’t even imagine even 10, or 15 years ago! And I think that stuff being shoehorned into a lot of the art is really just waking people up. And just causing a natural kind of seismic shift back to a more traditional way of thinking, in the sense that it’s like:

 

“Look this stuff is a little bit too far, things were working better when we had families, and men and women were getting along.”

 

You know, it doesn’t have to be extreme, you don’t have to have “Third Reich” anything. It’s just just basic common sense that those things work better. We’ve been doing those things for thousands of years! And the nation is a the most obvious and functional type of organization.

 

And perhaps there will be some kind of greater, I think “confederacy”, I think of it that way as far as, you know, the alliances of European nations. But I think nationalism is still ultimately just the obvious way to organize. And there’s just a shift back to that in a common-sense way.

 

But yeah, back to the main question is that I think there definitely is an optimism, because we’re seeing, like I said, we’re seeing more bands and stuff contacting us. And who are just kind of like “yeah why not”, I mean, “White Art Collective”! We’ve kind of broken down that barrier of them thinking that, … I picked that name specifically, because it is a little bit “triggering” on a couple of fronts. And I’m not necessarily one who goes out trying to “trigger” people. [70:01] But obviously, because the “White” part. But also to kind of get people back into the concept of “collectivism” not belonging to the Left, you know? Any organization is a “collective”, and that doesn’t mean it has a Leftist bent necessarily at all. A family is a collective, you know.

 

But I think there’s a huge amount of optimism! And now that people are starting to see that what we can, the results of coming together like this. Just like the Xurious and Hiraeth song, what’s possible. What we’re capable of doing with like no resources other than our creativity and willingness to work together! Imagine when we actually start putting some money behind this. And people get more on board with what’s happening, and more and more people, and more of a critical mass.

 

We are going to be making our own films and things. We actually had a “Spooky Short Film Contest” in the fall, that didn’t get as much attention as it should have. But I mean, people weren’t quite there. We’re still growing and developing. But we’re doing it again this year, and we’re gonna continue to do stuff like that. And again I’m super optimistic about it! And I think more and more people are gonna come to us wanting to be part of that, to have fun and just to make great art!

 

Horus: Will that be for Halloween?

 

Jeff: Yeah, we did that for Halloween, yeah. So if anybody out there is interested, yeah, we’re gonna have a “Spooky Short Film Contest” for Halloween. And last year we had a $1,000 cash prize. I haven’t announced anything on that yet, but we’ll definitely at least have a $1,000 cash prize. We’ll look into the other stuff as well.

 

Horus: Or a year’s supply of pumpkins maybe? [laughter]

 

Simon: Okay. I just want to give a shout out to some of the White Art Collective people I’ve seen in the chat. I’ve seen Hiraeth, I’m not sure how to pronounce it properly, Hiraeth Music. I think Jack White was in there earlier. What’s the, I can’t find his name, what was the French guy “Iodore” or something like that, I’ve seen him there.

 

Jeff: Yeah, I think it’s “Hayard”? I think that’s like the English, or I like to say it with a French accent, like “Heyodd”, you know! [chuckling]

 

Simon: Someone else I want to give a big shout out to, and it’s a shame, perhaps we ought to stream sometime mate. But his name now is Edmond Marta. But in another life, he’s Champion Puffer. And he’s a kind of techno acid house DJ. I can’t remember the name of his radio station. But he’s definitely on our side. And it’s something, … Puffer, you need to be writing stuff! You need to get on board bringing your culture, ‘cos I know, you know, we’ve exchanged experiences back from those days.

 

Because I used to go down to a studio where – I don’t know if, you know, this label Nick – “Rising High” were based. And I used to know Casper Pound and Pete Smith. I was in the studio, when “The Shaman” were in there one time. Back in those days! So for me, that kind of period of music, it was a reliving of punk in many respects. I know you and I disagree with this. But for me, this was the last shout of rock and roll. It was the kind of acid house days.

 

Unwashed: Well I don’t think that it ever dies. I think that you see inklings of it everywhere. Because we discussed the other day that is just a natural thing that teenage boys go through, this rebellion thing. And it often comes out as art.

 

So I was saying, like I saw the same thing going on in dubstep, which will sound ridiculous to people older than me! But all of these scenes have like a kernel of truth in them, and then they get ridiculous and comical, and descend into self parody. But yeah, there is always something real there.

 

I love that in this chat today, everyone is basically on side with the idea of a lot of rave music is ours! Because months ago, I remember contending with this as an issue going, :

 

“Well it’s made by White people, for White people, and White people enjoy it.”

 

There’s a certain angle that is:

 

“You have to be on drugs to enjoy it!”

 

You don’t! Loads of people listen to it when they’re not on drugs.

 

And I like the idea of us claiming these scenes. I have a theory that drum and bass specifically, like most of the “jungleists” are based, because it’s just unignorable in those clubs. If you go to a club with less White people, it’s more dangerous. And they just know that. So that’s kind of why I was using drum and bass in those Groyper videos, because I was like, :

 

“I got an inkling here, this is not the most woke multi-culti scene, we can have this one.”

 

And everyone today, was saying like “happy hardcore”, everyone loves happy hardcore. And that’s specifically British! Like, French people don’t get it, German people don’t get it, Dutch people certainly don’t get it. They’ve all got their own strands of hardcore electronic music, which I don’t understand! I cannot get onboard with Dutch hardcore at all! I think is just horrendous noise! But “happy hardcore” is ours. So I mean, it busts this whole sort of degeneracy argument, which I think we’re all fed up of. Like, we all love folk music, but yeah, I think we’re gonna need more than that. So I like that we’ve got a pro-rave section in the chat going on today.

 

[75:53]

 

 

Horus: May I think you’re spot on trying to reclaim these scenes I was gonna say something before that I think there’s some sort of nostalgia rowing angle we can use as well like, because I would see nostalgia on the Left at least for like leftists who a big Institute overi doctrinaire no starter is considered generally a kind of fascistic thing right, or a reactionary, or fascistic thing whereas we don’t really have any fear of nostalgia I think like the idea has been put about by the Left over the last 70, or years that anything that pines for the past is not only reactionary and fascistic, but also idiocy idiocy, because they believe generally in the sort of Whiggish theory of history that things are always proceeding towards the ever better future whereas we don’t really that’s not really part of our thinking I think technology advances but, you know. A lot of things are lost, you know, and have to be refound, or never be found and the Left I think over the 20th century tried to convince us and have it has worked on a lot of people that it’s an illusion to think that things were ever better but as Simon said you haven’t bought any music any new music since like the mid 90s I’m pretty much saying maybe up to the late 90s and I am convinced that’s caused by an objective change music actually became crap by the millennium like pop music became crap it was like a few nuggets left. I don’t think I’ve bought any music made since 2010 anyway and I and the there was genuine brilliance still in the 90s I mean, a lot of my favorite music is from the first off the 90s electronic music in my case the Future Sound of London, or a fixed win orbital and stuff like that and again what we said Nick but basically these were White things they were mostly a lot of them were lefties even thickness, or most of them, but it was White stuff it was White music made, you know, made by YV been enjoyed by White people even I mentioned at all they were sort of a dub group right so, you know, this Caribbean thing even so it was White guys doing it and White people listened to it and there is something in there and you couldn’t awaken, or you can use the nostalgia people have for when music was still good to awaken some degree of racial consciousness I believe us I think you’re absolutely strategically spot on doing that.

 

Unwashed: Nostalgia has made like making these vile episodes ten times easier, because weird I know the simon doesn’t like me using the phrase counterculture, because I need you can expand on why I shouldn’t be using that phrase.

 

Simon: I will do.

 

Unwashed: Cool but we are pushing against something that’s been repressed and like mainstream culture is progressive so it’s all about change and what’s new what’s cutting-edge what’s the latest thing and everyone’s sick of that now, so really all we’ve had to do is go back over the last few decades of like, you know, clips of edgy Brits giving interviews like Johnny Rotten, or just I don’t know something from father Ted it’s all nostalgia and we just build it up and go hey remember this was better than it is now wasn’t it now you’ve got the last leg you don’t have any comedy anymore washed-out is easy.

 

Horus: We are saying quite clearly it was better at times in the past things are things now are shit it’s not just that every generation thinks that’s a lie whereas things now are crapper than they were 20 years ago in sounds of culture.

 

Unwashed: And again there’s people that hate all rap and they’re entitled to that opinion but storm Z is an objectively bad rapper.

 

Horus: I mean, I don’t like it less than I did five years ago I’ve become more of a sort of racialist sits in but like 2pac was a good rap our [80:00] storm Z is not, you know, maybe some people just chuckle of all of rap outs, or whatever but, you know, that isn’t they still an example of things in decline even on the backside, you know,

 

Jeff: Yeah I just want to say that I agree that the on the electronic music thing on that front I do think that’s overwhelmingly a White thing first of all you have to have electricity for it to work [loud laughter] just kidding okay that’s the first thing, but also we actually have a show called dance squared we have a DJ live DJ set on Saturday nights and he does like techno which house all these genres that I don’t underst Jones a bass some of them I know and, you know, some of them delve deeply into areas that I’m not familiar with vaporwave he does a lot of vaporwave but uh that and he’s definitely our guy DJ boxcar and it’s funny, because we’ve had a little interaction with kind of the vaporwave scene he kind of they were all, you know, when he started becoming a little bit more woke, so to speak, a lot of these people, of course, as we’ve been discussing we’re very much on the side of the spectrum and giving him a hard time and they’ve kind of tagged me in some of these discussions they’ve had on Twitter and it didn’t go well for them I think they were trying to tag me to be like oh he’s associating with this White Art Collective these evil people and really they just they’re like wait a second maybe I shouldn’t tag them, because they’re just giving them more attention and we got some follows from that little exchange and I was like just kind of doing some basic talking points of like which would you be really opposed to a black art collective, or a jewish art collective, you know, and it’s a very reasonable question to ask but it is good to see that we have more people and he’s kind of even got his own group of electronic artists that he’s been working with for a while called the modernity leave and so yeah we that’s definitely much definitely in our sphere I think and I love electronic music I’ve, you know, years ago been out to the clubs and stuff I’m not that old it wasn’t that long ago but, you know, is I definitely enjoy that kind of thing. And I think it’s important that kind of — what you guys were talking about with the pasts anything from the past seemingly being antiquated I think is a good word is they always want it to feel like that’s all over the future is always looking forward everything has to be more technologically advanced, etc. But I think we need to find a way to kind of to create that aesthetic that blends modern technology and kind of futurism and I know their existing bodies have thought on this like I think RKO futurism and this kind of thing that kind of blend that past aesthetic and the value with the future kind of technology and I think it’ll be interesting to see what kind of aesthetics we come up with, in doing that kind of thing and one other thing I was just curious if you guys were fans of Daft Punk at all.

 

Horus: [words unclear]

 

Unwashed: Okay our second one was better I think is homework the first one and discovery the second discovery had all the singles yeah, so I thought I’m an encyclopedia over here.

 

Jeff: I like I thought random access memories was really good I thought that was a really good album personally.

 

Unwashed: It was I waited ages before listening to that one, because it was really overhyped I like to avoid things like that for about six to eight months, because. I don’t think you get a clear picture it’s really good that album yeah I’ll give you that.

 

Horus: I think what was the Saturday night oh that’s a jeff: On our show?

 

Horus: Yeah I just wanna check out.

 

Jeff: Yeah, so Saturday nights dance squared on our DLive it’s after it’s usually about tits it’s gonna be late really late for you guys it’s like 10:00 p.m. Eastern so it’d be what like a.m. You guys time so that’s probably hard but wait the replays we put up on BitChute but uh and with our main flagship show we actually have like seven, or eight shows now our main show that the first one I started with Saturday night live stream which is every Saturday at 9 p.m. On our DLive and that’s where we like we kind of bring our musicians in and like feature a lot of new music like we’re usually featuring a new at least a couple new artists and a lot of new songs like pretty much every week okay.

 

Simon: And that’s DLive White Art Collective I mean, if you if any of you follow any of us you’ll find that, or certainly I follow Jeff I follow the White Art Collectives so just look at who I follow and you can follow them and find find out what’s going on. I just want to do before we move on I want to do the one [85:01] and only Entropy that were the one on a superchat that we’ve got so far hint hint nudge nudge.

 

Unwashed: I’m Paul saying it wasn’t up earlier Simon wait.

 

Simon: I think it’s back up now Michael yeah, so you roll on roll on up I’ll read them out. And the one we’ve got is from The Thin Red Line great boat bloke who tends uh sends us ten US dollars and says:

 

“Great stream more creators should seal for the White Art Collective that’s what we’re doing it is very important that we get a pro-White media company so we can start retaking our culture which start to raise funds for this project project.”

 

I quite agree any comments on this any kind of fundraising initiatives in the future Jeff.

 

Jeff: Yeah I’m definitely for that 100 percent I think that so kind of what I envision the White Art Collective is a kind of owner of an institution so I definitely encourage people to create more business-oriented like media type companies and I also think we probably are gonna have to build our own platforms too to do that kind of thing so also any like programmers out there and people who have that kind of talent are gonna be very much needed for that kind of thing. But yeah, I mean, we’ve been making a little bit of money on DLive and I’m, you know, trying to figure out how we’re gonna reinvest that back in. But I 100% encourage people who are interested in ya creating like a company for that kind of thing envisioning something like that III had an idea for kind of a kind of like an Amazon like you site for our folk who, you know, it kind of you could get your music there you could get movies there and that kind of thing we definitely need to figure out how we’re gonna monetize that, because another one of the elements of what I’m doing with the White our collective I kind of want to function a little bit as a representative slash kind of a union for artists, because it’s so easy for artists to not get paid and a lot of people just expect all of this stuff for free now, you know, they’re like oh well I’ll just download that song oh we’ll all just download, or just watch it on YouTube, or BitChute and also films they’ll just download them, you know whatever and that’s a big problem for us that people are kind of conditioned into that mindset, because it’s not free for us to make and we’re gonna have to make money if we want to compete with Hollywood if we want to compete with the music industry and we’re gonna need money for projects for the fine arts and, you know, those things are often funded by tax dollars and things so it’s like we’re probably not getting tax dollars anytime soon so where that money’s gonna we’re gonna have to come up with that money somewhere so we need to get clever about how we’re gonna do that and I think to like I don’t expect we’re gonna be having any big daddy, you know, people philanthropist throwing their money at us anytime soon and, or at the very least. I don’t think we should wait around for that I think that’s something I’ve seen for a while but people like, you know what we need just that billionaire who’s gonna give us a bunch of money and.z I don’t think that it hasn’t happened yet I’ve talked to people who, you know, told me hey I’m talking to somebody who might, you know, be interested in what you guys are doing none of that ever came to fruition I think it’s a lot more likely that we’re gonna have to get clever with crowdfunding and people are just gonna have to kind of put there’s a like you said earlier like a lot of people are like well how do I help, you know, doing stuff and volunteering for things. And if someone actually throws out just like what you were saying with that website and the transcriptions and that kind of stuff definitely putting forward your actual Labour putting your shoulder into it and your time and your energy that is a big help also just promoting stuff is a big help and also investing in it, you know, vote with your dollars, so to speak, and actually buy stuff like we got a store we got a White our collective store we got music books magazines shirts, you know, we’re gonna start doing more merchandise I think people like physical objects in this very detached alienated world so we’re gonna probably start doing some more stuff like that, but it is definitely important that we get very serious about how we’re gonna fund these things, because I’m also like I’m already yet I have to work a full-time job to live I’m already at full-time capacity, or I mean, I’m at capacity of what I can do and I often takes me a week, or two to respond to people, you know, that I kind of lose a little bit of that momentum and people’s excitement of getting in contact me with which I hate. But I just I only have so much time so until we figure out how to formalize and professionalize and monetize, you know, we’re going to continue to struggle so we have to get that figured out.

 

Unwashed: And using the word serious there we have to get serious is really important, because I mean, it’s a big [90:01] problem over on this side is that people ask specious of anyone that asks for money, or even accept money there’s all this charge of grift chiming going on I mean, it’s worth reminding people that, at the end of the day, we’re up against the central banking system the guys that own and print all of the money so it’s a ridiculous thing to say people say to people they shouldn’t be asking for money, but also on top of that if you look at the Left take someone like Amanda Palmer who was a sort of front-runner of crowd funding they get full support there no one Chuck’s anyone down for crowdfunding their own projects no one’s biting at each other’s ankles for this stuff even though they’re the Communists so the lefties like they know how to support each other in our and that’s why they’re there absolutely trouncing the culture war obviously they’ve got the institutional power as well. But there’s just none of this mistrust and sniping and it’s so ridiculous to me when, you know, we don’t own the money that’s the other side.

 

Simon: On the subject of money we’ve got a second superchat the wonderful Penguins in the diorama sends 25 US dollars and says:

 

“Number two!”

 

So that’s the second one thanks very much I want to go back to a point of contention that you and I have you mention it there, the word counterculture you and I disagree on this counterculture means against culture and I’m pretty convinced that back in the 60s the whole counter it mean it’s all disheveled people very much like those that they all look like the merely viral guys they had that kind of aesthetic back in the 60s and it’s not alternative culture it’s against culture and another point you made in one of our Telegram groups was Mick Jones, (((tiny hat))) Mike Jones could he have been responsible for some of the leftist message within that within the clash within the.z And if you look into punk both in Britain in the UK you look back at lots of the count country culture groups of the sixties and it all was very cool people like Lou Reed there’s a lot of tiny hat influence there and I kind of wonder if it wasn’t deliberately subversive which is its difficult to find a better word, because it’s become cool. But I think we need to divorce ourselves from it.

 

Horus: Did he I think so I know Mick Jones definitely.

 

Simon: Did he?

 

Horus: I think so.

 

Simon: I know Mike Jones definitely did and lost lots of the others I’m sure I reckon Malcolm McLaren was a tiny hat as well and horus: McLaren was McLaren has partial jewish ancestry yeah.

 

Unwashed: The that I mean, the Mick Jones one I only brought it up to you, because people keep tracking that one at me I’m fairly positive about the clash and they go well, you know, about Mick Jones.

 

Simon: I’m a big fan.

 

Unwashed: Yeah I mean, as far as I’m concerned this doesn’t affect anything. But then you look at him penning White riot and you just think okay let’s think about this for a second the one I’ve had to hire earth about this the one that really made me meet sit up and go oh god was this record label called Fat Wreck chords which is run by Fat Mike of NOFX who is of the Levantine tribe and it’s very interesting, because I was super into this label in my teens and they were aggressively anti-war very, very much against the invasion of Iraq and all of that stuff but very anti-racist i.e., anti-White. And when you just pick apart the ideology and what records are being released it’s like okay this was supposed to be edgy and counterculture and that ultimately it’s pushing all the same stuff ultimately it’s pushing less White people. And that was run by some Hebrew folks. So that was quite something to notice and that’s why I was sort of chucking out the thing about the clash with regards the counterculture thing though I do think the mainstream culture is, you know, horribly degenerate and multicultural and everything that.

 

Simon: It is now but it wasn’t back up just watch this shit this shadows documentary remember it wasn’t back in those days.

 

Unwashed: Hmm no I just mean I thought that the phrase counterculture means as he said against culture but the culture that we have now is everything that we want to push against I mean, it’s not our culture that’s what we’re actually fighting for our culture.

 

Simon: It’s bullshit.

 

Unwashed: What’s being supplied to us.

 

Simon: Yes I think so [95:01]

 

Unwashed: I’ll certainly give you that and.z But I think what we are doing is its like I still consider it kicking against that so I call it counter cultural but you’re saying it’s not even culture so how can you counter it which is a pretty good argument.

 

Jeff: That’s an interesting discussion for sure I’ve thought about that as well I mean, when I think counter culture I think Woodstock that’s like one of the first thing that comes to my mind is something like that and I do think we have to be careful and we’re having a lot of these kind of discussions in within the White Art Collective, of course, about, you know, kind of the language we use and how we frame things, because we have to try to shift the paradigm so I think those instances where well not just kind of shift it we need to have a massive shift and help facilitate that so I think that in some ways we can kind of like take terms back and redefine them and then other things, you know, maybe we should kind of stay away from counterculture to me kind of I kind of think of the term all right I was never a fan of that term I know that was a more American thing, but it did definitely went across the pond as well to some extent and it I was always thinking like what other kind of concepts are I’ve ever been like considered alternative, or kind of been labeled that way and one of them was like alternative lifestyle of the gays, you know, like that that was one thing and now it’s a big no-no to say it that way now it’s just completely accepted in mainstream and the other thing was alternative music and, of course, that also became popular in mainstream and then it lost the alternative people still some radio stations still say alternative and like what is that that what does that mean that’s been mainstream for like over twenty years but uh I think it is interesting to think about those things and consider it personally I wouldn’t use the term counterculture just, because yeah it does it does have a little bit of the leftist taint on it.

 

Simon: One of the things that we’re talking about in this stream that Nick and I did with semia go there a couple of weeks ago I can’t remember how semi ago actually phrased it but we ought to be out be creating what was it Nick we ought to be creating art that produces the kind of people we wants isn’t once want in our society was that was that his point?

 

Unwashed: It was pretty down closer yeah we should be creating art that produces the type of people that we want in society. I think he had it down to a snappy.

 

Simon: Yeah he does he very he’s very snappy isn’t he’s got everything off pat.

 

Unwashed: Yeah.

 

Simon: And this kind of lettuce and he was talking about flamenco and traditional music and I kind of had a road to Damascus moment throughout their stream I’ll throw out there again but and it comes back to my counterculture point that since the fifties the whole promotion of teenage rebellion it kind of overtook rock and roll and that was essentially of subversive whereas if you look at and I think this forms part of our movement I think we need to forget the teenage rebellion music. I don’t think it’s going to come back I think the industry has taken it over even though the industry introduces the industry now controls it and he was talking in the context of flamenco and it got got me thinking about much more incorporating young people into a multi-generational art community and encouraging young people to go through an apprenticeship and perhaps going through initiation right that that gives them the right as in flamenco to form part of the musical art whatever community and I think teen music is probably a thing of the past I know I’m coming out on a limb there, but part of the ethos of our movement is bringing the generations back together what better way to do it with is than with, in art and music.

 

Unwashed: I thought there were great conclusions from that discussion considering we had no idea where we were going and actually I’ve sat on those sort of conclusions from the end of that one since we chatted about it. And I think that you’re right that’s the way that we rebel is by reintroducing multi-generational sort of contact and then teaching like a father teaching this on how to play an instrument because, as you say, all of our subcultures all of our counterculture has been based on the opposite of that [100:00] it’s been based on rejecting your father and not learning from them so hearing Sammy agog talk about flamenco was fascinating, because it’s like yes that’s exactly what we want and yeah this teenage thing has got so out of control I’m sure you guys watched the debacle between Harry and those two the very nearly viral guys like they’re still teenagers and they’re nearly 40 and that’s what we need to reject I think.

 

Jeff: Yeah, I think I’ve thought a lot about the multi-generational element of that and how it relates to art and culture and I think you’re very much onto something there as far as there’s always been this appeal to the trends always following the teenage perspective and what kids think is cool, so to speak, and I personally think cool is like this Judeo African largely corporate-controlled concept where you have people jumping from one foot to the other following these fads really mostly for the purposes of just making money and maximizing it and then once that fad isn’t cool anymore then they move on to the next thing and everybody forgets about that last thing and then they come around in a cycle you’ll get made fun of for, you know, wearing a certain type of clothing, or whatever. But then it becomes cool again oh that whole thing is totally absurd to me and I think we have to break out of that mentality and I do see the right-wing does the dissident Right kind of falls into that somewhat I called it right-wing hipsterism too where you kind of create this very, very niche subculture out of a desire to want to belong so you create all this cryptic language and this aesthetic and people dress a certain way and people have certain types of haircuts and but and then they get comfortable being in that little segmented community, because that’s a large part of what they were seeking but what we need to do is appeal to a broader group of people and not just not just young men who are frustrated in angsty, you know, and that’s so that’s something I’ve thought a lot about we try to have a really good balance of masculine and feminine energy that’s a lot of what I think about when I’m curating and I also think about, you know, some stuff that is mostly overwhelmingly being family-friendly not in a ham-fisted hallmark kind of way but just to where things are, you know, there’s more of a value of purity and innocence you don’t, you know, to kind of remove that cynicism and nihilism and obviously, you know, kind of anything that’s too much an adult subject for children, of course, there’s a time and a place for that. But I think a lot of what’s happened definitely to American society and it seems like the West in general just this kind of business big corporations this hyper monopoly leading everything and everyone thinks in marketing terms so they’re constantly trying to break down groups of people into their segments as consumers it’s like let’s break down here’s let’s market this at teen kids so they’re gonna live in their own world and culture by itself over here listening to this and they’re gonna have a hard time relating to their parents who are they’re having this marketed at them they listen to this kind of music they watch these kind of shows and read these magazines and you see this huge gap where we’re having people having a really hard time relating to each other, you know, men and women can’t maintain the relationships and parents and kids don’t understand each other, you know, there was a long time I felt a huge gap between my parents like they lived a completely different in a completely different world than I did, you know. And. This is a really modern thing the world is not supposed to change this fast but it is so we have to figure out how to adapt to that and.z I don’t think that’s even just, you know, communist, or Marxist, or whatever it’s also just what the modern world there’s just an explosion of technology and things that’s changed the way we live and think so fast that we’re still kind of our heads are still spending. But yeah, just to that point is just we I think we really have to be mindful of exactly what Simon was saying there is that we need to intentionally while still making great art and culture we need to try to do things that bring people back together multi-generationally men and women, etc., in a healthy positive way families and to one more point on that I actually wrote a booklet called how to organize a traditional dance which is over on White date net it’s also on Amazon if you want a physical copy, or you can get a digital, but it’s also on White people’s press but so the idea there is like, you know, we actually speaking of the culture and things I kind of line out like, you know, here’s what the things you need to think about organizing an event like this you gotta [105:01] have you gotta have good music you got to know what the Dancing’s gonna be someone’s got to know how to do the dance, you know, it’s seemingly kind of obvious things but trying to give the people the tools to create something like that so that you can bring people back together and one of the elements of that is making sure that it’s multi-generational friendly.

 

Simon: Okay and one more another superchat from the lovely Lucy Brown who sends ten US dollars you’re your good friend Lucy brown and collaborator on viol fantastic work there Lucy:

 

“If someone has 50,000 subscribers and each subscriber paid one pound a month they’d have freedom to create and make a living. Thoughts?”

 

That would be heaven it was my immediate response anybody else.

 

Unwashed: It does look a little bit ridiculous when you look at the numbers that we’re chucking in, because like I’m getting used to howdy live works and I’m getting great contributions but it’s from like a handful of people. And I think it’s a really important point that one pound a month and then a whole bunch of us could not have to worry about working ever again!

 

Simon: I mean, the two contributions so far on super chance The Thin Red Line and in a diorama there’s various other. But I have what six, seven, eight, nine possibly regular contributors, you know, I know it’s free people are happy to listen but, you know, a couple of dollars every now and again. I think all of us put in hours and hours of effort into this what you see on these streams you don’t know how much work goes in and in the background it’s continual yeah we need more help.

 

Horus: But money as well right. But if you do like kick in a little contribution you’re gonna get more of what you enjoy, you know, the money will generally go to war as your village up to you’re donating to them if you donate to the things that you value you’re gonna generally increase the Malby that’s produced and I hope, you know, the quality of this helmet you’re gonna get more of it. I mean, if I could work full-time like I know that this certain core of people you love my videos like, you know, every time I release anyone immediately they’re like oh wait what’s this which is brilliant in and of itself like — it’s really one who feels like that if you contribute if you quit here and there I’ll do more and you love that feeling even more often I don’t really want to be on record saying like give us money but like I do agree with the general idea that like it’s a good right there it helps the movement, you know, just, you know, we’re moving with a great shortage of cash.

 

Unwashed: Well there’s two elements to what you say in there one was like I remember the week when you got your first donation, because I think I got mine a similar time and we were both on this stream together and we were both absolutely buzzing and it’s not enough money to like put you on easy street it doesn’t mean your money worries are out the window it literally just gives you that boost from someone who’s what I’m doing.

 

Horus: Does someone someone message me asking me how can I donate, you know, well if you insist, you know, and then yeah I felt what I heard someone actually wants someone telling me make more like this what you’re doing is good make more of it and that’s good that’s very encouraging.

 

Unwashed: And vote we all know that a vote is a total waste of time and you have to vote with your with your dollar so a percentage of any nationalist income should probably be going to nationalism right if you’re not doing anything else.

 

Jeff: A tithe, if you will, know it just kidding no but like yeah this goes to what we were saying earlier and I totally agreed that the thing is and this isn’t anybody’s fault but just in the Internet age everyone’s had the ability to go out and create their own show everybody can basically be their own TV station, you know, on their YouTube channel and it’s awesome but it’s also, you know, that gets everyone kind of competing to the bottom in a way for how willing, they are how much they’re were willing to give away for free I think we content creators are going to have to kind of form a collective interest here that we can’t just hand it all away for free forever if we want this to get off the ground we’re going to have to monetize and I think at some point we’ll probably I see people have some good models, you know, redeye says I think an effective model towards like this part is out here this powered is behind this and maybe at some point we might even get in May this is probably not gonna be popular but we might have to get a little bit more hard about it, than that and be like look if you want this [110:00] content you got to pay for it you can’t tell me that most people who watch this stuff couldn’t pay five to ten dollars a month E, or even if it was less than that two, or three bucks a month you telling me that you couldn’t sacrifice, or that, or sacrifice something you bought at the store, or whatever to support this, because that little bit if you had those 50,000 people giving just a little bit it would be massive and the other part of that, is that I also the donation model is just too inconsistent to build institutions off of we’ve been getting a decent amount of little, you know, again like Nick said it’s not like I’m over here like a rolling like Scrooge McDuck in money and coins, or whatever not even close but it’s like okay we had no budget now we have a little bit of a budget that’s something that’s, you know, it’s going in the right direction clearly more people are getting more comfortable with the idea maybe it’s the structure of DLive. But I don’t want to get dependent on that either, because we’ve already had a kind of a phantom copyright strike that I think was probably a targeted thing over there so it was just a six hour time out but we can’t depend on these platforms owned by other people we need to figure that out fundamentally for ourselves from the ground up and build our own structures and infrastructure and the only way to do that is if we get consistent funding so we’ll have to get off of just donation based funding if we really want to move forward.

 

Unwashed: You make a really important point about the about the sort of rush to the bottom there, because that destroyed my old industry when I started DJing a set of technics and a mixer and that set me back about grand and then within two, or three years you could get a controller for one hundred and fifty quid and literally anyone could do it and the wages just tanked, because everyone was going oh well you don’t need to pay me I’ll just do it and this goes for music across the board it’s not really it’s not a problem that’s unique to us as right-wing musicians but art across the board is completely devalued. So yeah, it’s just busting into people’s heads the idea yeah you can’t get something for nothing I’m sure the four of us are all in the same boat where it’s like yeah this took man hours to do and we with people looking at it saying it should be free there’s no leg to stand on there.

 

Horus: I would say to those who are principally opposed to donations and stuff who think it’s corrupting whether whoever I’ve said this once before but make your case explicit like right out your case and send it and, you know, publicize it to everyone and say what is it that you dread, or your pose, or you find disgusting about people being funded, because that will help us, you know, but maybe there’s some sense in there, you know, like there are some dumbasses you just well are they some people’s just see anything that involves money is jewish, or like, or they just see it as light as soon as you start learning money you’ll become corrupt, or you will start only serving those who donate yourself but can someone just make that cake, because then I’ll begin to understand, you know what’s the sensible side of that opposition what’s the, because it might be something we can learn from it as well, you know, because there will be there will be ways of funding they probably do spoil a movement, you know. But if we just suddenly it’s like Haim Saban, or someone, or like George Soros just suddenly came in and say apart from, you know, we go over a suspicion of it like why is he suddenly funding us it probably would be to ruin us and that that there can be corrupting influences of money. But I would just say, you know, I think we all agree that some great degree of funding is this well not everyone but we here, you know, we fallen low people do agree that some greater degree of funding is needed okay.

 

Simon: I’m gonna get in here before Jeff, or anybody else does, because I don’t want this tree to finish on shilling just as a point of principle and we’re, you know, we got six minutes to go I’m sorry Jeff if you had something to say on that. But. I mean, let’s move it back to, because it essentially we are activists and we do this, or I certainly do this out of love and, because I think it’s important is we’re making important contributions so on that note what are the immediate aims of objectives of the White Art Collective first Jeff and Vile Media second.

 

Jeff: Well our goals in the near term, or to continue to bring artists together so that they can collaborate so that they have a community of like-minded people and so that they can feed off of that creative energy and it inspires people who either were creating before and we’re never able to find a home, or perhaps people who never have really created and have always maybe had a creative penchant but never did it [115:02], because they were just they didn’t see the incentive they’re like yeah no one wants to hear what I have to say, you know, they sense that so we want to keep doing that and we want to keep trying to professionalize what we’re doing and kind of formalize it and that’s kind of a tricky situation to do that and it’s kind of we’re doing it very organically I think we’re doing it in the right way the same way that we would create a piece of art, you know, we’re seeing what works and I listen to people especially I talked to the core whack pack as we call it every day we’re talking about stuff we’re talking about our what our plans are for the future we’re working on quite a few shows that we’re doing we’ve got one we’re really excited about called our culture we had chimeras on there recently which was really a big gift for us and he had a lot of fascinating things to talk about so one of our goals is where we’re doing exactly this to what we’re doing on this show is that we’re trying to build a bridge out into the community and to across the pond across the euro sphere across different factions of thought also from the cultural side to the political side and eventually I hope we’ll build a bridge to like a more economic wing where people are more focused on, you know how do we make ourselves independent financially, you know, not that no more shilling. But yeah, just, you know, these are all important areas that I think we need to think about and yeah we’re gonna keep doing big projects like I said we’re gonna do the spooky short film contest and one of these days we’re going to do a whack fest we’re going to have a real in real life big festival and we’re gonna invite all of our friends and allies from all around the world to come and join us and we’re gonna have live music and we’re gonna have people’s oral poetry and paintings and films and it’s gonna be awesome so that’s a long-term goal I wanted to maybe do it this year in a small version but we, you know, this whole pandemic thing kind of put a kibosh on that. But yeah, we’re just going to keep our shoulder to the plow keep doing what we’re doing. And if anybody is interested in getting in contact any artists, or allies, or just any comments in general contact that White our collective comm and I’m on Twitter Gab our DLive channels where we stream and also our replays around BitChute thank you guys for having me so much I appreciate it’s great to finally get to speak with all of you it’s been a pleasure.

 

Simon: Fantastic before we move on to Nick I just want we’ve got a few more superchats. So let’s get them done penguins in a diorama another $25 thank you very, very much. And he says:

 

“Entropy works. Drinks all round.”

 

Picking gas 1972, three US dollars:

 

“Contribution with love from the wilderness.”

 

Thank you very much mate.

 

Aldous Asghar 5gb pounds:

 

“It seems to me that large amounts of parents seem to stop passing on the culture in a meaningful way what can we do to reverse this at least is true for me and I’m 29.”

 

Well I think we’ve discussed this already what I mean, we’re working at it I think we need to restructure the way we look at art and personally here on the right we need to think more intergenerationally and to close off Nick anything any round rounding off comments and summarizing comments.

 

Unwashed: That’s been a very enjoyable stream I think that there needs to be more of this more focus on this cultural side I think it needs a real real kick up the ass and vile is really just a way of venting frustration like I know Horus and Geoff’s focused on we need to return to sort of loveliness I’m really fueled by anger above all else so if there’s something that’s seriously pissed you off about our modern world then get the rage on the page and send it through to our contact form at file media don’t code it UK quickly with regards to lockdown like I do think if this hadn’t happened then we’d be well on the way to having events and doing stuff I don’t know that I’d be throwing gigs by this point but we’d Elise be in the pub and it did its such a shame it feels like it’s such a roadblock but we’ve all had to deal with here. But I think when it if it finally gets loosened then we’re gonna be so raring to go. So I’m really excited for when I get to have human contact with people again but this has been wonderful we should do it again.

 

Simon: Quick final thought Horus.

 

Horus: Doing great work and I’m gonna start paying more attention to what [120:00] collective, because I’m not too well-versed yet. So I’m looking forward to listen to the Saturday night show you mentioned Jeff I love vile every week especially on its based on Nathan body which I think was classic well not based on. But I mean, partly inspired well yeah. And if you want another playlist I’ve got one in mind there may be other consent through as an article as well.

 

Unwashed: Do it! Absolutely! Yes all any and all submissions are great, because because, you know, if I run out of submissions and I to write something and that’s an effort.

 

Simon: Okay yeah well thanks everyone for being here many thanks for Jeff Jeff for being here I think it’s been really interesting I think it’s the start of a beautiful friendship there are many other people on the White Hawk collective who I mean, touch with as I said, before the political wings and the cultural wings need to come in to come together we’re all in this together and yeah we need to be communicating with each other and we need to be united. I think this is the start of it is where it’s not the start of it but. This is a another step along the path and we’re going to do lots more in the future thanks Jeff thanks Nick. Thanks Horus for being here, and thank you to the audience. And we also we’ll see you next week. Have a wonderful night and look after yourselves.

 

Unwashed: Heil wack pack.

 

Jeff: Thanks!

 

[121:26]

 

 

 

END

 

 

============================================

 

See Also

 

Simon Harris – My Speech to the Patriotic Alternative Conference – Mar 16, 2020 — Transcript

 

Simon Harris – EF 21 – Keeping A Political Project On Point with Dangerfield – Apr 28, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

Simon Harris – My Speech to the Patriotic Alternative Conference – Mar 16, 2020 — Transcript

Simon Harris – EF 19 – A Conversation with Nick Griffin – Apr 14, 2020 — Transcript

Simon Harris – EF 21 – Keeping A Political Project On Point with Dangerfield – Apr 28, 2020 — Transcript

Simon Harris – EF 23 – Is Populism and Patriotism Enough? with Paul Rimmer – May 5, 2020 — Transcript

Simon Harris – EF 22 – Gavin Boby on Mosque-busting and the Breakdown of Society – Apr 28, 2020 — Transcript

Simon Harris – EF 25 – The State of the Art with Jeff Winston & Nick Cotton – May 19, 2020 — Transcript

 

============================================

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 17,193

* Total images = 2

* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

 

Version History

 

 

Version 3: Jun 17, 2020. 15 more minutes (60 – 75 mins) proofed by Dawn. Transcript fully proofed = 35/121 mins.

 

Version 2: May 24, 2020. Added See Also links.

 

Version 1:: May 20, 2020 — Published post. Transcript fully proofed = 20/121 mins.

 

Click here for the audio:

 

 

 

 

Published on Dec 18, 2019