Kristen Breitweiser: 9-11 Cover-Ups, Building 7, and the Billion-Dollar Scam to Steal From Victims

Christian Brewiser, thank you. I'm so glad  to meet you. I have watched you on and off. through the years and even when I, you know, I  bought every part of the official story like the. little Washington robot that I was unknowingly.  Um, even then I I admired your doggedness and. your intelligence, rigorous mode of thinking,  uh, and your bravery for not letting it go. So, you you haven't let it go. You've  been on this for almost 25 years. Are you more or less satisfied that you understand  what actually happened on 911? No. I mean, I think.

25 years out, there's absolutely no complete  understanding of what really happened. I think. um that's unconscionable. We live in the  United States of America, and to think that. 3,000 people were massacred in broad daylight um  in lower Manhattan um and that there's not been a. full accounting that is credible. Um there's  not been the ability for the widows and kids. to avail themselves of the judicial system, of  the legal system. Um I just think it's a stain.

on the country. Um I'm someone that believes  that we are a nation based upon the rule of. law. Yeah. And the reality is this nation's  worst terrorist attack um the families left. behind um have never been given the opportunity  um to use the rule of law to give us a sense of. accountability and justice for the murder of our  of our love of our loved ones or even a coherent.

I mean, that's what I'm really struck by is that  25 years on, it's less obvious what that was. That. is weird. Why? I mean, I think initially in the  beginning, everyone was really scared. Yes. I.

think that um first there was fear. Um and I  think that that was jinned up sort of by the. Bush administration and then once the question  about that. Yes, I can speak to that firsthand. Um and I too was really scared. I mean, I think we  not only had the attacks, my husband was killed, I was left alone. Um we lived in New Jersey,  right across the water from where the attacks. took place. we could smell the air um which was  horrible. Um and then we had the anthrax attacks.

and um that happened in near where you know in  New Jersey and near Princeton. Um and so it was a. really scary time. Um and then subsequent to that  when things started to maybe subside where people. sort of regained their um sense of reality um we  had the queue up to the war in Iraq and anyone. who questioned anything about the attacks and how  they could have happened and who could be behind. them you were silenced because we were a nation  at war and it was unpatriotic um to raise any.

questions to to question anything and to demand  answers certainly not allowed. Um, and so that. sort of took I think quite a bit of years. Um, and  now, believe it or not, I think for many of us, it's 25 years moving into the 25th year. And I  do not think that we've been told the truth. I. think as hard as we fought for a commission to  try to learn the lessons, to try to understand. better why and how the attacks happened, um, I  think that commission was a whitewash. I think,

um, it told a story, not the truth. And there's  a difference between a story and the truth. And. I think we're owed the truth as to what happened  that day and why the country was attacked and why. we did nothing in a defensive posture to even  mitigate the damage on the day of 9/11. It's. bad enough when you look at the facts leading up  to the day of 9/11 and you see the many instances.

of where things were sort of um overlooked,  facilitated in some situations. Um but the day of. 9/11 as well there were failures systemic failures  that um cost lives and so for me initially in the. beginning I was like you know what like we need to  do better the country needs to learn lessons um so. that more lives could be saved if and when another  terrorist attack happened. And for whatever reason. uh President Bush wasn't interested in doing that  but he was interested in the war in Iraq. Um,

and to me, 25 years looking back, 24 years  looking back, I do wonder if the attacks. um were to serve as the premise to allow  for preemptive war. I think that when you do. examine what had happened in the government since  then, um, it certainly laid the groundwork for. preemptive war. I'm not a person who supports war.  I think that um as someone who lost a loved one, I know the devastation war brings to a home and a  family and it makes me sick to think that no one.

was really held accountable for the war in Iraq,  for the hundreds of thousands of lives, for the. tens of thousands of US soldiers. Um, and it's I'm  just confounded with the fact that the American. public never demanded that and that for all  intents and purposes they got away with 9/11 and. they got away with the war in Iraq. I agree with  every word uh that you just said and thank thank. you for saying them because they're true. The one  part where I would ask you to clarify clearly 9/11.

was used as a pretext as an excuse for the war in  Iraq was used to justify it on you know famously. false grounds but that's a very different thing  from 9/11 was staged or allowed to happen in order. to justify the war in Iraq. Do you think that's  possible? I mean, I think um there are certainly. uh theories out there, but I think when you  look at the facts, it's it would be certainly.

more comforting for uh the government to come  forward and prove that that's not the case, right? Like it's uncomfortable as an American citizen to  think that members of our intelligence apparatus, our intelligence community stood down, greased the  wheels, facilitated different um fact scenarios. that enabled the attacks that may or may not have  already been underway. Um, and so there's a story.

out there that that happened that, you know,  the CIA might have allowed certain um, things. to happen and to move forward because they were  letting the line out to try to learn more about al. Qaeda or terrorist groups um, to learn more to get  the big fish, quote unquote, right? Um, you know, I think that that's an interesting nice way to  look at things, certainly a less diabolical way. Um but there's a rule supposedly in  the intel community that when you have.

um actionable intelligence, you're supposed to  roll up the operation. And so one of the biggest. questions that I have uh centers on the Yemen  switchboard, the Alhada House switchboard. Um. the CIA apparently learned about that in I think  96. Um they officially learned about it in '98. through the embassy bombing. And of course, my  question would be if the CIA is monitoring the. Alhada switchboard, all of the communications  that Bin Laden is sending out to his operatives.

around the world to carry out attacks. Um, when  the 98 embassy bombing happened, why didn't they. go in and shut down the Alhada switchboard? They  didn't. They, I guess, wanted to leave the line. out and continue to learn more information, and  they didn't want to tip off al Qaeda or bin Laden. that they had ears on him and his operations.  Okay, so the embassy bombing happens. Kind of. not great. Um but then the US's coal happens  in um 2000. 17 sailors were killed. Again, that.

information flew through the Alhada switchboard  and the CIA still at that point doesn't go in and. shut it down and stop it. I believe that if the  Alhada switchboard was shut down, it would have. at the very least delayed the 9/11 attacks  and perhaps my husband would be alive today. Well, Grand Canyon University is not like most  American colleges. It focuses on the things that. actually matter. It is not a ripoff. It is the  real thing. It's private, affordable, Christian.

university located in the heart of Phoenix, one of  the largest universities in the country. Actually, at Grand Canyon University, education is more than  academics. It is about opportunity. The chance. for every student to live out the right to life,  liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are. not given by the government. They were bestowed  at birth at conception by God. That's just a fact. And Grand Canyon University is not going to lie to  your kids and claim otherwise. It tells the truth. So, I know you're thinking, "A quality education  is rare, so this probably costs a fortune.

Colleges constantly jack up their costs. They  probably do the same." Well, they don't. Actually, GCU has maintained the same tuition for 17  straight years. They're not in education to get. rich at the expense of students. The whole thing  is actually about learning. How refreshing. With. flexible online classes, hybrid learning options,  GCU offers 340 academic programs. Students benefit. from a collaborative learning environment,  dedicated faculty, personalized support to help.

them achieve their goals. The pursuit to serve is  yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand. Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable.  gcu.edu. So the question is why wasn't it? And I. think the explanation that people sympathetic  to the CIA would give is that it was just it's. just too great having a window into their private  communications and like why would you shut that. down? Well, because first of all, the embassy  bombing happened and I know it was only um you.

know like 13 Americans or something like that and  mostly um it happened in East Africa so most of. the casualties were African. Um and maybe they  thought like yeah you're right the costbenefit. analysis like we'll just you know we lost 13  military whatever but then the the coal happens. that's 17 sailors um each one of those lives means  everything in the world to their family. That's. right. And um and then 9/11 happens, 3,000 people  are killed. Um at some point you need to hold the.

CIA accountable. And um instead of holding the  CIA accountable, people like um Kofer Black, George Tennant, um we had George Tennant getting  a medal of freedom. But more disturbing to me. was that you took the same director of the  CIA that had so utterly failed before 9/11, utterly failed with the USS Cole um and you relied  on him to give you intelligence for the WMD in. Iraq and somehow you thought it was going to be  credible and worthwhile. It it's inconceivable.

to me why President Bush would have done that,  right? But he did and we relied on it and it. turned out to be a lie. Okay. And so what you see  is this systemic long-term carrying out of policy. by American leaders, whether it's a president, a  vice president, whether it's members of Congress, the intel committees, um that are sort of looking  past these failures of the intel community. And.

again, it's not just the CIA. The FBI's got plenty  to explain with regard to the 9/11 attacks. Um and. they're never held accountable. they sort of act  with impunity and people make cool movies about. them and everyone thinks that, you know, they're  above the law. Um, the reality is is that 3,000. Americans were killed on US soil and the CIA and  FBI 100% could have and should have prevented it. The NSA, uh, who does all the eavesdropping around  the world, the wiretapping, they 100% had enough.

information to stop the attacks. And for whatever  reason, the attacks weren't stopped. So, you know, naturally speaking, when something happens, um,  a reasonable person is like, well, who benefited, right? Like, who benefited from not stopping  this, from not preventing this murder of 3,000. people? And maybe in the early days, it was kind  of hard to sort of decipher that. I think now,

24 years out, it's not that hard to figure  out who benefited. Um, I know certainly who. didn't benefit. Um, but I think that that's  something that the American public needs to. start considering and start wondering why we  have a government um that's not willing to hold. people that are responsible for this nation's  worst terrorist attack accountable for their. failures and for their, you know, in some ways uh  negligence. I believe criminal negligence and not.

stopping the attacks. What's interesting is that  what you said is identical, as far as I know, to what an awful lot of people who are involved in  9/11 think now. You know, government officials who. were at whatever level were around the events,  were making decisions based on the events, you know, who are right there. They all kind of  think what, as far as I know, having asked a lot. because we made this documentary series that you  were nice enough to participate in. Um, the view.

you just expressed is like very common. You're  not some lone wacko on the internet at all and. you've been deeply involved in this for a quarter  century, but all these other people have reached. the same conclusion. So why is no one saying  this out loud? I mean, I think that there's an. institutional block on saying it out loud. I think  it's exceedingly uncomfortable to think that, you know, there's blood on the hands of the United  States government and its intelligence community. Um, and I think that, you know, there's a long  game here where the more time that passes, the.

less and less interested the American public is,  right? And not just the US government, by the way. I mean, I don't know your views on this, but I can  I don't know the answer. I would have put it in. the doc series if we'd found out. But I just know  for a fact that a lot of noncrazy, highly informed. people think that the US government, parts of  the CIA specifically, which saw its role expand, its funding expand, it it won. Um, and also, you  know, an allied government also got a lot out of.

this. Like that's what they think. Why will no one  say that? Yeah. I mean, I think it's peculiar. I. think that for me personally, my initial focus  was on the US government failures. I was very. interested in what the US government knew, why  the attacks weren't prevented and um you know, that was my original focus. And then certainly  we were sort of um coralled into considering the. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That happened through you  know a confluence of things. The joint inquiry of.

Congress did an investigation. and they left 28  pages blank, blacked out, redacted, and you know, the whisper campaign began that it was the  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that had a strong hand. in the attacks. They logistically and financially  supported the hijackers. And you know, undoubtedly. there's information there that um could support  that scenario. There's also historic um facts. that show that the US intelligence community and  the Saudis work together. um you know speaking.

here about you know Iran Contra, speaking here as  well about the years in uh Afghanistan with the. Mujahedin. Um but then as years and years go by  you start to consider about other foreign allies. that um might have played a role. And what I think  is most curious is the fact that we not only don't. call for an examination, a real examination of our  own intelligence community, the CIA, the NSA, the. FBI, DIA, defense intelligence. Um there's been no  clarion call for that. There has been somewhat of.

a drill and focus on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  And yet there's been nothing about um you know, the other ally in the region, which is Israel. And  I think that that's curious. I think that there. are um facts and circumstances that would warrant  asking questions um and asking what Israel knew. about the hijackers um time in the United States  for the 18 months before 9/11. Um and I think that.

there is, you know, some FBI 302s that talk about  alleged MSAD agents, you know, filming near ground. zero. there were a series of art students sort of  shadowing the hijackers for the year before 9/11, you know, and I don't understand why that  information isn't just offered up. Like, if no one did anything wrong, which is what  everyone says, then why is that information. not offered to the American public, in fact, to  the world to just say, "Here's everything we did.

Here's what we knew, and here's why we missed it."  But instead of that, what you have is like pretty. much a cover up and everything is shrouded in  secrecy. Everything is overclassified. And to me, that makes things look kind of suspicious. And  so that's what I would hope. I would hope that. at this point um we should declassify everything.  And when I say everything, I mean Richard Clark. did a look back. President Bush uh like I think  two days after 911 told Dick Clark who was the.

head of counterterrorism the counterterrorism ZAR  um go back and look three months pulse the files. find out what we knew about these this impending  attack Clark did that and then Bush said you know. what go 18 months now what's curious about that  is when you go 18 months from 911 you get to the. millennium 2000 right and that is the the time  period where not only the two hijackers that. are always talked about, you know, Halid Midar  and um Noah Fal Hosmi who came into the United.

States. The CIA knew that they were coming here.  They should have informed the FBI because the FBI. does domestic surveillance of terrorists. Um but  the CIA didn't. The CIA withheld that information. purposely. They knew that two known identified uh  al-Qaeda operatives were coming into the United. States. They purposely did not tell the FBI. Those  two hijackers lived here for 18 months, planned,

met up with the other hijackers, ultimately  carried out the 911 attacks. In fact, those. two hijackers were the ones that allegedly flew  the plane into the Pentagon. Having said that, so we have um Richard Clark's look back back all  the way to the millennium 2000. In addition to. the two hijackers that came into the country at  that point, we also had the arrest of Ahmad Rasam. He was picked up over the border coming into  Seattle. Rasam was connected to the al Qaeda. cell that carried out 911. So that happens  in December of 2000. This is when Clinton is.

um ending up his presidency. Actually, I'm sorry,  December 1999. Um Clinton is in there full-time. Burger is the national security adviser. Susan  Rice is in there. They nab this guy, a terrorist. coming across who's on his way to LAX to blow  up LAX. Okay. He gets caught. January 15th, these two hijackers come in that the CIA knows  about into LA. LAX like literally 2 weeks after.

was planning on blowing up LAX and they're all  connected back to the camps in Afghanistan. Yes. But again, the CIA doesn't do anything. And  apparently, according to the official story, the CIA knows these two guys are coming here. the  two hijackers and just forgets about them. Doesn't. do anything. Okay. What I think happened is I  think that the Clinton administration was like, "This is not good. We have these two guys coming  in. We need to do something. Let's farm it out. We.

can't trust the FBI. Let's give it to some foreign  intelligence to keep an eye on these guys and see. what they're up to." Now, if that happened, what  we do then is we find out that the USS Cole bomb. goes off in October of 2000. So that's now 9  months, 10 months after these guys come in, the. CIA supposedly lost track of them, but they go and  they carry out the coal bombing overseas. Okay, at that point, if the Clinton administration did  put together this op like, let's try to recruit.

these hijackers. Let's let the line out. Let's see  what we can learn. They're listening into the aha. toa switchboard. At that point, 17 sailors die.  You need to stop what you're doing and you need. to roll up the operation. You need to end it. And  yet that didn't happen. So when President Bush 2. days after 9/11 looks at his terrorism and says,  "I want you to do a look back. I want you to get. everything out of the files that were connected  to this." Do you think Richard Clark goes back to.

December of 1999 when they arrested Rasam? These  two hijackers are coming into the country. He, Clinton, Burger, Tenant are sitting in a room  and they're like, "What do we do? What should. we do with this?" Do you think that that was  in that review that Bush asked Dick Clark to. do 2 days after 9/11? I don't know. Neither do  I. But don't you think that the American public. should know what Dick Clark found? We're sorry  to say it, but this is not a very safe country. walk through Oakland or Philadelphia. Yeah, good  luck. So, most people when they think about this.

want to carry a firearm and a lot of us do. The  problem is there can be massive consequences for. that. Ask Kyle Writtenhouse. Kyle Writtenhouse got  off in the end, but he was innocent from the first. moment. It was obvious on video and he was facing  life in prison anyway. That's what the anti-gun. movement will do. They'll throw you in prison for  defending yourself with a firearm. And that's why. a lot of Americans are turning to burna. It's a  proudly American company. Burna makes self-defense. launchers that hundreds of law enforcement  departments trust. They've sold over 600,000.

pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to  be empty-handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rock hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds  and pepper projectiles, and they stop a threat. from up to 60 ft away. There are no background  checks. There no waiting periods. Burn can ship. it directly to your door. You can't be arrested  for defending yourself with a burner pistol. Visit burnab yrna.com or your local sportsman's  warehouse to get yours today. Burna.com. So that's.

never been released. It's never been released. And  the other report on what grounds? They just don't. release it. And Clark did another report. Well,  I'll tell you why the second report can't get. released. The second report that he did was the  afteraction millennium report. And that was they. caught Rasam at the border and they you know they  have the two hijackers coming in to LAX, right? Same airport that RSA was going to blow up and um  Richard Clark terrorism are Clinton administration.

draws up the Millennium afteraction report.  That report is reportedly what Sandy Burgerer, former Clinton National Security Adviser, stole  out of the National Archives, stuffed in his. socks, permanently destroyed it. What would have  been so important that Sandy Burgerer, who was, I guess, a fairly reputable former executive  branch official, National Security Advisory,

go to the National Archives and steal like I think  seven sets of the Millennium After action report. Like what could have been in there that like he  would have gone and done that? Meanwhile, we got. it destroyed Sandy Burger's reputation. Did it  though cuz he got community service? He did. No, you're absolutely right. I mean like we have other  people that like leaked to newspapers and they're. in jail, right? I mean, so what do you think was  in that? I think it was the operation to try to. recruit the very hijackers that ultimately carried  out 9/11. And I think that that's what they were.

covering up. And what's interesting to me is  that Burger got, you know, pinched during the. Bush administration. It was actually during the  commission, the 911 commission. And uh Burgerer. said that he was going to look at the documents to  refresh his memory. What's really interesting is. that the Bush administration, who was highly  political and you know, run by Carl Rove, the strategist, Yeah. never really caused a ruckus  about it. Like they just sort of like looked past. it and like let Sandy go do his community service.  And to me that meant that whatever he took must.

have protected both the Clinton administration and  the Bush administration because the silence and. the absolute, you know, vacuum of Carl Rove going  after Sandy Burgerer during, you know, a midterm. election year kind of like to me speaks to what he  must have taken and who whose mess he was really. cleaning up. So, those are two documents that I  think need to be released to the American public. to shed some light on what could have been done to  prevent the attacks. Richard Clark's look back two.

days after 9/11 that President Bush ordered and  the Millennium After action report. Then we've got. um all of the NSA files. Now, the NSA had been  listening to the Alhhata switchboard from like. 96 on. So, that's a wealth of information, not  only about 9/11, about the embassy bombings in. East Africa, about the US's coal bombing. Um,  I think that those files that have never been. investigated, never been examined fully. Phil  Zelico, the staff director of the 9/11 Commission,

just didn't really see the need for it.  Um, those should all be fully released. Um, I think the inspector general's report uh for the  FBI failing to share information should be fully. released to the public. No redactions. I think the  CIA inspector general report. I think the NSA's. uh I don't think they have an inspector general.  I think Treasury's FINA they don't even bother. They don't have to. Um I think those types of IG  reports need to come out the classified version.

It's now 25 years later. There's no sources and  methods. There's no need to protect national. security. There's no Mousawi trial. Those are  all the things that we were always told. We. can't tell you this information because it'll hurt  the Mousawi trial or its sources and methods. Seen. that a lot. Yeah. It'll hurt the trial, right?  And I think that all of those things need to. come out and be released. I think the 28 pages,  the classified and unclassified versions without. redactions need to come out. Um, and I think the  9/11 Commission source files um need to be fully.

available to the American public, ideally  released to some sort of like Dogeel like. um staff who could digitize it and put in like  some sort of um you know like database searchable. um system so that the American public can  actually search those files. The problem. with the 9/11 commission source documents  is that they're almost impossible to look.

through. They're all at the National Archives.  What is digital is highly redacted and they're. impossible to find. There's no finding aid that  makes any sense. And I think that's on purpose, but those are the types of things that I think 25  years out like why aren't we getting them? And why. isn't President Trump demanding their release? I I  don't understand except of course I do understand. which is that there's something awful at the heart  of this. I mean that's just so clearly true. We. know that from the behavior of the people who  are keeping this secret. So in the decades that.

you've been dealing with US government officials  on the question of 9/11, have you ever gotten. any indication from any of them, you know, off  the record that this is not what it looks like? Have you ever talked to anyone who works for the  US government who seems to understand that this. is a that there's a big lie at the heart of this?  I mean, I think that it's the biggest open secret. in Washington DC. Oh, is that true? I feel like  in many ways, like a lot of members of Congress.

know. I feel like certainly the intel committees  know. Um, and that kind of blows my mind because. I feel like you're sure of that. I mean, I'm not  sure, but obviously they all have clearances. They. have access to the files. Um, you know, anyone  could have gone in and read the 28 pages, the. secret 28 pages. If you're a member of Congress,  you have clearance. You go into a skiff. You're. allowed to read that. Um, I don't know why every  member of Congress didn't go and do that. Frankly, if I was a member of Congress, I would have went  and recited them on the congressional floor for.

the American public. Go ahead and arrest me.  Right. Well, I mean, it's America first in my. mind. Um, and I don't think we should protect  any foreign ally or nation. If you've had a. role and you could have prevented the murder of  3,000 people, the American public needs to know. that and needs to make their own determination as  to whether or not you think that's the heart of. this is protecting a foreign country. I think it's  protecting a few foreign countries probably. Um, and I think it's also protecting the United States  intel community. I mean, there's no doubt. So, you.

you said a couple of things I don't want to let  slip through the cracks. one that from the very. first days of the investigation into this Saudi  the Kingdom KSA King of Saudi Arabia was sort. of steered toward you as a a culprit. Absolutely.  They were like the usual suspect, right? And isn't. that convenient? It's like it was all Saudi all  the time, right? And so I bought that completely. Well, and I mean it's Listen, it's a it's what's  done, right? You're using it's distraction. It's.

a totally political strategy to distract people  from reality, right? And so, and frankly, the Saudis aren't completely innocent when it  comes to, you know, they have a lot of um things. that have happened in the past that would, you  know, fit the bill for why they might be the usual. suspect. But I think, you know, well, I don't  know. The Saudis are not into No Arab monarchy. is into regime change, right? So, anything having  to do with the toppling of Saddam, they would not.

have been for that. Oh. It's not how they see the  world at all. I would agree. They don't like chaos. in Saudi, right? And on So for the war in Iraq, I  don't I don't know how that that how anyone could. credibly explain that the kingdom did 9/11 because  they wanted to queue up Iraq. I don't think it. makes any sense. They hate chaos. I mean, they're  long-term stakeholders. It's a monarchy, right? And that's what I ask a lot of people that are  always like, "The Saudis, the Saudis, the Saudis.". I'm like, "Well, okay, but why?" you know, for me,  like what would have been the motive? Why would.

the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia want to attack the  United States, kill 3,000 people, what was in it. for them? You know, if you're if you're a evildoer  and you're over in Saudi, you're like, "Hey, let's. do this." What were they thinking they were going  to get out of it? And realistically speaking, what did they get out of it? Right? And from what  I see is they've been tied up in litigation now. for 24 years, um, being blamed for 9/11. And so,  you know, I don't know whether they did it or not.

I don't have access to the classified files, but  I don't think that they're alone. I think that. there are other foreign governments that should  also be examined. And I think it's peculiar. that for whatever reason, there's no questions  about the other foreign governments. And to me, that sticks out. And it's like, well, are we  just being distracted with the kingdom? What. about the kingdom and other foreign nations?  What about the kingdom, other foreign nations, and the US government intelligence apparatus?  because you know there's a reason why no one.

wants you asking those questions and that in and  of itself should raise the hair on the back of. your neck. It does. And I was slow to pick up any  of this. I I bought it completely until I was told. by someone um who's a very knowledgeable person  works for the US government like it's not Saudi. we're protecting. Whoa. That had never entered  my tiny brain. Someone said that to you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Someone who would know had seen the  documents. Someone said Yeah. Yeah, we're not. And.

I don't know. I think of myself as above average  in IQ, but apparently I'm not cuz that had never. had never entered my brain. I was like, really?  What? Um, and I think it is because Saudi, like. every American grows up with mixed feelings about  Saudi, clearly dominant in the energy markets, and that's good for us, has been good for us.  study Ramco's good for us but you know too foreign. polygamy beheadings veiled women like everything  about it is just so far away and kind of scary.

that when somebody says it was the Saudis you know  you're like yeah probably Saudis I seem weird you. know but I'm just it's just dawning on me that  maybe some of that but dawn on you early this. being pushed on you it was the Saudis well because  it was really overt that it was being pushed on us. really well I think so yeah I mean We asked the  lawyers to sue a whole slew of countries. Um, you know, because I think that there were some  fingerprints there for several countries and we. were told no. Um, you know, not to You're told you  couldn't sue foreign countries. Yeah. Certain ones.

that I wanted to sue. Um, you know, the reality  is all of the financing for the hijackers flew. through Dubai. I was like, why aren't we suing the  Emirates? Um, Pakistan. I was like, why aren't we. going after Pakistan? Um, I'm not saying that  they had a hand in either of those countries. had a hand in it, but I was like, why aren't we  at least looking into it? And I think one of the. biggest frustrations for me is the US government's  Department of Justice's failure, abject failure.

to prosecute anyone. The US government didn't  investigate anything. They didn't look into. Saudi. They didn't really credibly look into UAE.  They didn't look into Pakist. They did nothing. They literally have not to this day successfully  and fully prosecuted anyone for the 9/11 attacks. How is that possible? 3,000 people were murdered.  If you're a US attorney, your job is to go out and. investigate that murder and prosecute people,  have a grand jury, hold people accountable,

put them in jail. You're telling me that with all  of the money that flew in and out of this country. connected to the hijackers, there wasn't one bank  account, there wasn't one stock trade that you. could drill down on and find out that someone  had foreign knowledge. And if they had foreign. knowledge, well, how the hell did they have  the foreign knowledge? If you watch this show, you know that we love Pure Talk. It is amazing  wireless service with absolutely the best prices. And all the time we've been telling you about Pure  Talk, we've never seen an offer like the one we're. about to describe. And here it is. Unlimited talk,  text, data with a 30 gig hotspot for just $29.95.

per month. Not just this month, every month for  life. This is Pure Talk's top tier plan. $29.95. a month. You'll save over 50% a month every month  for your entire life. And you stay in the exact. same 5G network that Verizon and AT&T offer, but  for $1600 a year cheaper for a family of four.

That's wild. It's provable. By the way, this isn't  some false claim. It's not disinformation. It's. real. Pure Talks customer service, meanwhile, is  located in the United States, not in Bangladesh. Nothing against Bangladesh, but you're talking to  Americans. You can understand they can switch you. in just minutes. You keep your phone, keep your  number, and you start saving in a really big. way. Unlimited for life. $29.95 a month. This  is a short-term offer. Long-term consequences. Short-term offer. puretalk.com/talkertoswitch  today. puretalk.com/talker to switch to America's.

wireless pure talk taxes and fees not included. Go  to the site to get all the details, but those are. the basics. You know, that's the case on 911.  It's also the case with Charlie Kirk's murder. You know, it was people had fornowledge cuz they  bragged about it online on X and those people have. not been arrested. I don't know that they've been  questioned, by the way. Maybe they have been. I. just don't know. I've asked. Can't can't quite get  an answer there. Uh but I know on 911 there were.

stock trades that proved fornowledge absolutely  of the airlines of the banks um in the buildings. that were hit and the US government said yeah  we know who did those we executed those trades. but we we're not going to tell you. Isn't that  unbelievable? What is that? That's what I'm saying. like how unbel and so what happened is when the US  government doesn't take it upon itself to to have. a prosecution to have an investigation. Um it's  left to the victim's families to hire lawyers and. do it on their own. And you're really hamstrung  to do that. Like you're talking about a terrorist.

attack where all the documents are classified.  It's all held by the government. Everything that. you need to to learn about your case, to build  your case is in the government's hands. and the. government refuses to give you that information.  And so we're kind of left in this limbo where the. US government didn't do its job to prevent the  attacks, then the Department of Justice after. 9/11 didn't do its job to prosecute or hold anyone  accountable and provide justice to the murdered. victim's families. And so the murdered victim's  families turned to the civil litigation process,

which if everyone remembers OJ, you know, it was  what Nicole Simpson's family had to do. you know, it's kind of a shitty second. Like, yeah, it's  really not helpful. And so, that's what we were. relegated to. And then those attorneys, not all  of them, but many of them were just unwilling. First of all, they were unwilling to sue the US  government. Like, and I asked, I've got the emails. to prove it. And then I asked, why were they  unwilling to sue the US government? They just.

told first they told us we weren't allowed which  is not true because in the wake of you know the. last 20 years you see the Emanuel Church family  suing you see the Fort Hood family suing. You are. allowed to sue the US government. Um our attorneys  initially told us that we couldn't. Of course. we were also forced into what the government  did which was the victim's compensation fund. um which was retroactively taking away our right  to sue by capping liability levels from 9/11.

So what happened was 911 happens the towers  collapse you know the country is worried about. being destabilized the economy is going to crater  the airlines so supposedly Congress swept in you. know um heroically and created the airline  stabilization bill um and I don't know how. they wrote that bill cuz it's pretty precise  but yet somehow they wrote it in like 9 days. um and in doing so retroactively capped liability  ility levels for anyone for the airlines for the.

city of New York. Um later like 2 months later,  President Bush capped the liability levels for. Boeing airlines. Um and essentially the widows and  kids were left being told, "You're not going to be. able to sue because there's not enough money  to pay you. There were so many people killed. There's just not enough money. So, you're going  to have to go into this victim's compensation fund. um run by this special master and you'll be paid  an amount of money and it's no fault and go away.

And you know, as an American citizen, a lawyer,  I was like, wait a minute, you're not allowed. to take away someone's right to sue after the  murder. Like, that's not how it works. And yet, we weren't given a choice. It was shoved down our  throats. And so, that's what we were left with. And the legislation that created this was written  in nine days. Like nine days. So you're and it's. pretty comprehensive. You're a lawyer. Um as  you just said, how hard would it be to write. leg? So you can take the first three days off  cuz like it's right after 9/11. The country's.

in chaos. I don't know. Condi Rice immediately  after 9/11 is sitting with the National Security. Council and I was like, "How can we capitalize on  this opportunity?" So she said that she said that. capitalize on this opportunity. so evil. The pile  was still burning. And she's How can we capitalize. on this opportunity? My head split in half when I  read that quote. Literally like I just was like, she's been rewarded. She runs Hoover. Close friend  of Philip Zelico. Um Exactly. Yeah. So the So my.

point is we were not allowed to s like first  of all the US government did nothing. We were. relegated to this fund that was quote unquote  no fault. there was going to be no trials, no investigation, no hearing, no discovery,  no cross-examination, no jury. And so what we. were allowed to do was to sue the co-conspirators.  But again, the US government didn't go after any. quote unquote co-conspirators. They threw them  all down at Guantanamo and waterboarded them,

tortured them. So there's no, you know, going  after them, right? And so we were left with. the civil litigation system, um, lawyers, many  of whom were like aviation attorneys. One group. is former tobacco, big tobacco attorneys. Um, and  they were willing to go after the Kingdom of Saudi. Arabia and the rest of these entities, whether  it was a foreign government, Emirates, Pakistan, or the US government. We were told no can. What  about Israel? Oh, that would have never come up.

Why? I don't know. That's what I'm saying. Like  to me when you're not asking very, you know, pragmatic, obvious questions and people don't even  ask the question or if you do ask the question, you just sort of get shut down. To me,  that makes me suspicious, right? Like, why aren't we going after those countries? Why  isn't my country looking into those countries. and what they knew? And yet there's never been  an interest. And I think that that's suspicious.

Well, by definition, by definition, I mean,  science and law enforcement have one thing in. common. Every possibility has to be considered,  maybe immediately discarded, but if you don't. consider a possibility, then you're clearly not  working to get the truth, right? You're covering. something up, not trying to illuminate it. Um,  yeah. Again, by definition, I can't let this pass. I don't want to forget to ask you about it. At  the outset of our conversation, you said not only. did the US government fail to protect the country,  pardon fasia, but they did nothing to mitigate the.

effects of the crime once it happened. Something  like that. What does that mean? Right. So, um, not only did they fail to prevent the attacks from  happening, which Tom Kaine, commissioner of the, uh, chairman of the 911 commission, clearly said  the 911 attacks 100% could have and should have. been prevented. There was enough information in  the pipeline for it to be stopped on a number. of occasions. It's not just like one instance,  several instances where the plot could have been.

unraveled, stopped, 3,000 lives saved. Okay? Or at  least the attack delayed in enough time to learn. more and really stop the ultimate attack.  That's number one. But on the day of 9/11, um the US government did absolutely nothing  in a defensive posture to mitigate the damage. of the attacks. What does that mean? First and  foremost, my husband was on the 94th floor of. the second tower. He called me um after the first  building was hit and he's like, "I don't want you.

to worry. It's not my building. Don't worry." And  I said, "You know what's going on? I'm truncating. the story." And he said, "They're telling us  to stay at our desks." Well, an elevator in. the World Trade Center went to top to bottom in a  minute's time. If at 8:58 the port authority and. the companies didn't tell people like my husband  to stay at their desks and told them to evacuate, those people would have gotten below the zone of  impact and survived in the second tower. In my. opinion, there is no excuse for any loss of life  in the second building. And in the first building,

the only loss of life should have been above  the impact zone. Okay, that's one way that lives. could have been saved and damage could have been  mitigated. Number two, Christy Todd Whitman told. the rescue workers all of New York that the air  was safe to breathe. We were told early on when. people caught, you know, that we were, you know,  the Jersey girls were fighting and trying to get. the truth. We were told that the sniffers that  were put around ground zero, they're supposed to.

be at a certain height above the ground to sniff  the air. they were above the point where they were. supposed to be. So that the air that they were  testing wasn't the actual air that people were. breathing. Okay, another prime example, the air  was not safe to breathe. I don't know what was. used in those attacks, but I know that it's caused  a lot of cancer. Okay, but I think that's pretty. much proven at this point. I think it's pretty  much proven. Um, and so when the US government.

goes and tells thousands of people, I think at  this point there's 70,000 that the air was safe. to breathe, they're responsible for that. All of  those people have been injured and harmed. Some. of them have died since then. That is an example  of devastation, illness, disease that could have. been stopped, might not have even ever happened if  the US government did its job. The biggest one um. that I think speaks to what doesn't make a lot of  sense um is the scrambling of the jets. So on the.

day of 9/11 um there were a series of procedures  and protocols in place for hijacking of planes. um and the North American um air defense NORAD  um scrambles jets. So what happens is you know. people forget but like in the 70s there were a  lot of hijackings. Oh to Cuba. Yeah. Exactly. And they were kind of common place. Like I've  read a couple of articles recently where you know. an eastern plane was hijacked. Everyone was chill  about it. They just like served cocktails and you.

went to Cuba which is kind of surreal. 90 miles  out of your way. Yeah. It was like there were no. fatalities. Free booze like Right. And they were  just kind of like a nuisance and the pilots were. chill about it and whatever and so were the flight  attendants. Everyone was trained. But regardless, what happened was a couple of things. Like  number one, you know, they started the sky. marshall program, which required that if there  was something suspicious about someone going. on a plane, a sky marshal whose job it was to  keep an eye on things and keep the plane safe, was on the plane. Um the other thing that happened  was that they had a protocol that F-16s if there.

is a hijacking or the suspicion of a hijacking  were supposed to be scrambled um to go up to meet. the plane and to do a series of things to sort of  find out if it isn't a hijacking and to stop it to. thwart it to threaten whatever. Okay. Well, on 911  um for some reason the first plane flight 11 was. confirmed hijacked at 8:14 in the morning.  8:14. Um, and the planes did not scramble,

according to the 911 commission, until after  the Pentagon was hit at 9:38. So that's like an. hour and 20 minutes. Um, typically, historically  speaking, the F-16s scramble within a few minutes. They're up airborne at, you know, full speed. Um,  and the saying back in the day was that if you had. a plane that was not behaving normally, you'd find  an F-16 on your tail within 10 minutes. That was.

actually a bit of grace. Um, it was really like 5  to 6 minutes. And for some bizarre reason, um, on. the morning of September 11th, those F-16s didn't  get up in time. More to the point, the air bases. where there were F-16 squadrons that could have  gone and intercepted the the errant planes on 911, um they didn't call the the F-16s from there. They  called them from bases that were further away. Um. a perfect example, U Meuire Air Force Base in New  Jersey had F-16s. They brought the planes from.

Otis, which was like I think 200 miles away from  the city and away from the planes. um down in DC, instead of running uh the F-16s out of Andrews,  they ran them out of um uh I can't think of the. name of the but out of Maryland instead. And so  what happened was the planes were hijacked and. just allowed to crash into the buildings with no  interception except for the final plane, Flight. 93 over Pennsylvania. A number of eyewitnesses,  many eyewitnesses saw military aircraft near that.

plane. Yep, they did. So what was that? I don't  know. I mean, obviously there's talk that it was. shot down. Well, Dick Cheney gave the order. He  did give the order, right? And then they said, "But we didn't actually do it." And then there was  a very elaborate story about what happened inside. the plane and kind of a heartwarming wonderful  story. The protagonist was called Todd Beamer. and he, you know, let's roll and they roll a  drink card against the It's a heroic. This is.

a wonderful story and they they made a movie about  it and all this stuff, but um that was celebrated. and it should be celebrated. It's a great story.  I'm not attacking anybody of course, but it did. have the feeling of like we're going to make this  into a great story. And it did make me wonder like. whatever happened to that shoot down the plane  order and there were military aircraft next to. the plane. Like what should we think about that?  Yeah, I mean I think that you could drill down on. that. go to Otis Air Force Base and, you know,  get the files, find out when those F-16s left,

if they were armed, and if they came back with  the same amount of missiles that they left with. It's not that hard to figure out. You could test  the soil. Has anyone done that? I don't know. Um, I don't know if anyone's asked. You know, if you  don't ask, you don't get. But I know that there. were eyewitnesses at the crash at 93 that said  that it was unlike any crash scene that they'd. ever seen. that there was no fuselage, that there  was no, you know, evidence of the plane seats, of. luggage, of, you know, it was just a black hole.  Um, I read a lot of books and, uh, I'm really good.

at going to used book sales and finding old books  and there's a lot of 9/11 books that you can pick. up at used book sales and one of them is a group  of reporters, um, that put a book together with. their photos and their uh, recollection from  the day of 9/11. And I read with great interest. uh the two sections of that book, one on the  Pentagon and one on Flight 93 because when you. read these reporters um information about both  crash sites and what they experienced that day,

uh it doesn't really match up to what we've been  told. Can you give me an example? Sure. Like I. said, the crash site at um in uh Shanksville,  these reporters had seen airplane crash sites. before. They've reported on them. their mainstream  reporters. Um, and they just said it was like. really curious. There was no visible sign of  a plane anywhere. There were no engines, there. were no seatbacks, there were no luggage, there  was no nothing. Um, I will say I think that was.

one of the planes where they did find a passport.  Um, the eyewitnesses that were literally there, they came from Pittsburgh, I think, and got to  the scene quite early. Um, and then suddenly, you know, like federal agents came and like pushed  them all back, pushed them all back, took film, took cameras, what have you. Um, I think that  that's curious. So, that doesn't really, you know, raises questions like what happened. Um, and  I think the Pentagon is obviously a really. good question. I think that we've been told that  Hani Hour, the hijacker that flew that plane, um,

you know, was responsible for what was considered  in pilot circles an extraordinary maneuver. Um, and Hani Hondur a month or two before 9/11  almost got kicked out of flight school cuz. he was that incompetent. He didn't speak English.  Um, how someone like that would have been able to. pull off that maneuver. Putting aside the fact  that the um air defense that was on top of the. Pentagon and at the White House also didn't  lock on to the plane and shoot it down. Um or.

they weren't even I you know there's no evidence  whatsoever that any of the missiles that were on. top of the Pentagon defense uh missiles that were  designed to protect the Pentagon from anything, they didn't go off and neither did the ones at the  White House. So I think that that's kind of weird. Um, I also think it's weird. We had a real long  conversation with the commission about the lack of. radar evidence of flight 77 from the Kentucky Ohio  border all the way back um to the Pentagon. Uh,

I remember the call quite vividly and uh we  were told that in all of history before and. the time after there has never been an anomaly  in the radar. Uh just by way of background, the United States has several layers of radar. You  know, everything from traffic radar all the way. up. And yet this like 12 or 13 layers of radar  coverage was this anomaly. It all broke down.

at one time. Every single system completely just  didn't work from the time that flight 77 flew from. the Kentucky Ohio border to the Pentagon. There's  no evidence of it whatsoever. And so there's no. radar image at all of Flight 77 flying toward the  Pentagon. Um not from the Ohio Kentucky border, which is where um the last Louisville area. Yeah.  Um to the Pentagon, like the DC Aerospace was.

when they picked it up again. And I think what's  interesting is that initially flight 77, three. things happened to that plane at the Ohio Kentucky  border. Um, and typically, historically speaking, when those three things happen, it's always an  airplane crash. So, the first thing that happened. was the transponder um was disengaged. The second  thing that happened was the primary radar of that. plane um went away. Primary radar is when radar  waves um hit an object in the sky, if it's a bird,

if it's a plane, what have you, and it bounces  back. So, at this one place over the Ohio Kentucky. border, the transponder disconnected and the skin  radar for flight 77 disappeared, which means it. was no longer in the sky. Um, and then the third  thing that is really really um odd is that the ELT. went off, the pinger, and that only ever usually  goes off if there's a catastrophic emergency.

on the plane, right? it went off not at the  Pentagon but at the Kentucky Ohio border, right, with the transponder and the the actual primary  skin radar disappearing off the scope. And so, simultaneously to that, there are reports in  the um you know, police reports from the area. that there was a plane crash and in fact in the  there was a plane crash where in the Ohio Kentucky. border where all those three things happened. It  was pinpointed and there was a plane crash there. and the state police were rushing towards the  crash and there were reports of that. Yeah, there.

are actually police reports that you can read.  And then at the very same time in um the situation. room, it was also reported that that Flight 77 or  a plane that they thought was Flight 77 crashed at. the Kentucky Ohio border. And then subsequent to  that, the commission came out and said, "No, no, no, that was just false reporting." Um but that  happens to be the last place it was seen on radar. Yeah. And then of course if you look at the FBI  photos, there's a bunch of um you know theories. out there, conspiracy theories or what have you.  It doesn't look like a plane hit the Pentagon,

right? Like you look at it looks like a punched  hole. And uh you know, Flight 77 was a rather. large plane. Um there were no plane parts. There  was no fuselage. The jet engines weren't on the. outside of the Pentagon. And the footage shows  that whatever pierced the Pentagon sort of like. leaprogged and like crisscrossed, which kind of  defies the rules of physics. But again, if you. raise these questions, if you ask these questions,  you're immediately shut down as a conspiracy.

theorist. But like the facts are the facts. You  can look at a photo. On top of it, the Pentagon, you know, our home of our defense, um, there's  no video footage of the plane except for a gas. station video that has been partially released to  the American public. How is that possible? Like, how is there no other footage of the plane flying  into that building? It doesn't make any sense. So, why 24 years out, why don't we just get all  that information? why won't it just be released.

to the American public to sort of shut down  these theories to clarify what happened and. to give you know the families an understanding  of how the nation was not only attacked but how. our department of defense did nothing in its own  defense while under attack like I don't understand. how that happened and there was no need to  like really like ream some people out right. like if you're the president and your Pentagon  just got attacked. Like, wouldn't you be like,

"Where the [ __ ] were you guys?" Like, "What  happened?" Like, "Where were the air to surface. missiles?" You're literally the Pentagon. Yeah.  Like, you're the Pentagon. Like, the defense. department. But that's what I'm saying. Like, how?  And and it's not like the defense department was. hit first. It was hit, you know, third an hour  and 20 minutes after the first confirmed hijack. of flight 11. How is that possible? And if it  did happen, why didn't Heads roll? Why wasn't our.

entire government petrified? Here we are for years  fighting the great bear Russia and they're like, you know, we've got NORAD and fighter jets  and we're worried about nukes coming in. And somehow some non-English-speaking incompetent  al-Qaeda operative who couldn't even fly a Cessna, let alone a jumbo jet, is able to pull off a  fighter pilot maneuver and fly, I don't know, 15. ft off the ground into the side of the Pentagon.  But meanwhile, there's no radar track. There's no.

evidence of it. We're just told that that's what  happened. And it's the Pentagon. Like I don't I. don't understand how we were attacked at our  Department of Defense and President Bush wasn't. outraged, but they didn't want any investigation.  And keep in mind that the joint intelligence. committee that did investigate was only  investigating intelligence community failures. That's the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA. They weren't  investigating the failure of the Department of.

Defense to defend itself on the day of 9/11 or the  actual crime. I mean, just the mechanics of the. crime itself as presented to us, the public, hard  to understand. And I but I don't have any secret. theory. I would just say it if I did. But they're  telling us that these guys who were not pilots, who went to flaky flight schools in Florida or  Arizona or wherever and didn't do very well, as you noted, in fact, did so badly that they  alerted law local law enforcement like what is.

this? That's how bad they were. They stuck out  like they were so grossly incompetent that like. the flight school were like what is going on here?  But they murder the pilots of these planes. This. is a story and maybe it's true. I have no idea but  it's it's hard to it's hard to understand it. So. they murder the pilots and the planes flying  in the other direction. They're not American. in at least one case. They don't speak English and  they somehow turn the planes around and then go to. like the precise PL, you know, to the side of the  Pentagon to the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan was.

the idea that they program that into the computer  or how does that work? I don't know. I don't know. how they even got the pilots out of their seats  to take control of the plane. I you know, again, like flying it. So, in other words, a cockpit is  a small place like the pilot and co-pilot are in. their seats. They're flying the plane. The they  the hijackers, according to the official story, burst into the cockpit. They, you know,  decapitate, you know, that's the official story.

The official story is that they were decapitated.  And so then they had to lift those bodies out of. those seats not to be macob and then jump into  those seats and fly the plane. But like I don't. I don't know how that works. Like I do know that  at 30,000 ft there aren't street signs. So, when. you take over a plane at 30,000 feet somewhere  over the United States of America, I don't know. how you know which way to turn. I don't know how  you know where the Pentagon is. I mean, I know. it looks like a Pentagon, but when you're 30,000  ft up, you know, and you're over Kentucky, like,

how do you know which direction to go to find the  Pentagon? Because according to the official story, the hijackers were not communicating with the  ground. Typically, when planes navigate across. the United States, they must communicate with the  ground. you check in with different, you know, sectors and when you cross over the sector, that's  how everyone knows where that particular plane is. That didn't happen on 911 when the hijackers took  over and somehow the planes were able to navigate.

exactly to the precise target. Um, coupling  that with the fact that the hijackers were just. grossly incompetent. They didn't speak English.  Um, and just sort of like the story itself, like I don't understand. Um, these hijackers were  like little guys. How did they get the pilots and. co-pilots out of the cockpit area, get in the  seats, clean up all the mess from the violence, and then fly the plane? It doesn't make a lot of  sense to me. Our understanding of what happened.

again comes from the 9/11 commission telling us  what happened and comes from the cell phone calls. that gave an awful lot of information about the  hijackers. And again, there there's been a lot of, you know, talk about how that was possible when  planes are, you know, flying at 30,000 feet. How in 2001 was there able to be a connected cell  phone call? Um, more to the point when the planes. are being flown sort of like haphazardly and  herkyjerky. And you know, the way cell phones work.

is they connect from towers to the ground. Well,  when a plane is moving all over the airspace and. flying at maximum speed, um it's really really  rare for a cell phone to connect at 5,000 ft, let alone 30,000 ft. And so that raises questions.  Our entire understanding of what took place on. those planes literally comes from the cell phone  calls. We asked the FBI about that. Um and we. didn't really get any clear answers. Um and to  this day, we still don't have many clear answers.

But you don't have clear answers about pretty  central questions. Exactly. These are not. ancillary questions. These are like the most basic  like how' they do that. I mean, you don't know. No, we don't know. Like my biggest questions aside  from the cell phones and what have you and how the. hijackers themselves were actually able to, you  know, navigate from the middle of nowhere to the. precise targets that they went to when they were  so grossly incompetent and not speaking to the. ground. My biggest question is where was our air  defense? I know as a fact because I read all the.

rules and the procedures and protocols back in  the day. Those F-16s should have been up within. 5 minutes. They should have been flanking those  planes and they should have stopped those planes. And at the bare minimum, they should have been  communicating down to the ground, the F-16 pilots, to say, "We can't get these guys to stop, you  know, and put people on alert." Right? But. for some reason, three planes were allowed to be  hijacked over the course of almost an hour and a. half. and the United States of America did nothing  to stop it. So, putting aside all the failures.

to prevent the attacks for the 18 months, two  years before 9/11, okay, you look at the day of, and we get back to your original question,  how could the devastation have been mitigated? One simple way is that if the F-16s had done  their job, had done what they were trained to do, which by the way, there's also evidence that there  was a drill, a military drill on the day of 9/11. about a plane being hijacked and flown into a  building. Okay, these F-16 pilots are trained to.

do that. That was the procedure and the protocol.  For some reason, on 911, it didn't happen at all. You've asked these questions, I assume, to members  of Congress. We were told that it was the fog of. war. That's what we were told. That was the  answer. Yeah. Did I mean, but at some point, you know, like the rest of us were watching this  on TV. So, I mean, clearly whoever's commanding.

those aircraft knew that this was happening also.  Everyone knew. I mean, I was here. You were here, right? that I mean did the person who prevented  those planes from taking off ever get punished? Did anyone get punished? No one's ever been  punished. I think the commission's we like to. say that the commission's finding was everyone was  at fault therefore no one is at fault. Right. No. ex and so we're all guilty. But you know again  3,000 people were murdered and I think that my. husband was one of them. And I don't understand I  go back to the rule of law. We are a democracy. We.

are a nation founded upon the rule of law. How has  our entire legal system failed the 9/11 widows and. children? How has the Department of Justice failed  the widows and children not only before 9/11 on. 9/11 and I'll tell you something in the wake of  9/11. Because if there is one entity that has. revictimized and horribly treated the 9/11 widows  and children, it is our Department of Justice and.

they should be held accountable for what they  have done. Interesting. That's I want to hear. that story cuz I I can tell you know a lot about  it and you're passionate about it. But before we. get to that, just one last question about the day  of about 911 in itself. What what was building. seven? So I'm full disclosure. I have always  focused my studies and research and um expertise. if you want to say that on the intelligence  failures. Yes, I did watch your series. Um.

uh I listened to it. I didn't watch it. I don't  like to watch myself. What you mean? But uh and. I I do know uh building 7 there's a lot of talk  that it doesn't make a lot of sense. Um you know, I think that there needs to be some questions to  special ops as to whether or not as way of fact. that any bombs were planted in the couches of that  building. The couches. The couches. What does that. mean? A couch like you sit on a couch. Yeah. Why  do you say couches? I you know listen over the.

years we've had people that came and approached  us and tried to give us information all kinds of. different people. I bet and I think that one of  the things that needs to be examined is building. 7. I think that hard questions need to be asked  as to how and why that building fell. Why do you. say couches? I just happen to wonder if bombs  were planted in the couches by special ops. You. happen to wonder having that? That's not something  you would arrive at just sort of randomly. the. couches. Everyone talks about the columns and the  fireproofing, but you're saying so you you obvious.

obviously you I don't know. I mean, listen, like  I said, we had a lot of people approach us. We had. air traffic controller people in the beginning.  We had an Iranian a former Iranian uh give us. information. We had able danger guys come to us.  I bet you did. Uh we had foreign governments try. to give us stuff. We had death threats. We had  all kinds of stuff. Um so, you know, I'm just. throwing that out. Building 7, that's what I could  say. It's not my area. It's not what I focused on.

I get it. I totally get it. It is a total anomaly  that that happened. It doesn't make any sense to. me. And what's interesting is like it's something  that I had never studied before. And you know, it's true. Like it's kind of odd. And um I think  that we should get some answers. The couches. Okay. Sorry. I'm going to couches. Yeah. No,  it's just such a I don't know nothing. Yeah. No, I get it. But clearly, you know, you were a kind  of clearing house for this stuff. Yeah. Yeah, just because of your role for those people who  weren't around or don't remember you were No, I.

mean like one of the things that sticks out to me  that we had heard one of the nicer sometimes you. hear information that I believe is sort of like a  limited hangout or to try to like explain the real. story but like soften it. And so one of the things  that we heard is like yeah we were following them. but you know um you know we thought it was going  to be November 9th instead of September 11th. we. reverse the numbers and I was like that's  interesting you know so you were following. them or you weren't following them were you on the  practice runs were you not on the practice runs.

but that was one of the stories that we had heard  from like a source that like yeah like they were. getting followed we were you know but we thought  it was going to be 119 not 9/11 that doesn't. really make a lot of sense because we had the NSA  listening into the conversations between Bin Laden. and the other operatives and as everybody knows  now because um Senator Hatch leaked some of the. information that like tomorrow is zero hour, you  know, the big wedding. Uh it's two sticks and an. upside down birthday cake. Um I think that there  was plenty of information out there to let people.

know that it was actually 9/11. Um and more  to the point, one thing that gets skipped over. often. My understanding is that Ramsey Yousef,  the 93 bomber, his the fifth anniversary of his. conviction uh was September 11th, 2001. And if  you know anything about al Qaeda, if you study. al Qaeda, they like anniversaries. And so,  um, to me, I think that for whatever reason, the attacks weren't stopped. The American public  wasn't properly notified or warned. Certainly,

there were people inside the government that were  probably given warnings. I think there's evidence. of that. Um, I just wish that, yeah, I just  wish that my family had known because when my. husband called me, I would have been like, "Holy  [ __ ] this get the [ __ ] out. Like, get out. this is not a bad pilot as the president said. Um  this is it like get out of that building you know. um it was already a target. The people that worked  in that building um knew it was a target. I think.

it's interesting that the women many of the women  that worked in my husband's firm survived. Um and. I I you know point to women's intuition. The  women were just like I'm getting the [ __ ] out. of here. And they survived and my husband didn't.  And I feel like if the public was made more aware. um over the summer that, you know, Director  Tennant's hair was on fire and that we were in. the crosshairs and that there was an impending  attack because we had warnings from Germany, Russia, Israel, Jordan, our own intel communities  surveillance of these cells, I think many,

many more lives would have been saved. I  think frankly the attacks would have been. 100% prevented. Yeah. So, I think it's entirely  fair to ask since they weren't prevented and since. they've been covered up with maximum aggression  for 25 years, they're still being covered up. Systemic cover up. Systemic cover up. That's  correct. Very extensive cover up. Um, I mean,

that's not a gap. So big. I I think the cover  up is so big that like you couldn't even hold. accountable the people that have covered it up.  And honestly, the other limited hangout answer. to that would be like, well, we were told that  we couldn't tell you the truth because it was a. matter of national security always. And isn't that  convenient? Well, sure, but I mean, this was the, you know, greatest violation of national security  in my lifetime. So, it doesn't really make sense. as an argument, but because of national security,  like the Department of Defense an hour and a half. later gets attacked and no heads roll. Does that  make any sense to you? No. So, I I think it's.

totally fair to ask who benefited from it at that  point. I think it's totally fair. Um, in fact, I. think it it's mandatory to ask that question. Um,  and there should be prosecutions 100%. How would. you You're a lawyer. How would you do how would  you structure the response now? Yeah. I mean, I. love that you want the commission. I think that I  don't know if that's the right answer. I just want. people I want to know the truth. Yeah. And I think  that that's a truth commission is is a great idea.

I think that I would like it tweaked a little  bit. I'd like, you know, a special prosecutor. um with a full-time, fully impanled grand jury  ready to issue indictments. Um I'd like, you know, the offer of immunity to anyone. Immunity and  anonymity for anyone who comes forward with. information. Um on, you know, the failures and  the dayto-day of like what happened. Um and I. think people should go to jail and I think people  that covered it up should be held accountable. Um,

and I think the families deserve answers and  I who wouldn't want that? I mean, I think if. if if Donald Trump announced what you just said  tomorrow, I'm just imagining this scene on X on. social media. Like, who would be opposed to that,  do you think? Right. I know exactly who would be. opposed to that. I know exactly which commentators  would have a fit, right, if he did that. And so, what does that tell you? But then explain to  me how uh President Trump put together a joint.

terrorism task force for the October 7th victims.  He put together Pam Bondi led it. You know, a task force to find everyone who was responsible  for October 7th. And yet he ran on America First. and I was like, wait, I'm sorry. Could we get a  9/11 task force? It's going to be the 25th year. For the 25th year, could you appoint a 9/11 task  force? We have Doge. How about DOEA? Right. How. about the Department of Government Accountability?  And why don't you put that together and have the. Doge guys get the access to the information, throw  it into AI, whatever they do, and figure out who's.

responsible and what really happened. You know,  exactly what would happen. What? Yeah. Okay. So, um I mean there would be a lot of people would  have to answer really hard questions and and I. don't you know I don't but I think that the  American public is owed that this kid. Yes. And you know 3,000 people were massacred and the  families are owed the truth and the families are.

owed, you know, proper compensation for our  losses. We have not been properly taken care. of. We were railroaded. How's that? Okay. Okay, so  now I want to get into the DOJ, but thank you for. indulging my all my many questions. I still want  to ask you off camera about the couches. What the. hell does that mean? Sorry, I'm not going to push  it. I don't know. Yeah. Well, it means something. clearly. Um, okay. You've had problems with the  DOJ. Our DOJ I want to just say this. Anyone who. knows anything about the couches in building 7 and  the planning of explosives should get immediate.

immunity and anonymity if they come forward with  the information. Of course. Of course, this is all. and if there is no one, then no one gets immunity.  Not a problem, right? What I never understood like. what's the problem with finding out what the truth  is about anything? I don't I don't understand. And there is a certain persistent chorus of the  same people, hysterical people telling you that. you're not allowed to ask this or talk about that.  And it's like, why are you saying that? I mean,

I look, I understand. I'm not for, you know,  hounding people, attacking them. I don't think you. should slander people. These are the slanderers,  by the way, who are insistent, by the way, that you not ask questions. But whatever. I get  it. Don't be impolite. Don't make a scene for no. reason. But I I But in this case, 3,000 people are  dead. It's totally fair. That's what I was saying. The truth is really important everywhere all the  time. Um but when 3,000 people are murdered, Yeah.

we're owed an investigation. We're owed. Oh, you  radical. No, right. I mean, we're owe Where is the. justice system? Oh, I agree. And it's unbelievable  the stories that I could tell you about how we've. been treated by our own Department of Justice.  Okay. Would you know then I want you to tell me. those stories and let's take a quick break right  now midway. So, we're back. We took a quick break. I should say it's the last day of October and uh  we're in a northern climate and it's freezing. So, I went and put my highly unattractive vest  on. That explains the costume change. Anyway,

you were on the cusp of explaining your what you  described as mistreatment by the Department of. Justice and related agencies and law firms. Can I  just give you the two sentence understanding that. I have? So, the United States has set aside  a huge amount of taxpayer money to compensate. the victims of terror, all terror attacks. 911  being of course the biggest and most famous of. all terror attacks in American history. So, I'm a  little surprised and I think that's true. Correct.

There's a big pile of money, taxpayer money,  but you said the victims of 9/11, the spouses, surviving children have been undercompensated.  Like tell I'll start let you go from there. Right. So in 2015 um certain members of  Congress put together some legislation. um and created a fund run by the Department of  Justice and the fund was supposed to be funded. through terrorist sanctions um predominantly from  those who do business with Iran. Let's say uh Bank.

Pariba uh was the first deposit that went into the  fund. That's a whole another story in itself. Um, it's kind of interesting, but uh, suffice it to  say, out of a $9 billion fine with Bank Paraba, I think $1.8 billion went to the victims, and  the residual money went to the state of New York. to build a bridge that ultimately got named after  uh, the governor's father. Um, actually, actually,

um, I don't know what the Tapenzee Bridge had  to do with terrorism, but I think Was it ever. bombed by Iran? I don't think so. But I do like  to make the joke, my daughter went to college. in upstate New York, and when I would go over the  bridge and uh pay the toll, I'd be joking that it. should be going to the 9/11 widows and children  since the money that went towards the bridge uh. reconstruction came from the Parry Bomb money, as  I understand it, from reporting instead of going. to victims of terrorism. How can that be? Um well,  you know, the Department of Justice um runs a lot.

of their sanctions programs. sort of like a slush  fund. But at any rate, this fund was created. Bank. Parib put together like I think 1.8 or 1.9 billion  of the first deposit into that fund. Um the widows. and children were excluded from joining that  fund and being compensated even though um we. were given the right to sue the co-conspirators  of the hijackers. Uh when we were forced into the. victim's compensation fund back in 2002 when the  government took away our right to sue, we were.

allowed to sue the terrorists. the co-conspirators  of the hijackers. And um we did we we were able. to get a default judgment, sorry, against Iran  um and the widows and kids have Iran judgments. Um and we sought to be compensated for those  judgments because it was the only way that we. could Iran judgments. Iran judgments. I know not  a lot of people know that we have Iran judgments, but may I just ask a dumb question? What does Iran  have to do with 9/11? Right. So, the evidence um.

that was presented to the court uh for Iran's  role in the 9/11 attacks is that Iran cleansed. some of the passports of a few of the hijackers  when they um went through Iran after being in. Afghanistan. That evidence was used. Uh Iran  doesn't show up in court in the United States. So, um, I think at this point probably close to 20,000  9/11 victims have been given copycat judgments off.

that basic evidence that Iran cleansed these  passports. And this is the only way that the. widows and children of the 3,000 killed are in  any way able to hold terrorists quote unquote. accountable. We are supposed to be able to  get compensated for our Iran judgments in this. government fund. Okay? A Department of Justice  fund. But just big picture, not to be orary about. it, but like everything we've talked about for the  last hour was about the event itself and how it.

happened and what we don't know and who might have  benefited from it and who might have paid for it. and facilitated it. Iran didn't make an appearance  in that conversation. And I've never heard anybody. make a case that Iran was actually behind 9/11  in a meaningful way. Um, I would agree with that, but nevertheless, Iran doesn't show up in court  and you can get a default judgment and that's it. Seems like a lot of tragedies in this country are  blamed on Iran. I'm not working for Iran. I'm not. that sympathetic to Iran. I'm not Iranian, but I  just noticed this that Trump gets shot in Butler,

it was Iran. Right. Right. It's always Iran. And  it does feel like a convenient narrative. Yes. Yes. Okay. I just want to say that. Well,  listen, you know, pragmatically speaking, when you're a widow and it's the only judgment  you can get, I get it. I get it. No. Um, but that's not a decision you made anyway, right?  I mean, you didn't decide to go after Iran. No, not at all. I wanted to go after the US government  and their failures because I didn't look to Iran. or Saudi Arabia or any other foreign government to  protect my husband and my family on the morning of.

September 11th. I looked to the United States  government cuz I'm an American citizen and the. attacks happened here. So, at any rate,  we were able to get these Iran judgments. I think at this point like 20,000 people um you  know that's including the deedants families, the widows and the kids and the deedants siblings,  parents um and then all of the inhalation injury. people at ground zero who breathed the bad air.  They're also holding Iran accountable. Um that.

ultimately will be about 70,000 um people seeking  to be compensated in this government fund. Well, the problem with the government fund is that  um compensating 9/11 victims gets in the way. of the other victims that want to be compensated.  And so back in 2008 and then a little bit before. that in some other legislation, um things  were rewritten for American military to be. able to sue the enemy. So uh you have victims  from the embassy bombings in the late 80s.

You have Iran hostages that aren't allowed to have  judgments because a part of the uh Algeria Accords. was that they weren't allowed to sue Iran, but  they're given just a flat number that they're. allowed to be paid in this government fund.  They're a victim of state sponsored terrorism, the Iran hostages. Um the embassy bombing in  Beirut victims and then the Kobar tower victims. Uh that was a bombing in Saudi Arabia. And then  you have the US's coal families, also victims of.

state sponsored terrorism, and the East African  embassy bombing families. These are all military. um or foreign service families that because  the law was rewritten, they are allowed to get. judgments against Iran for Iran's participation  in those attacks. And so those victims have. really powerful lawyers. They were the ones that  reportedly created this government fund that's run. by the Department of Justice. and they came up  with the idea that we're going to fund the fund.

from terrorist sanctions. And what does that mean?  Well, that means that when the US government gets. information that a company, a ship, you know, a  tanker is doing business and buying Iranian oil, um, that tanker or that company gets sanctioned.  The Department of Justice goes after those. entities and they find them. you know, first  they have a case and then they, you know, usually typically settle the case for billions  of dollars. Um, and that some of that money.

is supposed to go into this fund to pay victims.  This is why we never pull back sanctions even when. they're counterproductive, cuz it's a scam that  people are getting rich from. Well, right, but so. it was designed Sorry, I had to say that. Well,  so upfront it's being sold as a a fund to pay. victims. Turns out many of the military families  had attorneys who encouraged the families to sell. their judgments to third party investors, hedge  funds. Um, I know all of this because what right? I know all of this because the SEC happened to  investigate one of the hedge funds and so I read.

all of the SEC files, thousands of pages. Um, and  so that's how I know this information. I'm basing. it all on these SEC files of this investigation.  So at any point these victims that were supposed. to be the ones getting compensated in this fund  run by the Department of Justice um sold their. judgments, not all of them, but a like a lot  of them, they're very unsophisticated military. families. This, you know, hedge fund guy comes  in and says, "Listen, you got a judgment for 2.

million. I'll give you 400,000 right now. They're  sitting at the kitchen table in the middle of. Iowa. I'll write you a check." So these families  sell the judgments cuz they're like, first of all, their young son or daughter was in the military.  They never thought that they could sue the enemy, right? Because you're not supposed to be able to  do that if you serve in the military. You don't. sue the enemy. But the special law was written.  And so they were just happy to get the 400,000, right? Like they're sort of astounded. So they  they take the money. The hedge fund then owns. the right to compensation of the judgment. No  way. So it's like a payday loan. We'll give you.

a portion of your check. Yeah. Exactly. and they  in my opinion in my opinion took advantage of the. military families which I think is disgusting.  Okay, but these arrangements according to the SEC. documents were put together by the lawyers of the  people. So the lawyers brought in the hedge funds. Okay. And so the same lawyers create reportedly  from what I can understand in my opinion I'm being. very careful created this fund to be run by the  Department of Justice who you know treats their.

you know fines and sanctions and prosecutions  sort of like as a slush fund. Um you know the. department of justice wields power when they send  money to local districts to police departments to. buy vests what have you. They wield a lot of power  that way. It's frankly how the money ended up, you know, at the Tapenzy Bridge cutting deals  with, you know, the governor at the time. Nevertheless, these hedge funds buy the rights to  the compensation and they're actually the ones in. this fund getting paid. Initially, the widows  and children from 9/11 weren't allowed in the.

fund. This is such a perfect metaphor for modern  America. There's a victims of terrorism fund, but the actual beneficiaries are, wait for  it, hedge funds. Right. Exactly. And can. you guess what senator wrote the legislation  to put this together? I can't imagine. Well, which senator from the state of New Jersey is  in prison right now? I would say Mr. Robert. Menendez. That is correct. Senator Mendez  was the person who just, ironically enough, happened to write a lot of pieces of legislation  that, you know, maximized the profits to the.

offshore hedge funds that had purchased these  judgments from Are they offshore hedge funds? Oh, yeah. They're in the Cayman Islands. Oh, come on.  Well, it's true. And so what gets really bad is. that the widows and kids aren't allowed into the  fund because quote unquote there's just too many. of you and that you'll take all the money, right?  And the hedge funds won't be enough for the hedge. funds. Well, the problem is in the actual purchase  agreements, again, according to the SEC documents, the underlying purchase agreements of the Iranian  judgments of these military families, um the.

second line of collateral security guaranteeing  the rate of return between 13 and I think 62%. is um this fund that was created by the department  of justice guaranteeing the profits to the hedge. funds was the second it fund is a guarant fund yes  the third line of collateral security according to. the SEC documents is the law firm's receivables so  that means if the fund doesn't churn and burn and.

provide that profit then the lawyer's receivables  get rated so that the hedge fund investors make. the return so you can see there that there's  an impetus, a drive for the attorneys not to. want that third line to get tapped. They want  the money to come from the fund because then. it's not coming out of the attorney's pocket.  Right? So that's why the widows and kids in my. opinion were not allowed to go into this fund and  be compensated for our Iran judgments even though. we are the nation's largest group of victims of  terrorism. The 911 widows and kids were blocked.

in this fund. We're not allowed in. Takes us  three years to get the widows and kids in. we get into the fund and the law is written  by Senator Mendez with the support of Senator. Schumer and others so that the money is split in  a way that continues to maximize the profits to. the hedge fund. Okay. Then two years later because  the widows and kids were wrongfully excluded from. being compensated in this fund in 2015, we were  owed a catch-up payment. I came up with the name.

It was a lump sum catch-up payment. like you  wrongfully excluded us. This was really wrong. We're owed back compensation. Okay. We go. Takes  us two years to get that through Congress. Okay. We get there. We get almost a unanimous vote in  the House. It goes over to the Senate and the bill. gets hijacked. And I use that word purposely.  It got hijacked. It got hijacked by that same. group of lawyers and plaintiffs who had sold their  judgments to the hedge fund. And out of nowhere,

totally unwarranted, they asked to get this lump  sum payment for themselves, even though they were. never wrongfully excluded from the fund. They  were never owed back payments from the fund, they were allowed to get what's called the Bayroot  Cobbar catch-up payment worth $3 billion. The $3. billion to pay ultimately, in my opinion, some of  these hedge funds in the Cayman Islands and also. some victims too that didn't sell their judgments,  right? um comes from US taxpayer dollars, $3.

billion. Come on. So, it gets worse. And so, you  believe that some of that money actually went to. hedge funds in the Cayman Islands? I believe that  it's definitely possible because the SEC documents. talk about these this particular group of victims  getting, you know, approached to sell their. judgments. The SEC talks about the contractual  agreements of the sale of the judgments. Um, and when you look at the numbers sometimes, like  I'm really good at like seeing patterns and then.

like looking at evidence and then undoing it and  like going back and trying to figure out things. It just so happens that the groups that are  mentioned in the SEC documents um happen to be the. highest paid groups of victims of terrorism, which  first off makes no sense because they're military. and military live on kind of like humble economic  dam like their economic damages are very small as. compared to civilians who were working on Wall  Street on 91 because damages are calculated on. the basis of incoming economic losses, right? Loss  wages. And so, oddly enough, these military as.

compared to the 9/11 civilian widows and children  killed on US shores, okay, not serving overseas, not in hostile territory, civilians killed in  America at work, innocent civilians, have received. less compensation in this fund than these groups  who just happen to also have this exposure to. these third party investors and hedge funds. Okay?  So the legislation gets written. They're given $3. billion of US taxpayer money to pay this payment  that's totally unwarranted. Came out of nowhere,

was not justified. Senator Mendez wrote the  legislation, wrote a loophole in the legislation. saying that quote, "Successors in interest  thereof can be compensated this money from the US. taxpayers. I believe the successors and interest  thereof are the third party investors/hedge. funds." Can you imagine investing in a victims of  terrorism? Disgusting. Well, it's Do you have any. idea? You're literally profiting from murder  and terrorism and you're using a Department.

of Justice government fund that is being buil and  sold to members of Congress as a victim's fund to. compensate victims of terrorism with restitution.  Okay? And it's being, you know, exploited and it's. being used as like a profit model, an investment  vehicle for third party investors and hedge funds. It's Do we have any idea the identity of these  hedge fund managers or investors? No. No. But.

I will tell you this. I was able to read in the  SEC documents some of the investor groups that. were approached by the hedge fund guy from New  Jersey. Um, and I cross referenced those with open. secrets and donations, contributions to members of  Congress. And I believe there is a pattern there, which is why we as Mendez do in that group. Um,  let me tell you this that in the SEC documents, there's a deposition of one of the attorneys and  there's a series of depositions and the initials.

RM um are in the documents and Senator Mendez  passed legislation in 2012 that was also signed. off on by President Obama to make the first round  of payments to this group that had sold their. judgments, many of whom had sold their judgments  to the hedge funds. So, Senator Menendez's. hands are all over this. You know, we turned to  Congress. We said, "Could you just investigate? Could you investigate the anti-terrorism  legislation done by Senator Mendez?" He's. in jail now. Like, it deserves a lookie. Um, no  one would do it. This fund that's had $9 billion,

approximately $9 billion flown through it since  2016 has never had one hearing. We have asked. repeatedly, very loudly, for hearings. We've  begged for hearings. We can't get hearings on. this. Um, with all of this information, we  met with the chief of the money laundering. asset recovery section at the the Department  of Justice, the person who's in charge really. ultimately over this fund. And we're having this  meeting and we're like, it's really unfair. The.

governing statute says that we're supposed to  be treated fairly and equitably. It's a United. States victims of terrorism fund. Um, in the  United States of America, everyone's supposed. to be treated equally. Is there a reason why 9/11  widows and children, this nation's largest group. of victims of terrorism, are receiving anywhere  from 6 to 66 times less percentage value for our. judgments? Is there a reason for that? And she  just was like, well, you know, there's, you know,

we don't really have and Congress tells us and  this and that. Went to Senator Schumer, spoke. to his council. She just said, well, there's just  too many of you to treat you fairly. There's too. many of you to have equal justice. You know the  words on the Supreme Court when you walk in the. door is equal justice under the law for all. Why  not take it out of our foreign aid budget? Well, um that's a good question. I will tell you this  that some victims of terrorism in 2020 were paid.

out of um the State Department's defense  special budget. Um and maybe or maybe not, those guys had some third party investors that  ultimately got that money. Who were they and why. were they paid by the state department? does the  East African embassy bombing victims and the USS. Cole victims. Same group of lawyers represent.  There's like a cross-pollination of the lawyers. It's like a little cabal of lawyers that work for  these victims groups. They're also the same group. of lawyers. So, they not only created this fund,  they've also really played a very strong hand in. rewriting anti-terrorism laws in the United  States from 1990 on forward. And ironically,

all of these laws are always buil after 911 as  9/11, you know, for the 911 families. But what's. weird is that the 9/11 families never benefit  or get anything out of these laws. In fact, we get revictimized. Um, it's kind of incredible.  Wait, so let me just say this. So, we met with. DOJ and we really thought maybe maybe you know  this chief uh person of this department doesn't.

know about these hedge funds. Like, we need to  alert her, right? Like, we need to tell her. And. um she just got really funny at the end of the  meeting. We were like, well, we wanted to talk. to you about the hedge funds because the statute  says that you need to be a natural person to be. compensated in the fund. And even though Senator  Menendez passed legislation that allows successors. and interests thereof to get compensated, we think  it's kind of unseammly. And you know, we're not. being treated fairly and we shouldn't be penalized  because there's so many of us. Like that was one. of my talking points. I was like, as someone who  fought for the 9/11 commission, it's not our fault.

that there's so many of us. It's the United States  government's fault because the United States. government didn't prevent the attacks and didn't  mitigate any of the damage on the day of 911. So, you're punishing us for our government's failure  and there being 3,000 victims. That's why we can't. be compensated fairly and in alignment with the  law and with all of these other victims. You can't. treat us fairly because there's just too many of  us. And so, we say this to this chief of Mlars and.

um she just got funny. She's like, "Well, no one  briefed me that you were going to bring up the. hedge funds. I'm not prepared to discuss it."  And that was the end of that. And so, I just. think that the American public should know that  this is the kind of stuff that goes on. And I'd. really like to know why. Um, you know, one of the  laws that's currently they're trying to get passed. right now is backed by the ADL. It was written by  the ADL reportedly. The ADL. The ADL. What do they. have to do with this? That's what I want to know.  I want to know why the ADL is involving itself.

um in anti-terrorism laws. I want to know why  October 7th victims are in my Congress lobbying. Congress and writing legislation that harms the  rights of 9/11 widows and children. I'm not asking. how what does that mean? How does that they're I  don't know why they're writing legislation in the. first place, but since they are I'm saying they  don't Hamas did the October 7th attacks. These. individuals don't even have Iran judgments. And  they're writing legislation to change this fund,

this government fund that's supposed to be for  American victims of terrorism. And that's fine. Okay. Why are you in my Congress? Foreigners  will get some of this money now. Yeah. I mean, they're well, they're dual citizens and they're  trying to expand the law so that um they're very. involved. I don't know. We're the US government  is going to pay victims of a terror attack in a. foreign country that has nothing to do with I, you  know, we're not responsible for October 7th that.

I know of, right? But I they're using their um  they're trying to get an Iran judgment for those. attacks to say that Iran underwrote Hamas and  then they're going to try to get paid in this. government fund that was designed for United  States victims of terrorism. Um, actually, actually, that's an outrage. Well, I think what's  outrageous is that we know that they tried to once. again amend the governing statute of this fund and  they tried to do it in a way that really was going.

to financially harm the widows and children. And  we're not seeking special treatment. We just want. to be treated fairly. But I I just can't get past  this. What I mean, you know, October 7th bad, as. I've said many times, clearly, but you know what?  Israel already took care of them. But but also. what does that have to do with us? Well-developed  system for victims of terrorism and they've been. taken care of in Israel. And my question is why  aren't they going to their own Congress? I don't. know much about Israel's Congress or their laws,  but like why aren't they in Israel lobbying their.

Congress? Why aren't they in Israel using Israel's  Why would the United States taxpayer pay the. victims of October 7th? I mean, that's a really  good question. And again, the lawyers behind these. groups would come forward. The ADL would probably  say, "Well, it's not the taxpayers. You know, they're using sanctions, fines, and money."  What does it have to do with us? That's what. I would question. I don't understand why people  that go overseas and get killed on buses, even. if they're American citizens, why they're over,  you know, in the United States. And again, if you.

want to be compensated, that's fine. But don't  harm the rights of the widows and kids. Why is. it more important to pay people that are injured  overseas on buses or in military installations or. as foreign service members to pay them six to 66  times more a percentage when we live in the United. States of America and every person is supposed  to be treated equal under the law? Yeah. Well, that's clearly not happening. This is Yeah. And  yeah, this is why people's attitudes are changing.

in a way that's and I would like to say that the  lawyers that were that third line of collateral. security combined, all of the lawyers, the  9/11 and the non 911 lawyers, they've made. um approximately $2 billion. The lawyers, yeah,  from the fund. And so obviously I'm not stupid. Like I know some of that money gets, you know,  reshuffled around and made into contributions to. members of Congress to reward them for their  efforts in writing legislation, but I think.

$2 billion to plaintiffs attorneys is kind of  unsemly. Um, in a terror victim in a victim's fund. that's supposed to be for victims. Why haven't I  heard any of this before? Why haven't you heard. the truth about 9/11 before? Well, that's fair.  Thank you for having me on. Oh my gosh, it's been. it's been a de I always knew I would like you if  I met you and I really do. No, I mean it. Now here. I'm bragging about my good sense about people, but  I do have good sense of people and I was right. So.

you said something. You said so many things. I'm  just trying to make sure I don't miss anything. You said a few moments ago that our terror laws  have been completely rewritten since the '90s. by this same group of rapacious lawyers. How how  have they changed and what are the implications. of that? What are you talking about exactly? You  know, when you go back and do a study on all of. the um anti-terrorism laws, what you find is that  um there's been a whole restructuring and it's a. system that doesn't it looks on the outside like  it's serving the victims, but what it's really.

doing is it's broadening a base and allowing for  um almost an innumerable amount of people to sue. for a terrorist attack. Right. And I confronted  um council of one of the more prominent members. of the Senate and I said, you know, you guys wrote  this law and it opens the courthouse doors to so. many people. You're harming the rights of the  direct heirs of the actual widows and children.

of people killed. And like why would you do that?  Why didn't you hold a hearing on the ramifications. of how you're rewriting this law? Why didn't  you have widows and kids testify as to how. they're being harmed and their rights are being  watered down? And the guy turned to me and said, you know, we just want to open the courthouse  doors to as many people as possible because. that serves anti-terrorism policy. And I said, it  doesn't really serve anti-terrorism policy. Um, and I said, you're you're not really serving the  heirs of the people killed properly. And I said,

and you're giving an awful lot of um deference to  judges, and you're assuming that judges are going. to police a docket and police a case and a system.  And I said the judges aren't doing it because the. judges in many cases are not really good judges  and they're allowing thousands and thousands. and thousands of people to enter litigation.  And what that does is twofold. Number one, it blocks and you know log jams the actual case  itself and the case can never resolve. Well,

there is one upside when a case doesn't resolve.  You're suing a defendant and the case goes on and. on and on for two decades, right? What happens  is in some people's minds, I read a book on this, is that the actual litigation process itself  ties up certain entities that certain other. entities believe fund terrorists because they're  so busy paying lawyers and being stuck in court, they're not funneling money to terrorists. Well,  that's a really noble idea except for the fact. that it's a huge disservice to the victims who are  entitled to have speedy justice for the harm that.

they've suffered. Right? You have litigation that  lasts two decades. widows and children are being. disserved by that because we're owed immediate  justice. We're not owed justice a quarter of a. century later. The second thing that it does  is it waters down the rights of the people. under the law who are the most prioritized because  you're letting in all of these other people. What. actually ends up happening when you open the door  and you let all those people in is that lawyers. make more money. And so you have a situation where  it's not the victims that are being protected.

by these laws that are getting rewritten. It's  actually that, you know, lawyers and this sort. of scheme that's come out of anti-terrorism laws  and these funds that get created and these deals. that get struck between lawyers and members of  the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the State Department, certain foreign governments,  it ends up becoming sort of like a scheme. Um,

and the real victims of terrorism like the 9/11  widows and kids who are this nation's largest. group are revictimized. Um, and that's just a  fact. And all I ask is for there to be a very. hard look see, if you want to call it, into these  anti-terrorism laws, into this fund that is being. run right now that is, in my opinion, you know, a  Ponzi scheme on top of a shell game that's really.

um revictimizing the 9/11 widows and kids.  Honestly, if I could send one message to President. Trump, I would beg him to give closure and peace  to the thousands of widows and kids. We've waited. 24 years to have a modicum of justice. We've been  abandoned by this country. We were abandoned by. our Department of Justice. Our husband's lives  have been exploited, used to go to war in Iraq. based on lies, used to roll in privacy rights,  to expand the Patriot Act. All of it. We've been.

exploited and we've been left behind. And I would  just ask for President Trump to recognize that and. appreciate it and just deliver closure and peace  to us. I think that there's a way forward for. that. And if there's ever been a president  that would be able to stand apart from the. intelligence community and to have the courage to  do that, I think it would be President Trump. And. I know he didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize or  appointed or nominated for uh his role in the.

Gaza peace process. I think if he resolved 9/11  and provided closure to the widows and kids, he. would probably be nominated and win that prize. He  would certainly get my vote. Kristen Brightweiser, that was an amazing conversation. Thanks. Makes  me emotional. Thank you so much for taking the. time to do this. Thank you for giving me the  opportunity. Oh my gosh. Come back anytime. I really appreciate it. And the widows and  kids appreciate it. So, thank you. Thank you.

We've got a new website we hope you will visit.  It's called newcommissionnow.com and it refers. to a new 9/11 commission. So, we spent months  putting together our 9/11 documentary series. And if there's one thing we learned, it's that  in fact there was fornowledge of the attacks. People knew. The American public deserves to  know. We're shocked actually to learn that,

to have that confirmed, but it's true. The  evidence is overwhelming. The CIA, for example, knew the hijackers were here in the United States.  They knew they were planning an act of terror. In. his passport as a visa to go to United States of  America. A foreign national was caught celebrating. as the World Trade Center fell and later said he  was in New York, quote, to document the event. How. do you know there would be an event to document  in the first place? Because he had fornowledge. And maybe most amazingly, somebody, an unknown  investor, shorted American Airlines and United.

Airlines, the companies whose planes the attackers  used on 9/11, as well as the banks that were. inside the Twin Towers just before the attacks.  They made money on the 9/11 attacks because they. knew they were coming. Who did that? You have to  look at the evidence. The US government learned. the name of that investor, but never released it.  Maybe there's an instant explanation for all this, but there isn't actually. And by the way, it  doesn't matter whether there is or not. The public.

deserves to know what the hell that was. How did  people know ahead of time? Why was no one ever. punished for it? 9/11 Commission, the original  one, was a fraud. It was fake. Its conclusions. were written before the investigation. That's  true, and it's outrageous. This country needs. a new 9/11 commission. one that actually tells  the truth that tries to get to the bottom of. the story. We can't just move on like nothing  happened. 911 commission is a cover. Something.

did happen. We need to force a new investigation  into 9/11 almost 25 years later. Sorry, justice. demands it. And if you want that, go to new  commissionow.com to add your name to our petition. We're not getting paid for this. We're doing  this cuz we really mean it. Newcommissionow.com.