Jamie Macphail’s book 9/11: Unraveling the Lies is a terrific resource for newcomers to the controversies around 9/11—and also for us old-timers who occasionally need to refresh our memories. As the author puts it, the book is “A comprehensive and up to date analysis summarized into one volume to provide an overview for both convinced skeptics and those inclined to believe the official account.”
Below is a transcript of the first two-thirds of the interview. (I’ll complete the transcript this weekend.)
Jamie Macphail discusses 9/11: Unraveling the Lies
Kevin Barrett: You're listening to Truth Jihad Radio, where we've been talking about 9/11 and other forbidden topics since 2006. If you like the show, please subscribe at Substack. You can find it by way of TruthJihad.com. Just click on the Subscribe at Substack button.
Welcome to Truth Jihad Radio, the radio show that goes all out for truth, starting with 9/11 truth and moving on from there to all of the biggest issues that are being covered up or spun or completely suppressed or lied about in the corporate controlled mainstream. Today, we're going back to 9/11, the mother of all false flags and the mother of all red pill issues, with the author of a terrific new book summarizing the best evidence against the official story. Jamie McPhail is the author of Unraveling the Lies, and it is available free of charge on the Internet. And so this is actually a good book to pass out to any (if there are any) intelligent, sentient beings that haven't yet figured out 9/11 in your neck of the woods. You can pass them the URL for this book and they can take a look at it for free and see what they think. It's a valuable book. Thank you so much, Jamie. How are you doing?
Jamie MacPhail: Very good. Nice to talk to you Kevin.
Kevin Barrett: Good to have you. So I noticed that in a way this is sort of like an update of the kind of information that David Ray Griffin has been working on for so many years. But instead of 14 volumes or whatever he's published, you've packed it all into one volume.
Jamie MacPhail: Yeah. David Ray Griffin has been a great source of information on 911, along with a few others, such as David Chandler, of course, Kevin Ryan, Kevin Fenton, of course, writing on the issues around the intelligence agencies. There are so many people. Graham McQueen, of course,has been a great contributor to the to the cause well. And Mark Gaffney, just to name a few.
I've kind of read all their stuff and sought to put it all together into one coherent narrative, but trying desperately to avoid getting caught up in rabbit holes, which 9/11 is absolutely replete with. You know, there's so many areas of 9/11 that if you're not really careful, you can just get caught into a particular perspective that can be then knocked down and destroyed as an argument. So I've tried to keep clear of the pitfalls.
For example, the Pentagon is a classic one where most people who have written about 9/11 have always followed the line that it's a cruise missile and there's no evidence of the 757. And I had that view myself as well, actually for many years, until I came across the research of David Chandler, Wayne Coste and their colleagues on the on the website 911SpeakOut.org, which is very, very good and very useful to to investigate for those who are interested in the Pentagon. So that's one of the rabbit holes of 9/11n. We can very easily get caught up in the idea that there was no plane that went into the Pentagon.
Kevin Barrett: And the rabbit hole is a good metaphor for that. Since there are those two holes: There's the the hole on the outside, and then there's the interior hole in the E ring, the central one of the five rings in the Pentagon. And just a cursory examination, especially of the exterior hole, without knowing the larger context, can easily make it seem very obvious that there was no big plane.
Jamie MacPhail: Yeah, absolutely. And (Gen. Albert) Stubblebine was a great advocate of that. And he, of course, was a major figure within the American Army, and he came out and said, in about 2005, that the plane does not fit the hole. I don't know if you remember that one.
Kevin Barrett: Yeah, it was like if the plane does not fit, you must acquit.
Jamie MacPhail: "So there's no there's no plane, it must have been a cruise missile." But there is very clear evidence (of a big plane impact). I've borrowed some pictures from 911SpeakOut.org to put in the book. It's very clear that there was structural damage along about a 90 foot area of the front of the Pentagon there, indicating that yes, actually it wasn't a cruise missile, it was something much larger that caused that amount of damage. I know this is a contentious view. There are many people in the 9/11 truth movement who still maintain that it was a missile or bombs and had nothing to do with the 757. But I would challenge that view myself. And the evidence relating to the shenanigans of Dick Cheney in the Presidential Emergency Operations Operating Center that morning is further evidence indicating that it was actually a 757 that went into the Pentagon and that it was Flight 77.
Kevin Barrett: Ok. Go ahead and describe Cheney's antics that would reinforce that view.
Jamie MacPhail: Okay. Well, it's not his antics. It's the fact that he was there and it was denied by the 9/11 commission. They went out of their way to embellish the story of how Dick Cheney did not appear in the PEOC until 10 o'clock, or possibly, 9:58, they say. Absolute nonsense! Do you want me to just give the evidence?
Kevin Barrett: Sure, you may as well. It's been so many years since my listeners have been reading (David Ray) Griffin's books on this.
Jamie MacPhail: Dick Cheney was definitely in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center way, way before the plane hit.
Now the evidence is — there are several several elements to it. First of all, everybody knows about Norman Mineta's evidence to the commission that was deliberately locked out. It was not a part of the final report. He gave very clear evidence that he was in the PEOC with Dick Cheney. And he says that he was in there at approximately 9:20 and that a young naval aide, his name was Douglas Cochran, came in and said "Mr. Vice President, the plane is 50 miles out. Do the orders still stand?" He came in a few minutes later. "Do the orders still stand, Mr Vice President? The plane is 30 miles out." And then finally he came in and said "the plane's 10 miles out, Mr. Vice President, does the order still stand?" "Of course it still stands!" says Dick Cheney, as reported by Norman Mineta.
Kevin Barrett: Cheney "whipped his neck around," as I recall.
Jamie Macphail: Yes, he crooked his neck around, a very graphic description. So that was Norman Mineta's evidence that he gave to the 9/11 Commission. What was not included in his evidence for the 9/11 Commission but was recorded in a BBC documentary that he participated in in 2002, was where he gave the exactly the same evidence to the BBC, but he then went on to say, "and then shortly thereafter, somebody came in and said, 'Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon. The plane's gone into it.'"
Jamie MacPhail: So that's the first piece of evidence about Dick Cheney being there. The second substantial piece of evidence was presented by a gentleman called Eric Edelman, who at the time of 9/11 was the principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. He was basically Scooter Libby's deputy. And he gave an interview to Newsweek, I think it was in October 2001, and gave the same evidence as Norman Mineta, which was that he was in the PEOC with Dick Cheney when somebody came in and told them that there'd been an explosion at the Pentagon. Now that completely confounds the evidence that the 9/11 commission tried to cook up, which was he didn't get down to the PEOC until at least 20 minutes after there was the explosion at the Pentagon.
Kevin Barrett: So why would they have wanted to cover up his presence in the Pentagon around 9:20 in the morning, when the plane impact was about 9:37? Why would that be something they would need to cover up?
Jamie MacPhail: Well, simply because it shows that Dick Cheney was actually down there and knew that a plane was coming into the Pentagon and that he deliberately gave a stand down order.
Kevin Barrett: Yes. And he was angry. He was angry that his aide would even question whether the orders still stood. What could such orders have been that required coming back over and over? "'Are you sure the orders still stand, sir?' 'Yes, of course they still stand!'" What could that order have been? Obviously it wasn't the order to protect Washington and shoot down the plane. It was quite the opposite.
Jamie MacPhail: Exactly. Now, the thing is, it gets even more bizarre. Norman Mineta was the Secretary of Transportation, so he was a top quality witness, if you like. As is Eric Edelman, Scooter Libby's deputy. His official job description, as I mentioned, was Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security. I mean, for the love of Mary, what can you say about that? Here you've got two very, very influential, powerful members of the Bush administration both saying "Dick Cheney was there. And I know because I was there too."
But it's not only that. This is where it gets absolutely surreal. So there's the commission saying, "Oh, he wasn't there until 10 o'clock. Let's call it 9:58" they say. But Dick Cheney, five days after 9/11, was interviewed on Meet the Press on NBC. And he stated live on television that he was in the PEOC and then shortly afterwards heard that the Pentagon had been hit. I mean, what can you say? What can you say?
Kevin Barrett: It makes you wonder how the 9/11 Commission could get away with that. It's just so over the top.
Jamie MacPhail: Well, they got away with murder, didn't they? They didn't even mention, in the entire 500 page plus report — not a single mention of World Trade Center Seven, the third building that came down that day, that wasn't hit by an aeroplane. They just magically erased it from the story.
Kevin Barrett: That's another issue. I think one of the reasons that so many people in 9/11 truth movement really got attached to the idea that no big plane hit the Pentagon was that it seemed like a very straightforward thing that you could show people with visual evidence and quickly convince them. And that's always easier in some respects than going over these kinds of discrepancies in people's testimony and explaining why they're significant. If you only have 15 seconds before somebody's eyes glaze over, showing them a picture can sometimes work better than trying to explain something complex. And Building 7 is, of course, the one that works here, since it's such an obvious controlled demolition, whereas the the holes in the Pentagon turn out to be possibly misleading. So that's another question: How did the Commission get away with completely ignoring Building 7, and what has been the history of the official attempts to explain Building Seven, or the attempts to not mention it?
Jamie MacPhail: So what's the question?
Kevin Barrett: Maybe just you could run us through the history of the official attempts to deal with Building 7 and its mysterious near-freefall collapse?
Jamie MacPhail: Well,the first point about the Commission on World Trade Center 7 is you could give them a teeny little bit of leeway on the grounds that NIST hadn't completed its report at the time the 9/11 Commission Report came out (July 22 2004). NIST didn't complete their report until seven years after the event, in August 2008. Why did it take them seven years? Because they just didn't know what to make of it, quite frankly. And even the head scientists finest admitted that they had enormous problems getting a handle on what had happened at WTC 7.
They did their computer simulations as to how it could have collapsed. And their computer simulations are absolutely absurd. For example, they would they would heat up areas of the building, but only heating the the steel in the building, not the concrete. So they were getting completely false readings. They only had their first meeting about it where where they were open to public comments in, I think, August 2008. It might have been a little bit earlier. And at that meeting, David Chandler challenged NIST, saying, "I've done my computations, you could have done them. And it's very clear that for at least two point twenty five seconds, the building was in freefall." Of course, it's completely flummoxed NIST because the chief scientist there had previously said that it would have been impossible for the building to have collapsed in free-fall for any period of time. But he was then forced to acknowledge that due to the the information and evidence that was presented to him by David Chandler, he had to then go back and say, yes, there was free fall, but that was it. No explanation given as to how there could possibly have been free fall when free fall cannot possibly happen in the absence of a controlled demolition.
Kevin Barrett: There's an interesting history of disinformation and earlier tentative and generally ludicrous attempts to explain these collapses or explosions or whatever you want to call them with WTC-7 as well as the Towers. I remember the talking point early on was: "Of course Building 7 blew up and came down because there was a huge power substation in the basement." And that was complete nonsense. And to its credit, I guess, the NIST team admitted that (since) they couldn't possibly put out any actual detailed report that claimed that the power station had something to do with it.
And then there were a bunch of tentative reports on the Towers as well that talked about pancaking and so on and so forth. The final (NIST) report, of course, admitted that no, there was no such thing as pancaking. And the final report couldn't even come up with any scenario to explain the actual destruction of the building. All it could do is claim to explain the destruction of the top several floors. And then they throw up their hands and say "and somehow that caused the whole building to disappear."
Jamie MacPhail: Yeah, it's interesting you mentioned the substation because that was initially presented as a possible explanation for the collapse, that it was built on unstable foundations and all the rest of it. But they (NIST) did refute that. And then, of course, they said, you know, initially one of the propositions was that it was fires caused by debris that had fallen from World Trade Center One onto the building. But that caused other problems and they then had to get rid of that as a theory because that raised another issue which is "if all that debris managed to travel 370 feet that couldn't have happened in a gravitational collapse. That would have had to have been due to an explosive expulsion of material that would have travelled such a far distance to have then impacted on World Trade Center 7. So they then discounted that because they realized that opened them up to the charge of the two Towers having been brought down by controlled demolition. So they were then left with just fires.
Jamie MacPhail: But of course anybody who looks at those buildings will see that yes, there were fires on isolated floors, but none of them were long-lasting fires. And they certainly wouldn't have been sufficient to have caused any kind of collapse of the buildings. The firemen who were outside were saying, "Why are you keeping us out? We want to get in there and put that fire out." And they were told they couldn't go in there. Why couldn't they go in there we have to ask ourselves? Presumably the reason was because certain people knew that that building was supposed to be coming down. I suspect that the reason that WTC 7 didn't come down much earlier in the day was because somehow there was a default in the explosion, in the explosives. We know that certain explosions took place because Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, who got stuck in the building (7), reported those explosions at 9:30 in the morning. But somehow the rest of the explosions didn't take place and the building didn't collapse. So why weren't the firemen allowed in there? I don't know this for certain, but I suspect the reason is that when they realized that the building wasn't coming down as planned, they needed to get their own explosives experts into the building in order to recalibrate it to make sure that it did come down.
Kevin Barrett: There's an interesting parallel there between Building 7 and the Towers. We know from the testimony of William Rodriguez and many other people that some huge explosions did terrific damage to the sub-basements, badly injured a number of people, and possibly even killed people in the lobby. And those explosions happened somewhere around 10 seconds or so before the plane hit. And so likewise, we have these early explosions in Building 7 that did not directly cause an immediate collapse. As you said, those were around 9:15, according to Barry Jennings and Michael Hess. So in both cases, we had early explosions destroying lower sections, doing tremendous damage to the lower parts of these buildings, both Building 7 and the North Tower, maybe the South Tower, too, for all we know, but not actually initiating the final collapse. And that makes one wonder whether there's a reason for that. What do you make of that evidence of these huge explosions before the plane hit in the North Tower?
Jamie MacPhail: Well, the the people who have presented that evidence are very reputable people, and you can't argue with the evidence that they've given. I'm more interested in the the evidence of Jennings and Hess inside WTC-7, because we know that they were going down a staircase that was on the northeast side of the building. Basically NIST and Giuliani made a big thing of saying, "Oh no, they got it all wrong when when they thought they were hearing explosions. That was from the impact of the collapse of World Trade Center One." But that doesn't make any sense at all for various reasons, one being that the staircase they were on was on the northeast side of the building, which was so far away (from WTC-1). It's impossible for debris from World Trade Center One to cause the damage to the staircase in the northeast side of World Trade Center 7. And also they (Guiliani and NIST) said that it happened an hour later, and that Michael Hess and Barry Jennings were sitting around on the (deserted) 23rd floor of World Trade Center 7 (for an hour), presumably twiddling their thumbs, wondering why the entire building was empty.
I suppose I should explain that Jennings was the Deputy Head of Housing for New York, and Hess was the leading attorney for for the New York City Council. And so they'd been called to this meeting on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. But as soon as they got there, they realized that the building was empty. This was around nine o'clock, just before the second plane hit the South Tower. And according to NIST and Rudy Giuliani, these two guys sat around for an hour or two on the 23rd floor with all hell breaking out around them without making any effort to get out of the building. When you start putting the story together, it's just nonsensical.
Kevin Barrett: The BBC played a role in putting out total nonsense about Barry Jennings right at the time that Barry Jennings died. As I recall, this was in August of 2008. NIST was just coming out with their Building 7 report. And Jennings had told his story that just totally blew the official version of Building 7 out of the water. And then suddenly out of the blue, Jennings supposedly died of undetermined causes, and nobody, including his family, would tell anybody what those causes were. The Loose Change filmmakers Dylan Avery etc. hired a pretty savvy private investigator to look into Jennings' mysterious death. And then he came back and returned the sizable sum of money shortly thereafter, saying, This is above my pay grade. So something very strange happened there. And then the BBC came out with its Building 7 documentary, which attempts to debunk Jennings' account. So Jennings was killed or put into witness protection. Jennings disappeared from the face of the Earth with no cause of death at the exact moment that the BBC put out its ridiculous attempt to smear him. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
Jamie MacPhail: Oh no. And the interesting thing was in the first documentary the BBC did, the Conspiracy Files, they interviewed Jennings, as you say. And of course, Jennings blew the whole story out of the water. And then fortuitously for the official story, he died in circumstances, as you point out, that nobody is very clear about how he actually died. Point is, he did die just at the point where the final NIST report was coming out. And hey, presto, the BBC suddenly got Michael Hess to come on. So they changed the whole Conspiracy File story and had Michael Hess giving evidence. Even though on the day of 9/11, he'd been talking to reporters and explaining that they'd heard explosions and the rest of it inside the building. And now he comes out and says, "No, I'm very clear on this point. There were no explosions. What I thought were explosions was actually the the collapse of World Trade Center one which happened at 10:28.
Kevin Barrett: And nobody asked him why he would be just sitting around in the empty lunchroom with half eaten sandwiches for two hours doing nothing while skyscrapers around the area are blowing up. It's crazy.
Jamie MacPhail: Barry Jennings had said in his evidence that when he got up to the 23rd floor, he got a phone call from somebody saying, "You need to get out of that building and you need to get out of that building right now." And his response was, "and that's what we did." He said they were going down the staircase because the elevators weren't working. And he was he was so scared he was taking whole levels at a time. He damaged his knees quite badly because he was literally jumping down 10 steps at a time to get the hell out of that building before whatever was — he'd been told to get out pretty quickly. So that's what he was trying to do. He got down to the sixth floor.
If you bear in mind that they (Hess and Jennings) arrived there shortly after nine o'clock and then the second Tower got hit and World Trade Center 7 was completely empty, with not a single person in there apart from those two, you'd be thinking, "let's get out of here." The two Towers had just been hit. They didn't know what was going to happen next. They wouldn't have been dawdling around and they weren't. They were trying to get out. They got down to the sixth floor. And if you put a timescale together, the latest it could have been would have been 9:30. And an explosion blows the whole staircase away between floors six to eight. And they managed to crawl their way back up to the eighth floor and then wait there for an hour and a half before they get rescued.
So what was that explosion? (BBC's Conspiracy Files) tried to do away with that whole story and (brought on Giuliani's aide Michael Hess) who said, "No, no, no, I'm absolutely sure it was definitely not an explosion. It was just the sound of debris from from the collapsing Towers. And believe what you will.
Kevin Barrett: The disappearance of Barry Jennings is memorialized in the JenningsMystery.com Website.
Jamie MacPhail: I didn't know about that.
Kevin Barrett: Another strange, very dubious death around Building 7 was that of Danny Jowenko, one of Europe's greatest experts on controlled demolitions of buildings. Did you mention that in the book?
Jamie MacPhail: Are you talking about the Dutchman who was interviewed without knowing (about the "collapse" of WTC-7)? He was shown video footage but didn't know anything about what it was. And he just said, "Yeah, that's definitely a planned demolition. Absolutely 100 percent."
Kevin Barrett: He said "a team of experts did this." And he marveled it at how good they were and what a perfect demolition it was.
Jamie MacPhail: Well, it was a pretty good collapse, wasn't it? Let's face it.
Kevin Barrett: And then it wasn't long after that that Danny Jowenko died in a single car accident.
Jamie MacPhail: Oh, yes, brakes seized up, did they?
Kevin Barrett: Something like that, yes.
Jamie MacPhail: Hmm. Well, yeah. If anybody's in any doubt about World Trade Center 7, what really was a game changer for me was when I looked at that collapse for the first time — it was only about 2007 or 2008 that any footage came out, that I saw, anyway. On the two sides of the building that you can see there is no evidence of any fire whatsoever; both are in pristine condition. Still, yes, there were fires on the on the side of the building facing towards World Trade Center One. But the the north and east sides of that building were completely and utterly unaffected by any damage whatsoever. No evidence of any fires in any of the windows. So even if, for whatever reason, that building collapsed, it should have been an asymmetrical collapse. It should have been into the point of least resistance where the damage had been done, rather than just coming straight down. The whole collapse is only about 6.7 seconds. Just as the building starts to collapse, if you look at the right hand side, you see telltale squibs of explosions taking place, rippling up the body of the building rather than down. Now that's interesting, because NIST and many others have argued that all the evidence of the squibs that were seen in the World Trade Center buildings when they came down was just compressed air being forced out of the windows. Kevin Ryan has done a remarkable piece of work showing how that's absolute nonsense. (Ryan shows) how even if there had been compression, it wouldn't have caused those squib effects because of the layout of the building, because of the elevators, because of the open planning and all the rest of it. But seeing those squibs going up the building completely confounds the idea that it could have been caused by compressed air because compressed air would be forcing it downwards rather than upwards.
Kevin Barrett: This discussion of the apparent controlled demolitions of these skyscrapers — and indeed the entire Trade Center was destroyed — and there were explosions in buildings Five and Three, apparently as well. Every building with a WTC prefix was totaled and no buildings without them were totaled. And that makes no sense, given the location of the Towers and the locations of other WTC and non-WTC buildings in the area. But in any case, I wanted to bring up the issue of your chapter on foreign involvement, which is quite good as far as it goes. But it doesn't touch on what strikes me as some of the most interesting evidence of foreign involvement, which is the way that the World Trade Center was privatized just in advance of 9/11. In the summer of 2001, the Port Authority was run by three people who were of very strong pro-Israeli views. They were the Republican billionaires Frank Lowy, Lewis Eisenberg, anmd Larry Silverstein. I think it was Eisenberg who was the chair of the Republican Finance Committee, so his job was bringing money to the Republican Party. These were billionaire kosher nostra, people with mafia reputations. Silverstein got his start in prostitution. He ran prostitution clubs on Long Island, and that's how he made his money and then put it into real estate. He's known as kosher nostra. (The Israeli newspaper) Haaretz reported that he was on the phone every weekend with with Benjamin Netanyahu; he's a very, very close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu. So these three were kosher nostra pro-Israel fanatics, including one of them who raises the money for the Republican Party that put Bush and Cheney in office. These are the people who orchestrated the privatization of the World Trade Center. They didn't give it to the high bidders. They gave it to Larry Silverstein, the prostitution guy, the pimp.
Jamie MacPhail: Silverstein Yeah. He didn't. He didn't pay much upfront for those buildings, either. I understand.
Kevin Barrett: No. 15 million or so of his own money and then another hundred million or so from his backers. The Towers were condemned for asbestos and they had antiquated communications equipment. The city had been desperate to demolish them for years and couldn't do it because there was no economical way to do it with all that asbestos. And then suddenly the kosher nostra moves in, privatizes them, hands them to Silverstein on a silver platter, even though he's not the highest bidder. And then he doubles the insurance. (Two months later) on 9/11, he happens to not be at the top of the North Tower in Windows to the World eating breakfast as he is every other day, because he says that just as he was leaving the house, his wife reminded him of a medical appointment. And so he survived to collect not only that doubled insurance from two months earlier when he had bought the Trade Center, but he also redoubled it by claiming double indemnity for two completely separate and unrelated terror attacks: the two planes...
