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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
J: (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 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 that.
|
|
| How will the citizens react to this? Will people simply accept it? |
|
|
Person
|
Why do you think that?
|
|
|
J:
|
Well, I mean you're looking to [inaudible].
|
|
|
D:
|
...the next thing.
|
|
|
J:
|
...even Brezhinsky 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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
D:
|
Oh absolutely it can’t be based on opinion... 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 --
|
|
... so let’s not talk about the evidence we don’t agree on? Is this cherry-picking evidence, perhaps?
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? Can't they have a scientific discussion based on evidence, not opinion?
And yet, significant portions of the following discussion are based on opinion only.
So they won’t be talking about the evidence in this discussion then...?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
J:
|
OK you have a lot more background...
|
|
|
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 Technologies and the company I was working [at] was General Dynamics.
|
|
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...
Is Jones about to say that he has little experience with energy weapons? Six months ago, he said they don't exist.
From my understanding, Lucent Technologies was formerly part of AT&T - a telecommunications company which had/has little to do with weapons technologies.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| Isn’t this an opinion - no evidence, after all is discussed here...
|
|
|
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 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.
|
|
Check Deagle’s resume... more later.
But what about the physical evidence which shows planes did not hit the towers?
|
|
|
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. 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 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.
|
|
Shouldn’t this be “friends that are architects”? Surely he means Structural Engineers?
New York is not in an Earthquake zone.
|
|
|
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?
|
| |