Transcript by Andrew Johnson
Footnotes mainly by Andrew Johnson, with additional comments by Prof Judy Wood.
This is quite an extraordinary discussion in many ways – and in my view, clearly demonstrates that neither Jones or Deagle are being completely honest in their discussion.
You will hear them:
Even though Deagle suggests there is going to be a multiple nuke attack in the USA, Homeland Secuirty don’t seem to have expressed an interest in this.
Listen to the audio or read the transcript.
0:05
Deagle (D)
Well, welcome. I really appreciate all the work you’re doing Dr Jones. You're a scientist and a gentleman because the pursuit of science is devoid of ego and the real issue we have here both with the Vancouver 9/11 [conference] is the issue - we need to find out not only the plans but also the devices that they’re using -- the devices they used in Oklahoma City to bring [down] and demolished that building and the World Trade Centre and the grave danger that they'll use similar types of things on a higher scale in cities across America and Canada otherwise.
Jones: (J)
Let me interject a thought there Bill -- as I have been working on this understanding of what you're talking about…
D:
…for a long time yeah.
J:
…quite a while. The central goal I have now is justice. I think we actually have sufficient data to motivate a trial.
D:
Oh we do. In fact, see, I'm a medical and legal doctor as well and I belong to these -- yeah [inaudible]. I agree. I think we have enough evidence for an international tribunal and treason trials and I think - that's - you're right but ... see if we had even additional evidence... it's not just activating an international trial that I'm concerned about, I am concerned also about activating the public on a larger scale to understand the magnitude of the criminal activity because of the danger of the next events - from my contacts with inside NSA, CIA and other higher contacts -- that the next event -- I was told -- the two next biggies -- and this was proven by the documents I showed today from Philadelphia where they're testing giving 50,000 homes a package with a US Postal Service worker, a city policeman armed, providing a box of "medicines" which may include vaccines that will be given at gunpoint to citizens and they cannot refuse it[1] and the danger I see is that I was told that they had - at least by mid-90s they had 22 cities pre-wired with nukes -- not little ones that would go off and just cause a building to dissolve, but big ones that could take out, say 16 city blocks of [inaudible] cities like Los Angeles Denver and other ones so they could declare a total state of martial law not just a partial one de facto with the Doctor Krackosian in the middle of the airport - Constantly being kind of - you know - you have to take off your shoes and you're constantly surveilled and next May 11 we’re going to have to have a tracker ID -- they're literally going to make a total police state and I think they want to do it by final transforming events I see is a pandemic and nukes going off in multiple cities because I think they'll transcend just using conventional explosives like thermate to using really big ones.[inaudible] I think we agree on
Person
Why do you think that?
J:
Well, I mean you're looking to [inaudible].
D:
…the next thing.
J:
…even Brazinsky before a Senate committee in the Congress just this year in February said he could see some action, some event in the United States or elsewhere that would be blamed on Iran and that would then justify a defensive attack on...[inaudible]
D:
Well of course that's what Cheney said too - he said that before, he's ordered STRATCOM to prepare attack orders against 440 targets inside Iran both….
J:
and they're looking at using tactical nukes…
D:
Right…
J:
… I understand it's a possibility, so this is a very serious situation. I think there is some evidence that we agree on[2].
D:
Oh absolutely.
3:33
J:
... I thought that was a good place to start. We agree first of all that the discussion should be evidence-based.[3]
D:
Oh absolutely it can’t be based on opinion[4]... because the thing is ultimately if there is not evidence that could ultimately get into a court [inaudible] the court - public opinion then it shouldn't be dismissed but it should be based on scientific evidence.
3:50
J:
It needs to be based on solid evidence, okay. We agree on that - and as we look at the evidence -- I don't think this is the place to go through all the evidence[5] --
D:
Yeah - no, no, no.
J:
…but we have both looked at quite a bit of the evidence then. And we agree [inaudible] understand…
D:
It’s like the scientific method, you have to have a hypothesis and a theory, and a number of anomalies that could be explained by that theory then you propose a test of the hypothesis - null hypothesis and the test I see beside the evidence we have so far from the US geological about tritium and there is some discussion of whether it could be from something like [exasymes?] which I think is a bit of a stretch but the thing that will help us to close that door to determine if there were indeed some kind of devices in one or more places in the building could be if there's heavy isotopes. Now if they're not present then it means that obviously...
J:
I wanted to establish what we agreed on...
D:
yeah. We're agreed on the thermate of course... it had to be
J:
there is considerable evidence...
D:
Oh... there is no disagreement there at all... yeah…
J:
OK and I think we both looked at the directed energy weapons…
D:
that's... no evidence, in fact I was a doctor taking care of people working with people for 6 years working with directed energy weapons for US Star Wars. [6]
J:
OK you have a lot more background...[7]
D:
yeah so I know about Tom Bearden's type of coherence interference weapons systems and scalar weaponry and plasma cannons at Lockheed Martin and skunk Works and Lucent[8] Technologies and the company I was working [at] was General Dynamics.
J:
Let me try one more while we’re on a roll here and agreeing. How about the "no planes hit the towers."?
D:
That's ridiculous.[9]
J:
OK, I agree with you.
D:
In fact, what I was told from my contacts inside the U.S. Air Force, Air Force Academy and so on, is those were probably not United Airlines jets but they were probably E-10s that were flown in there. That's what they told me. That err In fact, I knew this from being a civil aviation examiner[10] that all jet aircraft, commercial jet aircraft, worldwide, have been capable of being remotely taken over control for over thirty years.
J:
Well, so we agree that jets did hit the towers.[11]
D:
Oh yeah, jets hit the towers.
J:
OK now lets get to the…
D:
and of course the other thing is the architectural thing that jets couldn't take them down because I have friends that are architectural[12]. In fact across the street from where I live in Halifax, this thoracic surgeon's son is an architect in New York and he said he knew immediately -- literally within seconds after both jets hit the towers that there was no evidence whatsoever... because they teach this course... in architecture around the world that these buildings were built to withstand up to a 9.5 earthquake[13] and there's absolutely no evidence a jet aircraft could bring down these buildings at all, or even the burning of furniture or anything else so the normal combustible materials couldn’t have done to the buildings - it had to have been controlled demolition.
J:
So we agree with that…
6:27
D:
Yeah.
J:
Okay so now lets talk about the possibility of mini nukes. [Jones moves round] So let's see - the evidence that you have then for this hypothesis?
D:
Well, I went over those 13 points -- I don't want to go point by point[14] but the key thing that I see is evidence such as the Tesla type effects -- Para-magnetic effects on objects at a distance that are not due to a thermal pulse from a regular conventional weapon and I'd like to see those vehicles that’s another piece that should be looked at -- like the engine blocks to see if there's Para-magnetic effects on air-conditioners, the engine blocks and the mirrors because the physical evidence supports that hypothesis. The second thing…
J:
Well. Let's talk about the vehicles for a minute. So - you're saying that the damage on the vehicles would be... we agree that it will be great to have a vehicle, but I'm not sure we’re going to get one.
D:
Yeah - I think they're still stored down there - I think that the evidence...
7:29
Person
Could I just ask a question? Have you actually seen those vehicles?
J:
We have photos...
D:
We have photos from them ... and apparently
Person
[inaudible] and all documented with the location...?
D:
I heard they're still stored down there[15] actually.
J:
This is a good point though, that the vehicles that were on FDR Avenue there... that was... they were quite a ways away from the World Trade Center [right...]. There's a paper in the journal by James Gourley in the Journal of 9/11 Studies that argues, I think, quite persuasively they were probably[16] near the towers during the collapses and were towed subsequently to the… to FDR… so that they were not that far away when they were damaged.[17] You see the difference.
D
Well, I think one of the things we see is actually that there were per parked vehicles and we can be pretty well sure that they weren't - but that wasn't the situation. The other thing was that part of the vehicle in front - the front of the vehicle was affected in areas even just a matter of… like the back part of the vehicle wasn’t affected [inaudible] in the immediate thermal pulse area let’s say, of a conventional big explosion let’s say the conventional bit explosive let’s say a lot of TNT.[18]
8:34
J:
Let me address that. If there was thermate - which we agree on – so you have these hot particles -- Iron principally -- in the dust being blown at the vehicles - that could also give this pattern of damage, near the buildings because of the hot particles blasting and carried with the dust and blown against the vehicles. So what I'm saying...
D:
You're thinking [inaudible] just looking at the pattern, and then again this is only hypothesis I don't think it gets to the theory level but if you look at the effects - if it was indeed - these vehicles were at a distance away there they’re at a distance that is so great that the thermal pulse is unlikely and also the kind of damage indicates that it is more Para-magnetic than thermal... in other words the damage would have affected, say, mirrors but yet would not have melted the vehicle.[19]
J:
Let’s see - I have looked at those corroded vehicles quite carefully - I have discussed them with a number of people – scientists - and what you see is pock-marks in some cases which affects the metal and it appears to be quite corrosive this would be consistent worth... a … sulphur - like a sulfidation attack.
D:
Yeah, I mean we could have a combination of both. You could have a combination of pyroclastic jets of super hot iron and sulphur compounds like we’re talking about - and a Para-magnetic... because you can have both... or you could have had a combination because one of the things I was told that happened in Oklahoma City is that they had layers. Whenever you do a controlled demolition whether its... and I talked to munitions people since 911 on this who have worked inside of military - the Army Corps of engineers and other people in special Ops and Delta ... say if you’re ever gonna do a controlled demolition you have to use things like high explosive cord[ite] – thermate, RDx and other things and of course the thermate in the super thermate are great for cutting... but you have to have charges to blow out the sections... plus you have to have enough kinetic energy to blow - you know, giant sections... so it had to require pretty massive bombs.
10:38
J:
So we agree that there is corrosion and it could be a combination perhaps... or it could be thermate...
D:
It’s probably layered. I think[20] it's multiple types of detonation device.
Person
What would satisfy both of you?
J:
That's what I'm going to get at – it’s what's called a crucial test. What we want is a test that doesn't allow for both hypotheses or a combination - but rather one will say this, the other will say that. [yeah] And I think that we agree that radio isotopes due to neutron activation would be would-be a conventional test.
D:
Plus if we got what I would have got what for example I call that Girder Fry which is like – that giant girder which was curved like a big... could that girder - that giant girder be - be fried literally fired by hot gases or whatever from conventional thermate or super thermate or other high explosives other than that and melted this giant girder. And if indeed we did have neutron activation we have iron and [iron] 58 isotopes.
J:
Okay. Here we go now – Iron - you agree that... 59... iron 59?
D:
Well you’re going to get iron 59 and 58. 58 is stable... a stable isotope.
J:
So what we want is to look for short-lived isotopes.
D:
... and and longer ones too. You will see some long stable isotopes.
J:
Okay but what we want is the ones that would represent neutron activation - cobalt 60 might be... iodine 110... [21]
11:59
D:
Yeah exactly yeah. So if you show these heavier isotopes then that's going to help, yeah. Something I'm not sure about half-lifes, but cobalt 60 has a half life, I think, of 5 years.
J:
yeah but that's enough... because were only at five-and a half years now.
D:
So we could pick out... if we could find cobalt 60 which is one of our tests – isotopes we’re testing. And the other thing I don't know if it was done, or if you did more work on this was - did we test for other chemical residues because super thermate by itself is enough to cut them but you have to have another high explosive to blow the pieces apart once they’re cut.
Person
Isn't it true, though that the super thermate if it is a fine dust near the outside of the building exploded?
J:
That's correct.
13:10
D:
It’d be explosive but what I think - there's always this degree of redundancy when you are going to explode like the [inaudible] in Las Vegas - so they have redundant systems – so it’s almost certain that they have layers of … of explosive type of things - this is just a hypothesis they probably used backups to make sure that whenever this is going down they couldn't afford like for example – who knows - I think it was WTC 6 - of the 26 floors from the top you saw – in the video... a portion of the building literally turn and then tilt and then, all of a sudden, that building just went poof[22] so whatever turned that building into you know a destructive ye know ash cloud had to be powerful enough to literally take that tilted piece - that could have fallen over and fallen a great distance and literals turn it into fine particles whether they’re nano particles or just the dust.
Person
Could that be just conventional weapons?
D:
Sure it could be. The only way is to first test the hypothesis is to measure things like neutron activation. But I wonder if there's other chemical tests that I said - that measure chemical residues for other [inaudible]... did anybody test those?
13:44
Person
How close are we to finding out this kind of a measurement?
D:
Did anybody test those?
J:
Let's get back to the … let's get back to the crucial test - neutron activation. So we’re looking for radio isotopes that will tell us whether or not there were neutron... nuclear explosives.
D:
Right.
J:
So let's look for example at... and I know you're doing some testing...
D:
Yeah we’re going to do some testing... and we expect that as little as 10% of the of the ash material of the buildings for the whatever particle size to be acceptable to actually do the test on because we expect that and - I’m certain – that you’re right and there was thermate or super thermate[23] in the building which would have generated a type of ash which would not show neutron activation but there may be additional material in parts of the building where they may have used these devices [inaudible] within 50 or 100 yards... [inaudible]
J:
What size of mini-nukes are you talking...?
D:
The ones I was told they removed unexploded from the Oklahoma City Murrah building and the guy who told me got court marshaled - and I got fired into [inaudible] so I can believe him - were 1/10 of a kiloton Micro nukes U.S. Army Corps of engineers and that they measured tritium which means that they’re...
J:
These are initiated with a fission reaction ?
14:52
D:
He didn't give me the details on that. They were U.S. Army Corps engineers fourth-generation Micro nukes and what I was told from other contacts is that they have Micro nukes now that can be activated by very high-powered magnetic pulses and lasers and that they have those fourth-generation type of Micro nukes available now. [inaudible] – no, this is classified stuff that I was told.
J:
Let me see if we can actually get to 1/10 kiloton fusion bombs we have a solution to our energy problems I don't... you know… without using fission as the initiation… I really doubt that those exist ... are you sure they exist?
D:
That's what he told me.
J:
Who told...?[24]
15:33
D:
It was a special op agent that told me this...
J:
... without fission. But... okay. But still you get….
D:
But they might have[25] a fission / fusion bomb.
J:
But either way...
D:
Yeah - you can have a fission/fusion bomb but I was also told by other contacts that they have had – they have fourth-generation nukes that actually use they have are very high-powered or giga-tesla-type pulsed magnetic effects[26] in order to create a fusion reaction and also these super high-powered lasers[27].So I'm not sure... I mean .. I was told this…
J:
In the data - that I find it quite hard to believe in the fusion...
16:07
D:
One of the things that happened… I found this out from my... you know many years working on different things working on some projects externally and internally[28] is that even up to the university level - that at any of the universities you only receive the top 4% of what is called the doorstep of knowledge and whenever you get into these highly classified programs that it’s on a need to know basis and it’s extremely - it’s extremely narrow in scope and on a need to know basis so that they normally have budgets that are unending and when they tried to recruit me to work on the super soldier program at UCLA by Professor Dr Wallace [Chartle?] had spent 22 and half million just on personal acquisitions of equipment from his own office. And he told that there’s no end to the budget so, but what I'm saying is that the level of this in the public universities is nowhere near what the actual state-of-the-art in facilities which are totally classified in these government...
J:
Well, let's get back to the test for radio isotopes…
17:10
D:
Yeah, we’re going to be testing in 1 or more labs and if it’s negative because I agree that it will give even more support – but I am also wondering if there were additional things besides thermate and – the reason is we want to check those because here’s the key issue to me… if it shows it wasn’t and they used thermate, will they go directly to nukes next time? Or will they use a combination of the same kind of things and the next type of explosive to destroy the [inaudible] cities?
J:
The next one is a little beyond the question. It's an important issue… [right because…] but I would like to focus on... so you will look for radio isotopes? It's support looking… doing those types of tests - I think that's the way to do it. The crucial test if you see an abundance and not just, ye know fluctuations statistically...
D:
it's got to be a large enough margin that it goes beyond...
J:
A hundred times or something the iron 58 or 59 or the iodine 110 then you can say “Well this is truly anomalous - we really have something that we can home in... and so on…”
D:
It will help...
J:
On the other hand if you don't see those large excesses...
D:
Then it adds additional support to your thesis which is thermate.
J:
Well perhaps, but on the other hand - in any case we’d say - this hypothesis - we tried it we did the tests, the evidence was not there because evidence is what we require.
D:
Oh, absolutely.
J:
Yeah – so we agree on that - that's good. I’ll look forward to your results[29]. And I do have one more thing to say about this... because iodine 110 was tested for a month after... the – just about a month after the event... after September 11th and what was done there...
D:
Was this test by US geological?
J:
It was Leoy et al as I recall. Now…
D:
Where did they test it from? Was it water samples? Or...?
J:
It was sediment in the water.
D:
Right. And what did they find?
19:08
J:
What they found was that they found sediment layers that clearly identified the World Trade Centre dust on top and it’s identifiable[30], as I mentioned you have the silicon rich spheres and the iron rich spheres. I mean there's no...
D:
Yeah, right because it was turned into a vapour right?
J:
No I don't agree with that but...
D:
[inaudible] Your kind of vapour [inaudible] [okay] it melted into these little tiny spheres and then kind of...
J:
… melted. Melted[31] it is not necessarily - evaporated but it certainly melted. OK - there we go. Let's get back to the 110. So the sediment – now the see an upper layer which is from the World Trade Centre and then the layer below. The iodine 110 was actually less in the upper layer - the World Trade Centre layer – than the layer below. To me - and this is in my paper which is a letter in the journal of 911 studies.com. This is one of the key areas we were just discussing -- 110 -- iodine...
D:
but you know the half life of 110...
J:
It’s short... but..
D:
very short - in fact you can count it in days which is why after Chernobyl...
J:
But there's enough time for it to still be there... and that doesn't...
D:
Just a month later there may not be detectable levels...
J:
I have to... there would be detectable levels after a month... we agree that will 110…
D:
Plus you’d also have to have the areas of building… because I think there were layers of explosives. My thesis was not based on the idea…
20:30
J:
Iodine 131, sorry.
D:
131 yeah. 131 Disappears – we use it for medical tests and it’s gone very, very quickly. [inaudible] So if you have any radio trace
J:
The point is the sediment below was even higher than the sediment above. So obviously it lasts long enough for you to have a measurement.
D:
It could just be background…
J:
…it was made by these scientists that - there is then …and they had other
D:
Where is the dust that they gathered – was it on a roof somewhere?
J:
It was in the Hudson river, as I recall – the sediment – and the report is… it’s in the sediment [yeah]… it’s in my letter… it’s quoted [it’s some distance] I just had some notes from it
D:
Well, I have several scientific questions. The first is that if it’s a month after…it would be back down in the range of background.
J:
No…It’s already lower than the sediment…
D:
It doesn’t matter…
J:
Why does the sediment below not…?
D:
No, no what happens is that – let’s say the materials in the building had to be turned into particles, OK - and let’s say that dust was blown out by thermate – right – that the wallboard and furniture and the people and everything ended up in the bottom of the Hudson river – that sediment debris if it did have activated iodine 131 would have degraded to whatever the background for that material is…
J:
… what’s the half life?
D:
The half life is something like 72 hours – it’s very very short. [32]
J:
I don’t know…
D:
It’s very very short – I am pretty sure of that – we give iodine tablets and we tell people that within 72 hours they’re back to background.
J:
If anybody has internet we can look it up. But the point is these serious scientists[33] analysed…
D:
They never went…. and looked for the other ones
J:
And the reason… no, they did look for others - and it’s in my paper – have you read actually my letter that addresses the many new hypotheses?
D:
I have looked at some of those things.
J:
Did you read my paper in the Journal?
D:
I think I remember having a look at that yeah…
J:
Because this was one of the main points –
D:
Did they test for beryllium 9?
J:
They tested for Iodine 131 specifically…
D:
And they did they do that by induction and coupled [plasma microscopy?]
J:
I didn’t go back to …
D:
It’s actually a calculation based on ionization, so you have to…
J:
They measured the sediment layer…
D:
But what technologies did they use?
J:
It’s in their paper I’m sure…but I don’t have that recollection – I quoted the result.
D:
What they do is they use a thing called induction coupled iron spectroscopy – they back-calculated the difference between the base isotopes and the other ones.
J
In addition they looked for … the paper also cited in my paper where the scientists looked for alpha beta and gamma emissions. They said the alpha emissions were…
D:
This is the sediment in the Hudson…
J:
No, this is now in the dust as I recall
D:
The dust at the bottom of the Hudson – yeah…
J:
No not from the bottom of the Hudson… the dust from the world trade centre – [oh yeah] dry dust. So they looked for a new [degree] alpha beta gamma [inaudible] emissions.
D:
Yeah – it was closer – if there was neutron activation produce those things – it would disappear pretty quickly though…
J:
It varies a lot. I mean cobalt 60 – lasts a long time…
D:
Oh yes – Cobalt 60 – but….
J:
Iron 58 I think lasts quite a while too.
D:
Yeah – but then indeed but depending on the basis - cobalt 59
J:
Of course, but I mean Iron – you’ve got tons of iron[34]
24:14
D:
Yeah Iron, Iron – you’ve got some steel – one of the things… one of the things that was very suspicious was the fact that they hauled away the steel so quickly… but has anyone ever done any analysis for the heavy neutron activated isotopes and iron
J:
OK. I have a piece of the iron from the World Trade Centre – this was a leftover from a monument that was put together [good] … and I have that and it’s [banded?] – it’s quite heavily bent
D:
Was it bent from a physical wrenching or was it bent from a thermal pulse?
J:
I showed it to a machinist – it’s hard to tell – it’s clearly an angle iron - it’s clearly opened [?]
D:
What you want to do is have a piece of metal that looks like it was literally cooked like that Girder Fry like you see in the pictures…
J:
It does have some residue [yeah] on it …
D:
In other words it looks as if it was cooked by a high pressure – very hot temperature thermate, you know like you talked about or the idea of a thermal pulse – from a mini-nuke or a conventional weapon you want to see if the neutron activation – I only think a percentage of the actual debris of the building would be acceptable to the task which is why my guess is less than 10% of the material that you would see would probably be samples where that might have occurred.
J:
…interesting. In any case this is [worth testing] and I did look at just… I’m not saying this is the most sophisticated test, certainly, but I looked with a Geiger Counter and this is about gosh … last year…
D:
Yeah - most of the isotopes though will be stable not radioactive…
J:
I guess you know the answer… it’s in my paper. There was no radioactivity [yeah] in this iron[35] – this steel from the World Trade Centre [yeah] that had been heavily damaged and indeed there was a flow of material on it so…there’s nothing above background and that the results are the… numerical results are given in my paper. I encourage you to read it….
D:
Yeah, yeah - one of the things about Iron and neutron activation is only a very tiny amount of the isotopes have a relatively short half-life are going to be the radioactively stable ones like Iron 58 are not radioactive long…[36]
J:
So the point is, I summarized in my paper [yeah] various studies that had already looked for radio isotopes including Iodine 131, alpha gamma and beta emitters and of course for myself I looked at the steel and the dust [right] [inaudible] McKinlay so it will be interesting if you see something that I missed…
D:
What we’re going to be doing is that we’re using a technology [inaudible] because we also have to use the right technology because we’re going to be looking for stable isotopes above background by a marginally wide enough to see if it shows the isotope ratios that would indeed indicate there was enough mixing in the pyroclastic clouds that would be spreading and mixing and also….
J:
Why are you looking at the stable isotopes?
D:
No - we’re looking for these – these ones like the higher and heavier isotopes like you know ones like – like Beryllium 9 and ten [37] you know Niobium 94 [38] and Cobalt 59 and 60.
J:
Well Cobalt 60…
D:
The [principle was there?] if we find the heavier isotopes of Beryllium – that’s going to be a real [cruncher] because Beryllium is rare to see in places like – in and around a nuclear device.
27:30
J:
OK - So we need to analyse [?] that you’re working – that’s good – that’s the results are not yet in - OK
D:
Oh no - we’ll see and again we’re planning on running probably these 3 samples[39] and if we get repeated samples negative there – if we get positive we’re trying doing it in a different lab – we’re also asking people like yourself – you’re a physicist[40] – and samples of what you have and use similar types of technology if we get positive – we have to have somebody independent like yourself go and test not only test the samples you have but other ones to see if – even say one sample in 20 is positive for some of the isotopes by a wide enough margin…
J:
That’s important. You need the plus or minus too…
D:
Right plus or minus[41] – and a range of coincidence – you need enough samples positive – and it should be done not just by a range of individuals – so you can’t say he has an agenda so he’s trying to prove his theory so you can end up with independent corroboration…
J:
You need some independent [inaudible] as we’ve done with the iron-rich spheres.
D:
Yeah – you’ve proven this thermate dust…?
J:
I think we’re in fairly good agreement on what needs to be done and I hope you will look at some of those other studies which I did…
29:10
D:
Oh yeah – I’ll look at those and again I’m a scientist - I want to find the facts – I’m not just looking to the idea of finding the mechanism which brought down the towers – which I think you’ve shown is thermate and superthermate are there. I’m very concerned with what I have been told from my contacts inside the Special Ops Delta and other agencies the next major 2 events that we are worried [inaudible] pandemics like I mentioned this about talk about the Sunday test in Philadelphia - but also the danger of nukes going off and they will not just use conventional thermate, superthermate – the next event they’re gonna do in US cities will be nukes going off in US cities – just like the Virginia[?] harbour the test at the end of April 27 when they finished the test was a 100 kiloton nuke going off in Virginia[?] harbour and they did similar tests last year in Charleston, South Carolina. Their idea was to do a wargame simulation with not only North American, Canadian and US but also British Security Services but also bring in Foreign troops to control the population…
29:40
J:
Yeah – let me mention one thing to finish because I think we’re pretty well in agreement of goals and concerns. On the idea of some operations[42] – some event - in the United States blamed on Iran…
D:
They want to attack Iran between now and the fall is a particular danger period because I think they want to attack before Ramadan next year.
30:05
J:
OK. One other exercise is that we have learned that with evidence we can learn a great deal so if there is an event and - we won’t even name a city[43] lets just say an American city - blamed on Iran, certainly there will be 9/11 truthers nearby and I hope they realize the importance of collecting a sample [right] whether that’s dust … [also radiation] right - having a radiation detector handy if you’ve got one – whether it’s Geiger - if you send me a sample I’d be glad to look at it and I’m sure you would too, Bill[44]. So, if there is such an event the point – the reason I’m emphasizing this is because it’s a bit of a warning if there are perpetrators thinking about – such another 9/11 they’d better think twice because 9/11 truthers are out there – we’re watching. We will get samples – we know what to do – evidence-based studies – we can do very quickly and we can put an end to lies - on the next 9/11 if it [inaudible] … which I hope we’ll avoid… is what I’m trying to say…
D:
Well we’ve already probably stopped them – a lot of the work that you’ve done – many other 9/11 truthers…
J:
And Alex Jones…
D:
And Alex Jones and all the great leaders. I think what we’ve done we probably don’t know how many 9/11 type events we’ve already stopped.
J:
It could well be – good point.
Person
How shall people retain continuity of evidence and get that to you?
D:
Chain of custody…
J:
Chain of custody it’s very important…right
31:50
D:
I could tell because I’m a medical legal expert on this. What you want to do is you want to bring it to an attorney or another [public?] and you actually have to sign an affidavit you collected the specimen on a specific date legal [inaudible] it needs to have a chain of custody[45] signed and sealed and a seal that can’t be broken – if that seal is broken it means the chain is broken but the bag has to go in a steel container to a laboratory by signed courier with a chain of custody number on it but a riser[?] has to give an internal chain of custody number intake so that there’s no breaking of the chain [inaudible]
J:
I think it’s an important point – we’re talking about amateur people – helpers – and so if you get multiple people – 3 or more, for example – filming someone, filming someone collecting and then seal that in a bag and the dust as we have learned has a great deal of information carried with it [right] and that can then be taken to [inaudible] that’s fine and it seems to me that if it’s video-taped the procedure – I mean, these people that are collecting are not going to know to gather iodine 131 and plus an equal amount of cobalt 60, no, they’re just gonna collect the dust and send it… I think we’ll get a very credible case in a very short time if – if we can have co-operation of – truthers - if there is another 9/11-like event we can now do something to stop this - so that’s a great goal.
D:
Yeah – I think that … I really believe that meetings like this are - have stopped the death of millions. What I was told back in 94 by a special agent - she was in a cold-sweat telling me this - that at that time they already had 22 cities pre-wired with nukes and they told me the names of the cities that are targets[46].
J:
I heard of some of these names – one’s not far from here actually [yes – Seattle][47]
Person
I would just like to make a comparison Dr D: - on a scale of 1 to 100 what percentage do you say that you agree with Dr Jones’ thesis that thermate was used in…
D:
Oh I am… 100% that thermate was used – 100% [He was just saying]
Person
The difference between your 2 theories - if I’m getting it right - is Dr Jones is not pursuing a thermonuclear bring-down of the World Trace Centres – and you’re continuing to do research…
D:
We’re just researching it to make sure – we need to know what demolished it and if it was superthermate then it means it’s powerful enough to bring down these 2 towers[48] and create debris piles and all the anomalies that we saw. If it wasn’t, I think – it’s my own opinion now – if we do find evidence of nukes in the World Trade Centre and we’re gonna also get the concrete cap off the Murrah building because there was – and I was told this by the special agent – that told me this – there was 2 unexloded micronukes a C4 pineapple, RDX and there was thermate in the building that was not exploded in the Oaklahoma city Murrah building, OK?[49] I was told that face to face by this agent – Special Ops agent – so I know there was thermate in the building. What I am concerned about is if I think if there is any evidence at all that there was the use in some portions of the building of micronukes – it greatly increases the danger I think of nukes going off in US cities in the next few months.
Person
[inaudible] You said thermate is used to help bring the building down – but also…
35:13
J:
Oh absolutely – C4 or RDX
D:
Yeah – there could have been others ones– they had a whole bunch of layers[50] – like this guy literally told 5 or 6 things and he spent hours with me explaining because of my background as a chemist before I went into medicine I was a biochemist[51] – and so I understood and I said – you gotta explain this to me because he’s a frantic munitions guy and he’s told me there were layers in these buildings – like a work of art. My thesis as I mentioned before is that I think that they literally blew out the building, with the thermate in the floors[52] and so on but that they took out the core of the building with these micro-nuclear devices. Now that could be wrong if they used thermate there too – but if they did use it to bring out the core of building using – thermate - and there may have been with micronukes they may have started from upper floors and done it so many floors apart – that changes the thesis of what they might do when they do their next operation[53] – because it’s a kind of controlled demolition if they take out 16 or 20 blocks of say Los Angeles – and like the top 3 cities – LA is one of the top 3 cities that’s likely to be hit, OK? And so…
Person
[inaudible] radiation… if you’re using nuclear bombs…
D:
It depends if it’s a fourth generation or they have…
Person
… would have a lot of contamination that would spread evenly.
D:
Well, remember - they’re not dirty bombs – remember these bombs now, the new fourth generation nukes and I was told this by people in the NSA – the bombs that they have now - since the 1950’s they - have types of nuclear bombs that generate mostly gamma rays – mostly neutrons like a neutron bomb from battlefield weapons mostly electromagnetic pulse – so they can have weapons that give very little blast but give a massive electromagnetic pulse so they can be very selective in the energy distribution patterns of the type of weapons they have now - and I was told and this again is stuff that’s not conventional - and that they can detonate these without having to use a nuclear fission/fusion type ye know triggering thing[54] – but use these ultra-powerful magnetic pulses that have lasers in order to actually generate nuclear explosions.
J:
If they really have that, we have an energy solution so… these guys are…
D:
Well they’re sitting on…they don’t want to have…
J:
They’re sitting on it…?
D:
Course they are…
J:
I don’t think [inaudible] had a chance to ask your question did you?[55]
37:17
Person:
Well I guess my biggest point here – questions to both of you – looks like you’re looking for a motive for something that brought the building down other than what you both agree isn’t fire…
D:
The reason I am looking for the extra additional things is because of what I know independently about the danger of the next event – because I know that we’re gonna operate now with the thermate to start the international court of justice[56] – that needs to happen now – but if we get additional evidence that there were nukes. Thermate can be acquired ye know, through e-bay and through you know munitions – forensic[?] companies that can actually detonate buildings. You can’t acquire 4th generation micronukes accept from the US military. Because the ones that they took from the World Trade Centre – from the Oaklahoma city Murrah Building – which were, I was told, this was very specific - US Corps of Engineers – 1 tenth of a kiloton detonation excavating[57] micronukes – OK? So with those specific requirements we’re talking about only one source where they could acquire that type of detonation equipment. So if - that even makes it more damning in terms of who did the detonation. We know it was a controlled demolition and we know there was thermate in it – but if we find the evidence that there were nuclear devices even for parts – even for a part of the building, like the top or somewhere in the core then it makes it much, much more devastating for the side trying to protect against the idea that the US government and elements within the FBI and the ATF were involved because we know the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 93 and this is in the Wall Street Journal – December 24 was actually done by the FBI hiring the Egyptian munitions forensics so the grave danger here is if – if my test is negative then it actually buttresses Dr Jones’ theory more, but if it’s positive it puts us in much more danger of them[58] actually blowing
J:
[inaudible] a little more [inaudible]
39:07
Person
I guess the question then is the evidence leading you to this or are you following an idea to the evidence that…
D:
We’re trying to let the science lead – when you’re a scientist you don’t try to get operating ideas – you try to look at the anomalies, develop a hypothesis that could explain it and there’s some difference in terms of our interpretation of what we have so far – but you set up a test that can determine whether the hypothesis is supported or not and if it is positive – if the test is negative from the heavy isotopes that we’re testing it gives absolute support[59] to the thermate theory of Doctor Jones – if it’s negative. If it’s positive it means in addition to thermate which is already proven - that they used layers of other explosives – including nukes – they could only be sourced from the US Government or the military…[60]
Person
Just to clarify you did have a paper and several studies that said that they already tested for these?
J:
That’s right. My paper[61] – my letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies cites other studies that have already been done looking for iodine 131 and then alpha, beta, gamma emitters and finding things in the World Trade Centre…
40:10
D:
Most of those alpha beta gamma emitters are just due to the neutron activation are – in things like calcium and phosphate – in other words those disappear pretty quickly – so what I’m looking for…
J
But some are long lifes…
D
…harder to find out – again - what we’re going to find out here shortly is if the tests show positive and again is there less than say 10% of the material could even be acceptable and may even carry it because if there isn’t sufficient mixing with the areas where these “hypothetical” micronukes might have gone off[62]. But here’s the good thing about it - if the test is done from the neutron activation isotopes and let’s say all 3 samples are negative it means absolute support that the thermate – which I agree is there – is even more supported and then it buttresses what Dr Jones has said even more - OK? And it means that super thermate was sufficient to do ALL of the damage[63] rather than some of it and we don’t have to hypothesize… so it’s not – it’s actually – because it’s science – science moves forwards rather than ye know, sideways it means that it adds additional support rather than taking away from it.[64]
Person
One less theory to consider….
D
Well it’s also very serious - it means that super thermate had to be put in there and it actually supports what Dr Jones said.
J
Can I mention one thing just for the record here… [sure thing] which I - There is a form of thermate TH3 that’s used by the military in grenades – that’s correct. But what I wanted to mention – this I didn’t say publicly but I would at least like to get it on the record – in case something happens- but in the dust we recently – this student[65] and I – looking at the dust – optically we see these red specks – lots of them in the dust. That’s curious – these are not spheres – they’re chunks, and pieces – they look like shells – like an egg shell – kind of. Thicker than that – but that’s what they look like a broken up egg shell.
D
You mean under a scanning electron microscope?
J
No – this is optically and looking at the material under a microscope – oh about 100x (power) yes -
D
So they’re pretty big chunks?
J
They’re a fairly good size[66] – that’s right, now we go to the scanning electron microscope and do the EVS testing and we see Iron, Aluminum and Sulfur in these chunks – and what [inaudible] it could be the thermate before it’s exploded and then it just broke into pieces so that’s something we’re pursuing…I’m not saying that’s…
D
You mean the thermate – before the thermate might have been exploded or broken?
J
That’s right – before the reaction – this material in this shell form – so we’re pursuing that. That would be a great discovery to find it after and before.
D
So in other words there may have been some thermate areas that weren’t exploded…
J
…that did not explode – that were blown up and you have these little pieces now…
D
Oh really?
J
Yes – and so we’re very excited…
43:05
D
So by [inaudible] testing that if for example the test is positive for the radio isotopes and you look at this and it does show fragments of unexploded thermate – then it could further support not only the thermate theory – but the thermate + micronukes.
J
Sure. So we’re pursuing… you know the data leads you along and I think that was one of the curdisis [?] points and it’s quite exciting [yeah] as a scientist – it’s a bit of an adventure – wow well - that there’s some red stuff – I am not sure why it’s red[67] – but it has aluminum sulfur and Iron and then that just matches what you expect from Thermite, but of course as a citizen you say well this is really getting very obvious.
D
Yeah well, I gotta thankyou. I really think that the end-statement…
J
Thank you – good talking
D
I really think that if this is positive it just adds another layer it does not disprove the thermate/thermite 100% agree that and there’s no directed energy weapons or any other exotic type of thing that could’ve done it.
J
Alright. Good. We’re in quite good agreement – yes thank you.
D
Yeah – you’re welcome – take care
J
You too.
[1] How will the citizens react to this? Will people simply accept it?
[2]… so let’s not talk about the evidence we don’t agree on? Is this cherry-picking evidence, perhaps?
[3] Wouldn’t it be better to have the evidence displayed on a screen for easier or more focused discussion? There is no powerpoint here – no co-ordinated discussion – just a “friendly chat” – even for supposedly “volunteers” - they are or were both professional scientists – can’t they do better?
[4] And yet, significant portions of the following discussion are based on opinion only.
[5] So they won’t be talking about the evidence in this discussion then…?
[6] That settles it then – no discussion of lack of debris, dustification effects – Deagle was a Doctor in the SDI programme – he knows - that’s all we need to know…
[7] Is Jones about to say that he has little experience with energy weapons? Six months ago, he said they don't exist.
[8] From my understanding, Lucent Technologies was formerly part of AT&T - a telecommunications company which had/has little to do with weapons technologies.
[9] Isn’t this an opinion – no evidence, after all is discussed here…
[10] Check Deagle’s resume… more later.
[11] But what about the physical evidence which shows planes did not hit the towers?
[12] Shouldn’t this be “friends that are architects”? Surely he means Structural Engineers?
[13] New York is not in an Earthquake zone.
[14] Are they or aren’t they going to discuss the evidence?
[15] Where are they stored? If Deagle knows where, why does Jones say “we’re unlikely to get a car”. Don’t they want to check this out for the science? It could disprove DEW, for example!
[16] But what about the evidence to back up this statement?
[17] It has been established that there were at least 1,400 toasted cars taken to the junk yard. How many cars can fit on Vesey Street? Certainly 1,400 cars can't fit there –therefore they all couldn't have been parked adjacent to the WTC. If they claim they are all from the underground parking garage, how did they get toasted there? If that were the case, that's pretty good evidence the lower levels weren't crushed. But, still, how could thermite splash on them in the basement?
[18] Again, directed energy effects are being discussed here (even if from some EMP or Micronuke weapon to which Deagle alludes) so this contradicts the earlier statement about “no evidence of directed energy” – see footnote 6.
[19] Is “para-magnetic” energy the same as “directed energy”?
[20]…and the evidence for this thought would be? As his results of isotopic testing are “not in yet” – see footnote 29.
[21] The repeated reference to Iodine 110 – before it changes to 131 – is puzzling. The stable Isotope of Iodine is 127 and 110 seems more obscure – so why are they both talking about it – this is unclear?
[22] This is a term Dr Wood has used…
[23] No evidence has been provided that Super Thermate was or has been used or is in use anywhere.
[24] Why does Jones stop in mid-sentence? Isn’t he supposed to ask Deagle who told him this? Surely, Deagle could just say “I can’t tell you” – Jones has no need to worry, does he?
[25] So do micronukes exist, or not? The “common or garden” Hydrogen bomb is a fission/fusion bomb – nothing new there…
[26] What exactly is a “giga-tesla-type pulsed magnetic effect”? If it’s a magnetic effect, it sounds like it could be a directed energy effect…
[27] Why would high powered lasers be used to set off a detonation in a building? Wouldn’t ordinary remote detonation be used? It sounds like Deagle is getting confused with the experimental lasers used to initiate a fusion reaction in “hot fusion” programs (called Inertial confinement fusion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion)
[28] What projects? Externally and internally to/from what or where?
[29] Deagle is discussing results he hasn’t had yet – so he has no evidence? Is this what he is saying? If he is so concerned about the next attacks, why has he taken so long to do the tests? Didn’t he think of completing them before making a presentation at this conference?
[30] How can they know it is "clearly" identified as WTC dust? -- especially if it contains little to no iron? And, is it assumed this dust promptly sank to the bottom, right by the shore? What about the stuff that floated downstream?
[31] Melted – but what about the dust? Was “melted stuff” in the river?
[32] Iodine 131 has a half-life of about 8 days - 192 hours - http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/i/io/iodine-131.html
[33]“serious scientists analysed…” – as opposed to? “Comedy Scientists”?
[34] Was there a lot of Iron in the WTC? Or was it steel? There is only a comparable tonnage of iron to that of whatever thermate (if any) that there was,
[35] Repeated references to IRON – was it iron or steel they tested?
[36] Iron 58 is a STABLE isotope – not radioactive. http://www.americanelements.com/fe58.html
[37] Beryllium 10 has a half life of 1.51×106 years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium why is Deagle looking for this?
[38] Niobium 94 has a half-life of 20,300 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niobium why is Deagle looking for this?
[39] Where did Deagle get his samples? Is he testing Jones’ sample from which some of the Thermite evidence was supposedly determined? The McKinley dust? Where did the 2 other samples come from?
[40] Good that he remembered this…
[41] Plus or minus what? 10% - 20%? Units? Quantities? What margins of error are acceptable? How about a nice graph with error bars, perhaps?
[42] Who will be carrying out these “operations”? Al Qaida, “Son of Al Qaida” – isn’t this important too?
[43] Why won’t Jones name a city? Deagle names a City – see footnote 47.
[44] This whole section is quite extraordinary – and a whole separate commentary could perhaps be written on this. Some main points though – a) If there was such a terrible disaster, wouldn’t the authorities deal with it? They should do the tests, take samples – not “volunteers”. (b) So, a city is nuked – then 9/11 truthers casually go out with their “Walmart” Geiger counters – altruistically not being worried about getting themselves irradiated. They collect the samples and send them to “the man with the scientific method”? and Deagle agrees!! Crazy stuff…
[45] Apparently Jones’ McKinley dust sample does not have a chain of custody like the one Deagle describes, so how can an International trial be initiated with any evidentiary foundation? Does Deagle have a chain of Custody for the 3 samples he is “testing”?
[46] So why has Deagle kept this information to himself? If he knows acts of terrorism are going to be committed, is he not committing a crime by not taking this information to the Dept of Homeland Security or whoever?
[47] So, presumably, this information has been passed to the authorities in Seattle so that they can find out where the nukes are – they’ve been there for a few years – so, isn’t it now time to find them and disable them?
[48] Can’t Superthermate be tested in controlled conditions to establish its destructive potency? Wouldn’t this be a better way to make such a determination?
[49] Readers might also compare the damage in the Murrah building with that in WTC 6 (link)
[50] What evidence is there that they use “layers” of explosives to destroy buildings? How was this done in Oalkahoma – can Deagle supply more details?
[51] Deagle has a very impressive cv – Medical and Legal Doctor – chemist and Biochemist. Good for him!
[52] In how many floors? All of them – half? ¾ etc?
[53] Again, who is doing the operation? Can’t they be traced and stopped or is the attack inevitable?
[54] Will the trigger be fusion or fission? How is fission achieved without critical mass?
[55] Why does Jones suddenly change the subject here, when it was getting so interesting…
[56] Chain of custody of evidence being…?
[57] Are they for excavation – or for controlled demolition – like in the towers? For CD, the directional control of the explosion is surely far more important than for excavation, to ensure orderly collapse of the building? Why isn’t Jones picking Deagle up on points like this?
[58] Again, who?
[59] Absolute? Or there may be another hypothesis that a negative result supports – such as the large-scale use of DEW?
[60] So that’s who – perhaps the military needs to be questioned, then?
[61] Is it a paper or a letter? Being a letter, it is less likely to have been peer-reviewed. Why write a letter to his own journal?
[62] So, still no evidence, in this evidence-based discussion, of micronukes?
[63] But Jones suggests use of C4 or RDX and Deagle says (see 35 “a whole bunch of layers”) which therefore contradicts the notion of Superthermate doing ALL the damage.
[64] It very much sounds like Deagle wants to support the thermite hypothesis – which he already regards as proven – and this really says nothing – “science moves forwards?” “sideways”? This says nothing!
[65] So is Dr Jones working with Students in his retirement? On what foundation? Who is now funding his research in retirement?
[66] Why have these only been discussed now? Where are they from anyway, the Mckinlay dust? Has Jones only just noticed them after a year?
[67] Can’t it be analysed with a mass-spectrometer?