The David Knight Show - Fri Episode #2349: The First Responder Accounts Missing From the 9/11 Debate

Episode Date: September 11, 2026

────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:17]Trump Announces $5,000 Dividend for Every Adult American — Sarah Huckabee Said That Morning: Don't Give Things AwayHuckabee: you don't build a strong economy by giving things away; then Trump does everything she accused the Democrats of doing.────────────────────────────────────────[00:05:33]Idiocracy Called It — J.D. Vance Defends the $5,000 Dividend AnywayToday's Republicans are the Democrats of my youth; the Democrats are the communists of my youth; both parties are socialist and there is no South Korea left.────────────────────────────────────────[00:32:43]Swiss Canton System for Israel-Palestine — Two Peoples Who Love the Same Land; Don't Cut the Baby in TwoPhil Saunders (Path of Hope and Peace) and David Beto; same size and population as Switzerland; federalism solved more extreme conflicts during the Reformation.────────────────────────────────────────[00:35:58]One Israeli Town Built Peace With Palestinians — Economics, Security, and the Counter-Balance of Three GroupsHis town, a Palestinian village, and an ultra-orthodox settlement built mutually beneficial arrangements; amid national conflict in 2021, they won a peace prize.────────────────────────────────────────[00:48:00]The Two-State Solution Has Never Been Popular With Either People — Settlers Are Everywhere; Partition Is ImpossibleThe Solomon analogy; settlers spread throughout the West Bank in three generations; the 1947 partition was a mistake; put the federal option on the table.────────────────────────────────────────[01:10:38]Netanyahu Will Not Lead a Federal Solution — The Forum Won't Run as a Party; It Will Lobby Across the SpectrumRunning as a party means becoming part of the problem; Switzerland began with three cantons; they'll replicate the model village by village.────────────────────────────────────────[01:29:20]Airline Pilots: A Hijacker First Time in the Airplane Could Not Have Flown It at That Speed and AltitudeJohn Lear filed an affidavit in 2008; turbofans cavitate in dense low-altitude air; the engine becomes a brake; can't fly 500 mph at 1,000 feet; cell phones don't work at 20,000 feet either.────────────────────────────────────────[01:45:25]Firemen Describe Explosions in the Lobby Before the Towers Fell — Like 20 Bullet Shots Straight Down150+ first responders reported explosions not in the commission report; elevator explosions on level one while the fire was 80 floors up; "boom, boom, boom, all the way down."────────────────────────────────────────[01:48:18]The Only Way a Building Can Accelerate as It Collapses Is Pre-Engineered, Precisely Timed ExplosivesBuilding 7: a classic controlled demolition; no fireproof class-one high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire; 150+ eyewitness accounts of explosions ignored by the commission. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 11th of September. Yes, 9-11, 26, 25 years after the massive Reichstag fire to take us into a police surveillance state. And this is something that is being done globally, but rolled out here, especially in the United States, The deception and the evil are just astounding, like the COVID pandemic, which also was rolled out at the same time in practice for 20 years before they dropped that other shoe. So we're going to take a look today at some of the put together several different clips on different subjects of this.

And that's what we're going to do the first hour. The second hour, we've got a very interesting interview with a couple of people. One is talking about the Swiss Canton system and how it might be applied. in Israel to get peace at the top level, but they've already got a system that is working in one area at the bottom. They have been able to find peace between Jews and Palestinians in spite of the monsters that rule that country. All politics is local, folks, and if they can do it in Israel, we can do it where we are as well. There's a path to hope and peace. I think you'll find that interview very interesting. We'll be right back. Well, before we get to those, it just happened.

to comment about what Trump unleashed on Wednesday. The $5,000 checks for everyone, which I'm sure that you have seen now, just when you thought that the stupid convention that he went together with the rubber Trump Trump ducks, I joked about that being lame ducks, and of course, the gilded gauche Trump souvenirs that they have there, the stiletto purses. Again, we didn't show a picture of it yesterday. Karen was saying, I can't imagine what that looks like. Well, it's basically just a stiletto shoe with a long heel.

And they put pieces of leather on the two sides of the shoe to make it into something you can drop stuff into. I guess you could maybe drink champagne out of it. I don't know what the purpose of that is. But as stupid as all that is, and as low as our expectations are for Trump, he always seems to go even lower. And when I saw this, I thought, yes, of course. does fit in with what he did in his first term, doesn't it? He ended his first term by locking down the economy and by putting out bribes to governors to make sure that they locked us down, that they shut down our businesses, our jobs, made us wear masks, made us keep six feet apart,

all those sort of things. I know many of you did not do it. I did not do it. But nevertheless, the insanity of it. And as he inflicted all of that, damage needlessly, just like he's doing now with his tariffs and his wars and the rest of this stuff, he came out with a stimulus check. And yet this is much, much bigger. Now, on the other hand, he has made a lot of promises about things that he was going to do in terms specifically about checks. A lot of people point out, yeah, he's made this promise before. As a matter of fact, there was a community note on one of the videos somebody had clipped him doing it.

And it says, yeah, well, remember when he said this? and he said that, and we never got any of that stuff that's there either. So don't count on it too much. But I think it's interesting, as much as what he had to say, to take a look at the, I'm going to play the clip for you where he puts it out there and they cut through the crowd and you see the looks on the faces of the people that are there. They're not appalled. They're not amazed.

They're excited and clapping. Yes, they're no different from the Democrats, are they? What we're doing is because we've done so well, And because our country is making so much money that only I can make this promise to you. And here is my promise. If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them, because of our economic, tremendous economic success, like in history, we've never had anything like what's happening. Biggest tax increase in history.

Strength and success, economic. I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000. Hopeless demagogue Democrat. That's what this guy is. There's Scott Besson clapping. No fiscal responsibility there, right? And I guess we've got to be able to find some adults in order to get it to them. There certainly aren't any adults in that mogul.

convention, are there? A bunch of children, if they think that they're going to get free money. We've made so much money. We're going to give you a dividend. How did he get all that money? Well, it's the taxes that he imposed on us, the record tax increases that he put in. And it's not, it's your money. He's going to bribe you with your money.

Questionable whether he would actually deliver on that promise, even if they do retain both the, both parties. And, of course, both houses, I should say, the Senate and the House are, both Republican majority right now. So why doesn't he do it? As a matter of fact, he was asked that by Laura Ingram, well, why don't you do it now? What are you waiting for?

But I think that before I play that for you, I think that it is people put this up. I thought this is absolutely the best commentary. It is pure idiocracy. And take a look at this clip from the movie

Idiocracy. What the hell is good? going on with this election. I hear these kids talking about jobs all the time. Jobs this and jobs that. I don't give a damn about no jobs. People don't need no jobs. I'm gonna tell you what people need, huh?

People need money. Lots and lots of money. That's why the only jobs I'm gonna create are gonna be down at the minute. We're going to print so much damn money. I'm going to give every single American $1 million. Man, you're talking. Let's not stop at $5,000.

Come on, let's go to a million. Everybody's going to be million percent of it. They're going to be rich. And nobody going to have any more problems. And you ain't got to worry about no damn health care or nothing. And then we're going to have a big-ass party with all us, Millionaire. See, that's where the similarity ends.

Trump would never touch a gun. He's a New York Democrat. He would not touch a gun. But all the rest of that stuff sounds exactly like Trump, doesn't it? It's amazing when it's out there. And so then you had Fox News who just kind of amazed. Brett Barrow was like, what's going on with this? And he brings up the obvious issues to J.D. Vance, who had this to say.

If we do that, we're going to do just fine. So, Mr. Vice President, I heard the Trump dividend to raise some eyebrows. $5,000 for every adult citizen. If the House wins. Wait, it raised my eyebrows and both hands went up at the same time. But if Republicans win the House. This is for the American middle class. But if Republicans win the House, $5,000 for every adult citizen.

You're killing the middle class. So you use the quick math, that's about $1.3 trillion. I can hear the critics' heads exploded. They're saying out loud, I guarantee you, president is bribing voters to vote for Republicans to take over the House, and then he's bankrupting the country because the deficit debt is huge, and inflation would come back if this comes into play. So how do you answer those criticisms?

Well, I say, first of all, what the president's talking about is fundamentally a dividend for American workers. What nonsense. Taking in an extraordinary round of revenue because the president of United States is actually standing up to both foreign companies, but also foreign countries who've been taking advantage of America's workers, for pretty much mine. It's our money. All of these tariffs. The revenue that you bring in it. The tariff is when the President of United States says, if you want to undercut the wages of American workers,

if you want to ship American jobs overseas, you're going to pay a big fat penalty when you try to bring that stuff back. How long have I been saying that today's Republicans are the Democrats of my youth and the Democrats of today are the communists of my youth? That's where we are, isn't it? Except that they're rushing to the communist side even as fast. as the Democrat socialists are, quite frankly. It's disgusting to see something like this.

As a matter of fact, it was just a couple of hours before he made that announcement that Sarah Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, of course, daughter of the Zionist ambassador. But she was on with, she was on a program talking about why we don't want to have socialism, why the Democrat socialists don't work. And, of course, this has been the line of attack by the Republicans. don't want to vote for the Democrats. They're all socialist and communists. And so listen to what she has to say. This is to Larry Cutlow. It's absolutely crazy. And you know better than anybody. You do not

build a strong economy by giving things away. You do it by encouraging work, making it easier, creating opportunity, lowering taxes. That's what Republicans are doing. The opposite side, they want to give everything away. At the end of the day, though, somebody has to pick up the check. And it's the taxpayers that will ultimately pay. the price. Look at what's happening in New York. You have a mayor who campaigned on giving everything away, and now somebody has to actually pay for it. And that's exactly why people are fleeing states like New York and California and coming to places like Arkansas. In the last two years, we're the number one state that people are moving into per capita. It's because we've done things

like lower taxes. We've cut 25% off of our state income tax, returning a billion and a half back to the people who are working hard to earn it. We don't build a strong economy if we don't help encourage work and support families. That's what we're doing. People are taking notice. They're doing the opposite in the blue states. And I think Americans are going to be putting those things on notice in November and supporting Republicans up and down the ticket.

And then Trump comes out and does everything she cues the Democrats of doing. Isn't that amazing? Yeah, there's a big difference. isn't there between the Democrats and Republicans? The Uniparty has decided that they're going to bribe you with your own money, both of them. And of course

there is a difference. One party is going to try to get Trump out of office. The other one is going to try to keep him in, no matter what. That's about it. Which is why I'm seeing over and over again on Twitter, people that I know, people that I always have been aligned with politically saying,

I don't know, maybe I'm going to vote Democrat for the first time in my life. I'm not suggesting that you know, there's not any of these groups that are any good, but, you know, I thought it's an interesting question that Laura Ingram bought up on them and she said, well, why don't you do it now? You know, you've got, the Republicans are in charge of the Senate and the House. Why don't you do it? Oh, well, we don't have enough?

Well, that'll be the excuse afterwards, won't it? And so he's hoping, this is a headline from AP News, hopes to salvage the midterms making a dubious pledge. Yeah, it is dubious, isn't it? Because he has made these types of pledges many times before not fulfilled them. To give every U.S. adult, if we can find one. Are there any left in the GOP after Trump? I don't know.

So he's pledged to give everybody $5,000. And I think one of the things that I find most offensive about this is the cynical use of the term dividend. you just heard from J.D. Vance. Come on. What is a dividend? Oh, it sounds like capitalism, doesn't it? It sounds like corporations and all the right. It sounds like a marketplace. It's nothing like that at all. Of course, a dividend would not be paid if you didn't have a surplus, right? If the company didn't make a profit. And what Trump is looking at, his yardstick even of what success is, is how much money can I take from other people,

and put it into my own government coffers, right? And perhaps into his own personal pocket. But that's not success for us because we're the ones who are paying these taxes. And they know that. I mean, Lutnik has admitted that. Lutnik knew that the tariffs were illegal, so he bet on it and he offered cover to companies that were going to pay it. It's like, look, I'll pay you 20 or 30 percent of the amount,

and I'll give that to you up front right now in cash. And then if these things are overthrown in the Supreme Court, I get the full amount. So I'll give you, you know, two or three million dollars off of your $10 million bill. And then if the Supreme Court throws it out, I get the $10 million that I got for only $2 or $3 million. Meanwhile, you get the cash up front. So he knew it was illegal. He was working to change the tariffs for certain products, food products and things like that, because he knew that it brought the price up at the shelf.

And of course, Trump knows it as well because he's going to import beef without any tariffs. You pay these taxes. They're not a dividend. They're not earning anything. We're not winning anything. Government is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And you've got people who have been lifelong Democrats, people like Trump, people like J.D. Vance, now masquerading and cosplaying as Republicans. This is nothing to do with Republicans of my youth.

They've always been about free market policies, as you heard Sarah Huckabee talking about. So it sounds like capitalism, doesn't it? When they talk about dividends, it's just absolute nonsense. Think about this. When we look at Trump and he's talking about how successful he is, and we talk about how he's put in about a third of the debt, I think the figure is about 30%. But, of course, with this, it would go up significantly. What he's talking about is something that is three times the size. of the stimulus checks that he put out there.

We're going to pacify people with a kind of universal basic income, right? He keeps paving the path and changing the moving the overturn window so that he can get us accustomed, all of us, accustomed to universal welfare. This is just another example of it, as well as being fiscally irresponsible. Think about the fact that he's been president for about five years. That's 2% of the time that America. has been around. And that 2% of the time, he has added more than 30% of the debt. That's the reality of Donald Trump's fiscal policies. And so I'm not the only one to call out the dividends as being

nonsense. The senior policy director at the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget said the same thing. And so the dividends are something companies pay when there's a surplus. But the U.S. is running a $2 trillion annual deficit. And, how do you? has a debt of $40 trillion already. The idea that we have some kind of fiscal success is completely backwards and upside down. It is bordering on laughable. And yeah, it is idiocracy to think about that. And so again, we saw the same type of thing, as a matter of fact, done by Elon Musk.

Remember that? We offered to hand out million dollar checks to voters to try to boost a candidate who ultimately lost. And so $5,000 check is, again, three times the amount of money that he was bribing us with to try to pacify us with the Overton window being moved toward universal basic income. He's at it again now. And that's one thing that he certainly does understand, isn't it? This is a guy who operated in New York City. How did he operate in New York City, bribing people? And, of course, every president has used the money printing machine.

in Washington to bribe or blackmail people for money. And of course, we saw this happening in 2020. He bribed hospitals to push his pandemic and pretend that there was one. He bribed hospitals to kill people. And he bribed states, both Democrat and Republican governors, to lock us down, mask us up, and tell us to keep six feet apart. It's just idiocracy, a second term of it. As a matter of fact, when you talk about their big talking point,

scaring everybody and you should be afraid of the socialist agenda of the Democrats, he really just blew that whole line of attack up. Points out Colby Hall, he said, Republicans have spent months calling nearly everyone with a big D near their name a socialist, not just the new people like Mom Danny and El Sayed and Talaouroiko. It's also been reliable for people like Sanders for, quite a while, an AOC. And you just heard Sarah Huckabee taking that line of attack.

But Trump's bribe came after he'd warned the crowd about the Democrat Senate nominee in Texas, Tala Rico, who wants to dismantle capitalism, and he called his opponent radical left communists. He asked whether anyone had ever seen a happy communist. Well, of course not. And yet, what do we have now? we have a choice between two socialist parties. One has red and the other has blue.

Yeah, this would cost about $1.3 trillion, as you heard, Brett Bera say, and that's more than the three rounds of pandemic stimulus checks combined. It's from a party that made irresponsible and unfail wealth redistribution the central charge against its opponents for more than a year, proposing the largest one-time direct payment in American health. history, even as we are looking at record debt. Truly is astounding. And so it wasn't just J.D. Vance.

They went to Ted Cruz right after Trump's speech. Sean Hannity was talking to him, and the two of them agreed that this is a great policy. Think about that. Ted Cruz defended the $5,000 bribe by claiming that Democrats love to offer free money. He goes, so is that admission that if you can't beat him, you'd join them. So Cruz then said since most recipients work and pay taxes, this is really just a tax rebate. You don't understand. You see, we take the money from you and then we give it back. It's a rebate. That's right. Yeah. These guys are reprobates. It's what they are. It's totally

different from that whole UBI thing. Hannity agreed that everybody understands that. We understand that the government is just rolling and dough. They have this massive surplus of cash, the debt and deficit doesn't matter. And so, yeah, they can hand out another trillion dollars right there. And so there was an interesting article from Cato Institute said that actually, you know, the Democrat socialist and MAGA share a very dangerous flaw. I would say they share two flaws, both socialism as well as demagoguery. Now they said in seeking massive state control of the economy, today's socialists, ironically, have much in common with Maga nationalists that they claim to oppose. And we've been saying this for a while about Trump. Look at him taking over industries.

And when you look at what is happening, it is a classic example of communism, as we saw with Stalin and fascism that we saw with Hitler. I've talked about this in the past. They both are taking you into an authoritarian, ultimately a totalitarian society. And both of them are going to take over and centrally plan the economy. Hitler was smarter than Stalin. He said, yeah, you know, they called themselves the Nazis. The Nazis were national socialists. And he said, we're not like the communists. The communists want to take over the factories and run them. I'm going to leave the people who know how to run the factories in charge. We're just going to direct it and we're going to a partner with them until we get to a certain point.

And then at that point, we will take them over. So it's just a difference in how long they go before they take it over. But there's still the issue that they don't have any information in this kind of a system. When you've got a centrally planned and controlled economy, what Cato is talking about is the fact that in a marketplace, you're constantly getting signals from people based on what they buy. Do they like this or they like that? And so you can tailor things in a more efficient way.

The failures of communism and fascism were the fact that the government coming in and planning and directing the economy, they don't have sufficient information to do that. You know, you can have the smartest people in the room running this, but they don't have sufficient information to do that. And that's the fundamental flaw. But over and above that, it always destroys our liberty and our freedom. It treats us like cogs and a machine. And we don't want this centrally planned economy that they want to shove down our throat. Not at all. But we're at the point now.

Like I said, we've got two socialist parties. And Larry Cuddler was there. I remember when I was doing a lot of contests, usually I would win the contests if they were something that's about economics or conservative politics or something. conservative politics or something like that because I understood that. Didn't do that well with some of the other things that were, let's say, leftist causes or just general products. But when it was a political thing, usually I won those.

And these were contests for videos. Yeah, yeah. So Larry Kudlow had a contest with that, and I didn't win. But no hard feelings there. But what I did for that contest was I focused on the difference between north and south and east and west. That would be North and South Korea, East and West, Germany. There's absolutely no question. You talk about testing vaccines or anything like that, the therapeutics.

What do you do? You've got two different groups that are similar to each other, and you have one that is a control group. Well, we had that exact same thing with Korea and with Germany. We split them in half. We had one of them operate under a socialist communist economy, a directed economy. And then we had the other one that was more of a marketplace economy.

And even though you could say, I don't know how South Korea is, but even though Germany was pretty controlled and not as much of a free market as America, look at the difference in prosperity that was there. And look at how both of the communist countries digressed into a totalitarian society. That always happens. And those are great examples because you've got a, common people where they have the same background, the same kinds of outlooks and abilities, and you split them into two different economic sectors, and look at what it produces in terms of

wealth, in terms of freedom. But we don't have that anymore. Where do I get my, what party offers me a free choice? You know, where is the South Korea or the West Germany left in America? I don't see that anymore. I think it's all converged. Well, we're going to take a break and we're going to go to our, first we're going to have some videos that I've put together for 9-11. I talk about it every year. We have the anniversary, but this year is the 25th anniversary. And I think it's about time that we start collecting a lot of these things and putting them together.

And that's exactly what Gage is doing with his Richard Gage, with his Richard Gage, 9th. 9-1.com. He had the Turning the Tide Conference started yesterday. And it's going to be four days of this. So there's a lot more than I can cover in just a few clips. I just wanted to focus on some of the things that we didn't talk about last week with Richard Gage. We talked a great deal about the demolition of the buildings that were there. But I want to talk a little bit about the planes, the firemen's story, the money issue there, and Israel as well. And so we're going to put some of that together and play those clips for you. But then after that, we're going to be talking to our guests. And like I said before, one of the fellows that said, he put together an organization called Path to Hope and Peace. And the other fellow, David Beto, is with the Independent Review.

He put a piece together about the Swiss Canton system, saying two-state solution isn't really going to work in Israel. And there's got to be a way that people can live together. And so the two of them started talking about that, but that's a top-down solution, putting together a Canton system. I said, well, I hope you guys can get that done. And he said, well, we've already got it working at the local level. And that's the key. Politics is local. And if you can do something at the local level to counter what is being done at the national level when you've got monsters like Netanyahu and Ben-Gavir, if you can do it at the local level,

level, if you can get past what these guys are doing at the top, there's some hope for all of us, I think. And I think there's a lot of things that we can learn from this interview. So we're going to be playing that interview. And just to tell you that we get to the interview, we had a little bit of audio difficulty with the feed from David Beto in a couple of spots. But I kind of interpret what he's having to say. It's a little bit hard to hear what he had to say. But I kind of repeat it so that you can understand it. And then it improves. So hang in there when you get to that patchy spot because it's some great information that is there. And before we take a break, I just want to give a shout out to some of our friends and sponsors

of the show. Of course, Tony Ardaben, that you can get to at Wisewolf Gold through Davidnight. Dot Gold. Also, Homestead Products. They have some great natural organic products. They're now on eBay. And we have a link to their new site at eBay at the Davidnight. com news website.

So you can go there and you can find Homestead products. and I hope you do because they've got some great stuff and the great people there really do appreciate what they've done for the show. So we're going to take a quick break, folks, and we'll be right back. We're going to start with the planes, and then we're going to look at the fireman story

as well as the money story, and what was Israel's involvement? We'll be right back. Making sense. Common again. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Well, joining us now are a couple of gentlemen who have an interesting approach to what do we do about the problems in Israel and the Middle East? You know, we hear so much about war all the time, but we don't hear too much about hope and peace.

And so we're going to be talking to a founder of a local organization that's in Israel that has had a lot of success at the local grassroots level in terms of bringing people together. And we want to talk about how you get past this long history that is tit for tat that is happening there. I'm very interested to see what he has to say is group. is the path of hope and peace. But also going to be talking to David Beto, and he's got an interesting article that just came out in The Independent. And he's looking at it from the top level. You know, what do we do in terms of a governance system?

Instead of a two-slate solution, is there maybe something else that we could do? So we wanted to talk to him first about that, about the high-level aspect of it. And then we need to get down to the grassroots because that's really where it has to happen. It's got to happen with the people-to-people attitudes that have to be changed.

So we're going to talk to Phil with the path of hope and peace. And we'll be talking to him in just a moment. But let's begin with you, David. Thank you for joining us. Well, thank you so much. This is a very different topic than the last one, which was my book about FDR. But I've always been very, very interested in decentralized, federal solutions, mutual aid kind of thing.

So a few years ago, I read an article about this guy, Leon Lowe, and he proposed a solution for South Africa based on the Swiss model. This was in the 80s, and he even got Winnie Mandela to write an introduction, but it was too late. And South Africa ended up as a unitarian majority state, which has created some problems and some tensions. So they never really went down that road. But I really liked the idea of a Canton solution. and read a little bit about what's going on in Israel, Palestine, and found out that there were some people pushing for that kind of solution there. And so I wrote an article about it a few years ago,

and got very little attention. But then I got a phone call from Phil Saunders, who we're going to be speaking with. Phil Saunders is involved with several organizations, including the federal forum. And he said, we really like what you're calling for. here, David. A lot of our members agree with it. And basically what they were calling for was a something like us, Switzerland, which has two dozen cantons. They are self-governing. They can have their own official languages, their own official churches. That's where the action is. And they have a very

weak federal government or rotating presidential council. And many Swiss don't even know what the name of their president is, which I rather like. I talked about that many times. I thought, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't know who? It only served one year. Wow. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't know who the president was in the United States? And it's worked quite well.

And if you look at the parallels of Switzerland and Israel and Palestine, they're rather close, about same size, same population, and similar level of ethnic and religious divisions. And we tend to say, well, that's different because, you know, there are various hues of Christian. Well, it wasn't so different during the Reformation when people all around Switzerland were slaughtered each other. That's right. 12% of the population of neighboring the neighboring Habsburg lands, for example, was wiped out, which makes Gaza look rather tame. So anyway, I've been participating in Phil's groups, one of his groups, the Federal Forum. they are trying to build support among Americans and in Europe to get the message out.

They're not asking for U.S. intervention. They're not asking for foreign aid. They just want people to be aware that there's an alternative out here to two-state solution or whatever you call today, which is hopelessness. And so I guess I'll turn it over to fill. When you go back in and look at Switzerland, as you point out, you know, there were some key religious differences, even though there were Christians. But it's a country that has, you know, part of it is German speaking, part of it is Italian,

and part of it is French. And they found a way to get around even those language differences, which is a key thing. I mean, we're talking about having a government document. We've got to send things to the Supreme Court, supposedly, to get an interpretation because we can't evidently read it for ourselves. But imagine if it was written in several different languages. So they do have a common language, I guess, of government Romanish or something. something like that. But for the most part, you go different parts of Switzerland. You see signs in

different languages there. So it was a system that was designed to help people negotiate these cultural, linguistic, religious differences that they had there. I think you're onto something. But let's talk a little bit to Phil Saunders. Thank you for joining us, Phil. And again, your organization is Path of Hope and Peace. Tell us a little bit about that from the grassroots up. How did that ever start? It started in one village. But I mean, how do you get to the point where people are not killing each other and they start talking to each other. Okay. Well, it happened for me because I just happened to move in 2014 to right next to the Green Line.

I live in a town named Suhadasa, and it's a modern Israeli town, but at the bottom of the hill, on the other side of the Green Line is a small Palestinian village. And then on the other side of that is a large ultra-Orthodox Israeli settlement. And so those three communities are very different. And there are a few Palestinian towns in this area. And the extraordinary thing is that the Palestinians have become a bridge between the different kinds of Israelis in this area. Yeah, because there's a different area between the people who are Zionists

and the people who are, let's say, ultra-Orthodox. I mean, they've got a lot of issues with the government that's there. and I've covered many times the back and forth that's happening between those two different groups. And so the Palestinians have kind of been a bridge between those groups, you say? Yeah. And I'm sure that's other factions as well, right? Yes. And the more variety, it turns out, the better.

Because when we're different to each other, it means we have different things to offer each other. And so the relations between the orthodox, city and the Palestinian towns in this area are based on economics because the ultra-Orthodox have large families and they don't have a lot of money because they are studying Torah all day. And so they need to be able to buy everything as cheaply as possible. Where's the best place to buy things cheaply in a neighboring Palestinian town? And the Palestinians are very happy to have that business, although I have to say that during the Intifadas, this area was a very, very dangerous place to be. And the main Palestinian town

that we've built the relations with was a symbol of resistance against Israel during the interfadars that has now switched over completely as a result of benefiting from the relations that began with that ultra-Orthodox settlement. And so their relations are based on mutually beneficial economics, but also on interfaith. They are all traditional religious people, and they understand each other on that basis too. So whereas my town, we are not such a religious town at all. I am, I'm a secular Jew. And we connect on a cultural level. For example, I can eat their food there. The Orthodox can be able to do so because it's not kosher. and also we are happy to talk about politics and culture in a way that the ultra-Orthodox don't really want to get involved in that.

And so we each engage with each other in a different way. And the fascinating thing is it turns out the fact that there are three very different identities in this area actually becomes a counterbalancing force against Israelis and Palestinians in the United, a tug of war. It turns out that here there's a counterbalancing arrangement of three different identities. And that's what made us begin thinking about, well, there are other places in the world that also have many identities. And Switzerland, as David pointed out, is a wonderful example of that. And during the time in Europe when terrible things were happening all across Europe and Protestants and Catholics were murdering each other. In Switzerland, they didn't.

And as we've said, they have French speakers, German speakers, Italian speakers. They even have Romanish speakers. And here, we also have various other identities, the Druze, the Samaritans, and it's a wonderful mosaic of identities and really suited to a federal system, as David has mentioned. but there are many other examples, not only Switzerland, that we can talk about. Federalism has been used very successfully in many parts of the world. The USA is a very successful federation of 50 states. Yeah, I would actually prefer the articles of Confederation. Well, yeah.

So the articles of the Confederation and Bill of Rights, that's what I think I would rather of my choice about that. But I think it's interesting when we look at this, that you're talking about how it was really kind of economics and free trade that brought a, by together. And I think about that in terms of the environment that we're currently operating in. You know, when you start sanctions against other people and you start arbitrarily drawing lines there, sanctions are kind of a prelude to war. They actually are, in fact, a kind of war. And we just had Prime Minister of Canada, Carney, said, they attacked us. You know, it's a war,

and it really is an economic war. And that is, I think, where this begins, and it eventually winds up, if it's not checked, it winds up into a shooting war as well. I think, the free economic market and the free cooperation between people who are each meeting willingly a buyer and a seller's needs, I think that is essential. And when I was looking through your website, one of the things you said was the guidelines that you had was non-involvement of political entities that have impure interests in the process. I think that's the thing that always poisons it. Seems like war is the lifeblood of the state. It seems like free market economics are the lifeblood of peace in the sense, I guess. Yeah, absolutely. We made the

decision in this area not to wait any longer for the politicians to sort it out. We'd been hoping for that for a very long time. It doesn't seem to be getting any closer. And so we decided, okay, let's take matters into our own hands here. And it began with the basic human needs, which are economics but also security. And so that was effectively the deal that was struck. The Palestinians have been suffering economically for a very long time and have not been achieving the quality of life that they want. They are not impressed by their leaders

and they're looking for something new that gives them the ability to enjoy a decent, life and dignity in their towns, but beyond that, they're very flexible. And on the Israeli side, one of the main things we wanted to achieve is security. We want to be able to go to work in Jerusalem. It's the main city, 20 minutes drive away from here, and without anyone throwing rocks or molars or cocktails at us. And so we decided to work together to make sure that that doesn't happen in our area. And it's proven very successful. successful because it's win-win. And in 2021, when there was a war where all sorts of terrible things

were happening throughout this land, including inside the Israeli mixed cities, it was notable that it wasn't happening here. And so we were awarded a peace prize that year. And that took the whole conversation up at upper level. And we decided to start talking to people who have studied these things and came into contact with many people who've been working on the idea of a federal solution to this conflict for years, including David, but many, many others based here in this lat, Israelis and Palestinians. And so we created a project called the Federal Forum. So bring all those ideas and voices together. So the Federal Forum is one of our projects. The Path of Hope and Peace is another of our projects, which is the local grass-rass

Roots prototype and they are all projects of an organisation that I chair which is named Challenge. It's about how to affect conflict transformation. That's what we're looking to do. We're not waiting for anybody to solve the conflict for us. We're looking to transform it even whilst the conflict is ongoing. And these last few years, we've been in a lot of conflict in this land, but we've made sure it doesn't come to to where we are. Well, good for you. I think that's a real inspiring story for everybody. We all look at what is happening with politics and there's so many things we don't like about it.

We tend to feel helpless in terms of, you know, what can I do to even have peace instead of war? We keep seeing the politicians creating war in one area after the other. And it feels like there's not really anything that we can do. But of course, your example here is something that you did in terms of reaching out and interacting people there at the local. level and building it from the grassroots up. So I think that's a very positive lesson for all of us. I think there's a lot to be learned there. Let's talk a little bit about this two state versus one state solution, David. As we were talking before the interview began, you pointed out that there's really not any way they're going to have a two state solution there, is there? No, I don't think so. I mean, I suppose you could imagine some of it happening, but I don't think

feasible anyway. Because you have a half a million settlers spread throughout West Bank. They're everywhere. And they're scattered. And they're armed. And they're determined. And some of them are third generation. Right. So how you remove them. Would it be good to remove them? As Phil points out, there's a lot of dynamic interdependence that has developed and could still develop. And we have models about how different groups get along. The Israeli airs or the Palestinian citizens of Israel have

been quite obsessed. They've lived peace with the Jewish need for a decade. They have members of the connect. They're involved in the government of cities such as Nezreut. So give their cousins on West Bank

the same incentives to maybe even enhance through a canton system where everybody's going to get local control and you can have the same success. People are people. And these railing Arabs really are example of that. Now, I'm not glorifying their situation. There's a lot of discrimination and so forth.

But at fifth percent of the, I believe it's 50 percent of the pharmacists, I think like 25 percent of the doctors are. Israel Arabs. They served Jewish patients primarily. So well-intressed, they've been successful in integrating themselves in. The same control of people in the West Bank. If we for example, are some men of

peace and security, but all may praise a 90% of the land is re-owned by the government. We prioritize that. The Czech did and give the Israeli the most in the state and so it can be ingrading to this society. So there's a great way to do this.

The reality, you've got a one-state reality. You've got mixing of couples. It's just, that's the way it is. And it's time to give on the one-state idea. That's my opinion. I think Phil agrees me. Yeah, and I guess, you know, when you look at... I mean, to give them a two-state E. I'm excuse me.

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, give us your take on me. one state versus two state? Yeah, well, the situation is that the two state solution has never actually been that popular. It was always seen as a painful compromise. Some of us were willing to do so, but the reality is we have two peoples here who love the whole land, the same land. And so cutting it up and giving half to one people and half to the other has, Two negative effects. Number one, it kills the prospects of positive interactions.

And the last thing we want is a great big wall built down the middle of this land. But secondly, it means that we would all lose access to very important places in this land. And so, for example, Haifa and Jaffa and Aco are extremely important culturally to the Palestinians, but they are very much to the west in the states that has always been promised to Israel. And the city of Hebron, deep inside the West Bank, is where Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and their wives are buried. And these are deep in it. That's a deeply important cultural location and religious location for Jews. And there are other locations throughout the West Bank.

If you read the stories in the Bible, most of them took place. in what is now the West Bank. And so for us to proceed with the Tuesdays solution has never been popular with either people. And the story we like to relate, and certainly the religious relate this story, is the one of King Solomon and the baby. If you truly love the baby,

you don't want to cut it into two. And so, therefore, we've come to the conclusion. We do very much want to share this land. And yet, we don't want to merge. into one people. Both peoples have developed strong identities and we don't want to give them up. And so what do you do if you got two incredibly strong national identities who want to live in the same land?

Well, that's where federalism comes in because it can offer a situation of sharing one land and yet having self-governance for each kind of identity. And there are, in fact, more than two identities, as I referred to just in this area. There are three key identities. And when you add in the Druze and other minorities, you create a very interesting possibility that we can take a lot of inspiration from the way it's been handled elsewhere. And you said that you personally would prefer confederation to federation. Yes, we have many of our members in the federal forum who also favor that.

It's easier with a confederation model to retain the separate identities of the Israelis and the Palestinians and yet decentralize them. There are many different kinds of Israelis and there are many different kinds of Palestinians. And they don't want a one-size-fits-all model on either side. And so the Palestinians are not happy with being centrally governed by Ramallah. They dream of going back to days when there was a Muhtar, a local governor in each city and area. And in the same way in Israel, we are far too centralized. And if you go to Haifa, you'll find people who are not happy at all about being governed by Jerusalem because they say we're far, far away from Jerusalem.

And we know what we need far better than the politicians in Jerusalem. And so that's what really brought us to this realization that federalism could be the best, the best of both worlds of the two-state and one-state model. I agree. Yeah, we have that same type of problem here, of course, the United States with the centralization of power. And as we were saying before, you know, you're trying to keep the involvement of political entities out because they have impure motives. and we know what those impure motives are.

They want to take land from other, attack other countries. We see that with Trump. We see that with Netanyahu. We see this happening all the time. And I guess the question is, you know, we can cooperate at the local level. What do we do about these monsters at the top who just want to shoot first and don't even want to ask any questions? I guess that's really the issue. We've had to deal with people with negative interests.

that want to come to our area and disrupt the kind of coexistence that we built here. But we've made sure to build a model that's very robust, and we are working together to make sure nobody does manage to drive a wedge between us. And that applies to anybody in this land, whoever they might be, politician or random anarchist, to make sure they are not going to. to spoil the amazing benefits that we're all experiencing in this land. We call the project Path of Hope and Peace because we wanted people to actually have hope that peace is possible.

There's far too much despondency in this land. Too many people have felt there have been so many false storms. They never delivered anything. And David said that there are indeed many settlers now in the West Bank. the idea of pulling them all out would be incredibly painful and was also very painful in 2005 when we withdrew all our settlements from the Gaza Strip. There were many who hoped that that would be a major step forward towards bringing peace in this land and I'm afraid they actually had the opposite effect.

And so there's no way we're going to be repeating that. So we have to learn from the lessons. and we have to build something that's actually viable. And we genuinely feel that a federal approach is the one that most closely reflects the actual reality on the ground. We're very interwoven in this land. Our economies are dependent on each other. If we try to disengage, 2005 was actually called the disengagement plan. And it was a disaster.

So now it's time to try a different, better approach. Yes, I agree. And of course, we can see economically what is happening with our disengagement program. We're going to erect economic barriers at the border. We see the knock-on consequences of that and increase prices and difficulty for people even trying to manufacture here domestically, trying to get raw materials that they need as well. So, yes, I agree. It is economic integration. And you work very hard in terms of cultural immigration. I mean, it's like a relationship, just like husband and wife. You have to work at it, right? and you have a lot of things that you do as part of this organization and try to make sure that you keep contact with the other people that are there. Is that correct? Yeah, absolutely.

And we have many other projects within Challenge that are also focused on changing the whole narrative of how we see each other. We want to stop viewing each other as contradictory and start viewing each other as complementary instead. And that way we can have a win-win. There's no need to fight to the death against each other when actually we see that when we build positive relations,

we discover that it's a symbiosis that produces results better than the sum of the two alone. I agree. We really want people to get on board with these possibilities. And by the way, it's not even a new idea. In 1947, when the United Nations voted on the partition plan, there was also another plan on the table. It was a federal solution back then in 1947, and unfortunately it didn't get as many votes,

and so they proceeded down the path to partition. And we feel that that was a historic mistake, which now we need to undo. And so in November, we're actually going to have a conference called the Beyond Partition Conference, November is the anniversary of that partition decision. And so we want to bring people together on an annual basis from now one. This will be the first one,

but next year will be the 80th anniversary of that decision. And we want people to actually begin examining this possibility that has been very successful. and all sorts of other places. Why not here? Let's just stop talking about it again. That's great. Yeah. When we're looking at, yeah, David, go ahead. You got something at it? Yeah, that was one, 1947 was a great turning point. And it needs to be seen more. As Phil said, there were local Israelis, including Judah Maxis, the president of Hebrew University, test-fied before the UN in favor of a kind of can't solution. His argument was very interested that were the craw-roads of different religions.

Why don't we view that an asset? And say, today it's a silly point. You're the whole land. Good neighbor this. That can be advantage. But you have support for that. But U.S. government was cool here. There were elements in the true administration,

including Secretary to defend war, still a fake federal solution. True and nation is seen before the idea, but he changed his mind. There were elements in the Bush government for a Fed solution. They were prominent, but they were all sidelined. So there were voted in the way, and there were people that voted for kind of a Canton model, but they sidelines. Had it just been different Truman in the British, for example, Mounted us, we had to have a lot of bullshit.

But they did in 1947, Creight, who state? One a Jewish state, one a Arabs or I guess a Khaustan. And Jewish state almost 50% Arab. That's the Jewish state. So that was asking for troll. That was truly a key cutter approach. And that is true where if you've done something like Kentons, I didn't have shot it.

And a lot of people of the West and British were at the time recognized that. Fortunately, leader of those governments chose a different chartage, which lies just disaster. Yeah, we're having a lot of breakup on your side there, but I think I got the gist of that. As you're pointing out, you know, they had an opportunity there to have a Canton system, and there's some support for that. But unfortunately, they went the other direction, and of course, the rest of that is now history. And we get a situation, I mean, we go back and we look at the Rang Corporation,

as they were talking about, what do we do about the nuclear situation, mutually assured destruction between the U.S. and Israel back in the Cold War? And they said, well, you know, there's always a temptation that if you think you can get away with it, you strike first. And the tit-for-tat approach in terms of conflicts between two different groups. And they found that when they were game that out, that wasn't always the correct approach. The thing that revealed that you gave essentially. gaming algorithms, different rules for how they're going to approach when something happens.

And there was like a tit for tat with a little bit of forgiveness that was there. So you had to have some kind of a conflict there. But I guess the real issue, when we look at this back and forth that's gone on now for, I guess, nearly 80 years, the real issue, I think, is what do we do about these governments that are in place? What do we do about Washington, for example? I mean, they're not going to devolve any power. and when you try to devolve that away, they have their methods to bring that in. And I guess the same thing is true in Israel.

Now, we were talking before the interview, David, you and I were talking, and you said, this is maybe really early days in terms of stopping the slave trade. And I said, yeah, you guys are the William Wilberforce is out there. And you point out, you said, well, maybe we're even before William Wilberforce. This is really, really early days. Talk a little bit about what really you see a path of this being able to work its way up from the grassroots when there is opposition from above, as we know there will be. Yeah.

Yeah, well, I want to know that Phil grab that first. Okay. I think this one's for me, and you're absolutely correct, that the political forces are not really looking for new paradigms at this point in time. There's plenty of, yeah, they just want to look after their seats on both sides. And maintain the status quo, unfortunately, they're quite happy with, whereas the people on the ground are not. Okay. And we've been going through terrible times in the last three years particularly. And actually, in conflict resolution studies, we learn that a mutually hurting stalemate is often what's required to actually finally start doing something different.

And so maybe we are now in a situation where people are willing finally to look at new possibilities. And that's really what we need to happen at this point in time. The partition plan was not well thought out and ended up causing disaster. But also, more recently, Oslo was not well thought out either. it split the West Bank into areas A, B and C that were, in theory, then, supposed to be just temporary steps towards working everything out. But unfortunately, that's as far as it got. We now have different areas of the West Bank in totally different political reality.

And the Palestinians feel even more divided now than ever before. And so unfortunately, if you adopt a plan without thinking it through properly, the results can be disastrous. So what we really want is now for us all to get together and actually properly think it through the key stakeholders at the table so that we can, it's a complex problem. We need to think about it properly as to what this is. optimal solution is we very much do believe that it's going to be federal of some kind but that could be confederation federation some kind of hybrid between the two that gives some things that we very much share some things that we don't share at all some things that are in between we need to we need to do that and also we very much want the international community to be to be part of that

yeah david you want to speak oh i'm saying that one thing that one thing that We have facts on the ground, as we said, in favor of this. Because you have a de facto single state, more and more gathering of settlement. So that's inactable. You can't do too much. But another thing is this is an escape. If things come really bad, right?

And you have all the contradictions that occur, which you have now as a single state controlled by area, and branch of others. And you more and more pressure building, this would be seen by some more conservative people in Israel as a sketch in a second solution.

Because they'll say, well, I don't like idea giving the Palestinians a vote. But maybe if I don't move fast, it's going to be like South Africa. Well, it'll just be, you're already checked minority rule. Maybe it could be

an escape hat. Maybe some legislatures could be present of the controls by the bisector in Israel government. May it comes to power. They would say this as gee, we govern ourselves or more regular

types in places like Tel Aviv, who are liberal, they could say there's a chance for us to govern ourselves. So it's an escape hatch potentially. Now, how does it happen? That's an interesting question. I'm not sure.

But you got to get it on the table. Let the idea on the table, get it to just, and then can move to the next level. I'm sure how that's going to happen. And one thing is the abolitionism or a movement social change will not happen unless the idea is out there on the table and be discussed. So we're really that day. Now, it's my accelerate back. Who knows? But we're prepared to get it for the long haul.

Knock on those door. People are going to keep slamming the door in your face, knock again on another door. Just get that idea out there. And we call it. Any Americans, Europeans want to help? Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's got it on table. I agree.

Yeah. Let me translate that a little bit for people because we're getting a lot of breakup on your line there. it. And what he's saying is, is that, you know, if we have a, we're just going to get it out there and have that as a possible solution. Because they get to a point of impasse, you know, necessity is the mother of innovation. And so I guess I get to something where they really have to have a turn somewhere. It'd be great if there was a workable solution that was out there.

I guess the question I've got, and I would ask this to you, Phil, since you're there in Israel, I know there's elections coming up, and it's difficult for us to get a feel for what's happening with that internally here in the United States. And, of course, it is very vital for us to get an understanding of what's happening with this because we are so connected with Israel in terms of the wars and other issues like that. We look that it was very difficult for Netanyahu to put together a coalition this last time. And now he's running again, and it appears to me looking at it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to get your take on it. Is there a lot of pressure from the right saying that Netanyahu's not tough enough from people like Ben-Gavir and others, are they pushing for even more confrontation and more war from that side?

Absolutely. There are many, many voices ranging from the far left to the far right. All of them have totally different ideas as to what we need in this land. And that again pulls us back to the need for something that isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all approach. We're two-divance here. And so, once again, federalism is the system that can accommodate that kind of complexity and give a space for every identity and every kind of living. It's very clear that the way people want to live in the ultra-Orthodox settlement,

just three miles east of here, it's totally different to what people in my town want for the future. And so we're all fighting each other for what the future is going to look like here. Whereas if instead we said, okay, we're all different and let's create a space for all of us. And that requires statesmanship, shall I say, that unfortunately, the politicians are not practicing at the moment. Each of them has their own little party line, and we are not anticipating that any of them is going to lead us out of this.

And by the way, we have considered whether we should create a federal party to run in the elections. But we came to the conclusion, no, if we do that, we'll just become yet another party, competing against all the other parties. and we might become part of the problem. And so we decided instead that what we need is to begin to be a lobby for change that can appeal across all of the political spectrum. And so you asked how can we make this happen? Okay.

It's going to be a process. It always has been in history that federal solutions were implemented in a gradual form. I believe in Switzerland, they began with just. three cantons, I think, and then it grew and grew. And so we're creating proof of concepts on the ground. But we are also opening up the discussion so that the right people are at the table. And then we've created something called a federal movement now. We want as many people as possible to join us and become ambassadors to this message wherever they are.

And so we are now inviting everybody to join on. What we really need is the conversation to begin throughout the world. Because the international community does have significant influence on what happens here. And we've been wedded to the two-state solution for so long. And the international community has been saying for years, the only game in town, as far as we're concerned, is the two-state solution. and we, the people's on the ground, are saying, but guys, you never actually asked us if that's what we want.

And it's really not. And by the way, I want to say the Palestinians have been less enamored of the two-state solution throughout all the time than the Jews. The Jews were willing in 1947 to go with it and accepted the state of Israel, as was being given to it in the partition plan. But the Arab world rejected it. And the Palestinians have never been keen on it.

So it's about time we actually considered the genuine needs and national aspirations of the peoples and create a mechanism that will embrace it. But exactly what that mechanism should be is too early to work that out. And we've actually been advised by ambassadors from other countries that, that we should not try to come to them with a plan with every eye dotted and every T-cross because then they'll be saying, okay, we're like, no, we don't like this, we don't like that, plus they won't feel part of it. So the message they perceived is bring everybody in, open up that discussion, apparently,

in the theory of negotiation. If you open, widen the playing field, bring lots and lots of ideas and complex needs all together. Suddenly, there's so much more room to negotiate and then things happen, whereas if you just stay stuck in this tug of war and then you're hammering away at every tiny issue, then you don't get anywhere. So we're saying, no, okay, let's do things differently. Let's all come together. Yeah, as you're talking about this, I'm thinking about the applications here to our country here in America. We have not a two-state solution. We have a supposed two-party solution, which is no solution at all. And it's led to a lot of centralization and, of course,

dissatisfaction because their agenda is not the same as our agenda. And so I think you're right in terms of focusing on being a lobbying group to say, well, here is this one idea that we got out here. We'd like to present that to you because I think that's really what makes change here in America, I think focusing around different single party groups. Because when you go to the two-party system. It's just a hodgepodge of a lot of different items. And, you know, when you vote for particular candidate, you don't know what you're going to get, actually. Now, you know, your system there, the parliamentary system that's a little bit different from what Americans are used to seeing. It's not unusual. You have so many parties there. I have no idea how many parties are in Israel,

but I know there's a lot. And you, how many? Countless, I think I'm going to say. I don't know, I either. I think it's more than 100 parties. for an entry of only around 10 million people. It's great. But, you know, so they have to, they don't have somebody typically get more than 50% of the vote, so they always have to put together a coalition. And that was what we saw happen with several subsequent elections with Netanyahu.

We couldn't get enough of a majority to put together a coalition. It took a while to put that together. I think the key thing is the decentralization aspect of it. That seems to me to be the common thread in terms of people's satisfaction. or dissatisfaction with government, the more things become concentrated and consolidated, the worst they become. And that was one thing the founders understood about in America. They tried to set up a system that was decentralized, that had checks and balances and natural

divisions, were there to try to prevent consolidation and centralization. But, of course, we've been around for 250 years and got some clever people who've been trying to do their best to undo all that, and they pretty much have succeeded here in America. So I'll be looking at what you do with a great deal of interest because, as that's the point right now where the American structure of government is highly broken as well. We need to have some major reforms here, I think, as well, don't you think, David? I certainly do. And just sort of enhance a couple of those points. In Israel, you have some very small parties, the religious parties is sort of the best known, who have very strict rules.

about who's a Jew and who isn't a Jew and so forth. And most Israelis might disagree with them. But when they're assembling a government, those small parties can get their way because they can be the difference between, you know, Netanyahu forming a government or not or the opposition, where if it's local, it doesn't really matter. I mean, cantons in Switzerland are about the size of American counties. So if you can just move a few miles to a canton, for example, if you're very religious Jew, where you can, we're there the majority, it's a, it's a kind of way to diffuse conflict.

The costs of moving are very low for that reason. And I don't know if I answered your question. I forgot what it was. I had, yeah, yeah. I think that's the key thing that, you know, we look at the actual structure of it. And, you know, we go back and we look at the. constitutional convention. They spend a lot of time analyzing the structure of a lot of different governments throughout history. And I think it really behooves us to go back and take a look at

what's worked for Switzerland. I think they are a model state in many regards, and especially in the structure of the government there. I agree. And they really have taken it out of the hands of their national government, which is very much indirect. You know, they have a parliament based on population. They have a second body, sort of like the U.S. Senate. And it's sort of a winnowing process. And then at the top, and I think they're indirectly chosen, you have a presidential council. They all rotate, right? Every year. And most people don't even, a lot of people don't even know who their president is. And they'll get people like the Romanish who are like one or two percent of the population. They get their own president occasionally. Now, if that were to occur in

Israel, you might have a Christian president occasionally, you might have a Jerusalem president. That is not possible to imagine now under current circumstances, because it's so polarized in this binary. But in a place like, you know, with a decentralized system in a weak federal government, you can open the door to participation by groups that are normally marginalized. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

I'll just add to that. Yes. Polarization is such an issue in this land, but becoming increasingly so throughout the world. And one of our principles is instead of polarization, we need partnership. And instead of being contradictory, we can be complementary. And we really need to change the way we look at each other. And we talk about being enlightened to the nations. The religious people talk about that.

And I'm afraid at the moment, we haven't really achieved that at the moment. But this is the Holy Land that is extremely important to the world outside. And if we could actually create a solution that would transform that polarisation into partnership, that really could be a wonderful light into the nation. that are also facing similar, similar problems now around the world. I agree. I agree, yeah. The more we have the movement of people, is anything,

the more we are getting these conflicts between different people groups, and as you point out, this is creating increased polarization. Many of us look at that and say, well, I think there's a design behind all of that. But we've got to find a way from the grassroots up. That's why I wanted to talk to you, because I think that's a very important thing that you're doing. The people, as you point out, who have impure motives,

the politicians are going to be coming in. They've got their own agenda of power and other things that they want. And they are pretty ruthless in terms of what they will resort to. And yet it is up to those of us who want to have a hope of peace to try to come up with some kind of a system that's going to try to counteract those types of impure motivators. motivations, I think. I think that's a key thing that you're doing there.

Yeah. And I'll add one other element that we focus on in this area. I also am the chair of an organization named the Abrahaming movement. And we've realized that Abraham is a biblical figure that we all claim dissent from. And that concept was used. in the Abraham Accords to create positive relations between Israel and some of the Arab countries in this region. But the Palestinians were left out of that, and they need to be brought in. And so the aims of the Abrahamic movement is to get all of us to embrace our common Abrahamic ancestry and heritage in this land in particular.

but it can extend again around the world. The Abrahamic faiths should not need to be fighting each other. And so again, it's changing the perspective. And having a new paradigm, which is positive, finding the positive in each of us. So we're working on all of these ideas and we are looking to, replicate what we've built in this locality, in some other localities as well. There are many other places where Israelis and Palestinians are living in close proximity. And we believe this economics and security deal is something that could be successfully

deployed elsewhere. And we also want to change the way the people think about this problem. The politicians will follow later. We work that much else. exactly how it's all going to play out. We don't know, but we do know that, as you said, it starts from the grassroots. They're the ones who are really desiring change, and we are leading, trailblazing a way of creating change on the ground and changing people's hearts and minds the way they think about

things. So that's the aim of the federal movement now. And yeah, we would welcome anybody. who wants to be part of it. I agree. And of course, I see a lot of similarities in that to what the founders understood in terms of, you look at a declaration of independence. All men created equal, right? So the equality of man, there wasn't a ruling class that had the divine right of kings or anything else like that. And in terms of government, it's going to create an equality of opportunity, an equality of treatment between different individuals. And as you point out, being descended from

Abraham, of course, we could extend that to everybody. We could say, yeah, we're all descended from Adam or at least from Noah, right? Adam, we're all part of the human race. If you're not a part of the human race, we've got a problem here. But, you know, God has made all nations of one blood, we believe. And so there's that common humanity. As long as we try to have groups that are going to set themselves up as above and separate, whether it's based on politics or ethnicity or religion or whatever,

once you do that, that is the path for war and conflict. It is coming back to the point where you are talking. about that we start to realize what things we have in common. One of the things that we have in common, at least for most of the people, we want to have peace and we want to have the hope of peace. And that is not what the politicians want. They want anything other than a hope of peace. It really is war and conflict is the name of the game for those people. So I wish you the best of success and we'll be following that. And I'd like to keep updated as to what you're doing. I think it's a noble experiment, and I think it's something that you can win, because I think the vast

majority of people want that. Thank you so much for what you do. And thank you, David, for joining us, and I look forward to seeing that article in The Independent, which is about the independent review. It should be online by tomorrow or so. Okay, great, great. And yeah, give us the title of that again. It's, let me see if I can give you the title to take a second here. It's a column. that's in the back. Well, they can vote to by your name, I guess. Well, basically, it is a, it is a column on the Swiss model, the Swiss solution, the Canton solution for Israel, Palestine.

That's in the title. And if you just look at my name and Swiss, Swiss solution, you can find it, I'm sure, David Beto. Great. And by the time, this will be airing on Friday, so I'm sure that it'll probably be up there by then, right? Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Okay, great. Well, thank you so much again, David Beto and Phil Saunders. Thank you, both of you for joining us, and let's hope that there is a path for peace and all of this. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you so much.

And I agree with you. This is something we can win. We do not need to be stuck in this forever. And so let's, let's tell you. a course out of this. That's great. That's great. I thank you so much for that attitude. And thank you gentlemen for trying to work this out. And we should never be discouraged about this kind of stuff. I mean, we've got to remember when we talk about the parallels ending the slave trade, when William Wilberforce started his crusade to do that, that was the biggest

industry that was going on at the time. He was allied against all of the major economic and political powers. And he took that on and he persisted in it. And it was the right thing to do. And because of those two things, because he was doing the right thing and because he persisted, he won. As the saying goes to the Texas Ranger, you just need to have one good man who keeps on coming. And that's the way that worked out. We do it. genuinely have hope because we can experience it on a day-to-day basis. There are other countries in the world where you've had just horrible violence, Rwanda, Ulster, Bosnia, and it's been at peace for two decades more, for various reasons. But,

But have examples of where people can get along despite bitter conflict. So standard argument we get as well, this is different. No, not necessarily. There were Israelis who, I was surprised when I came here. One of the commonest things they say is malasot. That means what can you do? And there's a kind of resignation, which I did not expect to fight here. I thought people were strong-minded.

and did what they need to do. But no, there seems to be a lot of despair. And I have voices that said, we've been fighting for thousands of years. We're going to be fighting for thousands of years more. What can you do? That's our lot in life. And we're like, no, please, you know,

we don't want this to be going on for thousands of years. And in other places, they manage to end conflicts. Why not here too? yes, this is complex, but actually complexity can actually create all the more opportunity. And so it's just a way of changing the look at those possibilities. So we just really want everybody all over the world to start considering these possibilities. And it is starting to happen. We need to move people out of the two state mindset and to think of something that is actually going to reflect the needs of people.

on the ground here and the reality on the graph that we're already so mixed up and you can't separate away from each other. And this applies to the rest of the world. This idea of a homogeneous nation-state is something that maybe existed 100, 200 years ago, but no, the world's changed. Globalization means we're all mixed up together. And so we need to, you know, get with the times, and especially in this multicul-a-land. So, yeah. I agree. What you're saying.

And, you know, we're talking about the two-state solution. Here, everybody's trying to sell us a two-party solution. But what you said, I think, is really key. You said, well, it's working for us. And I constantly talk about the fact that we have so little control over what happens in Washington thousands of miles away and these people are distant, they don't listen. And yet we can start to do things in our local community. that make it work.

And I think that's the most important lesson to take away from what you're doing there. You can establish relationships with people there. And once you do that at the local level, it is a complete game changer. You don't always have to have everything go through Washington. And that is one of the big mindset changes that I've seen for the worst in America in my lifetime. We used to say, well, don't make a federal case out of it. Now everything is a federal case. And we need to get the mindset back to, well, let's just fix things here in our own neighborhood in small town, which is what you did.

Yeah, absolutely. So we want that to be the future for everyone in this land. Everybody would be a lot happier. I agree, I agree. The police states Reichstag fire. I did that flight simulator, no problem, you know. It's impossible. At the height of my career, as proficient I was in every.

kind of airplane. There's no way I could have done that. I mean, it's just too complex. First of all, the airplane can't fly above it, 560 miles an hour. It can't fly more than 360, which is its velocity max operating. Maybe could fly maybe 30, 40 miles an hour faster that, but at VMO, the clacker comes on. The clacker is an FAA required safety device, which clacks, loud, click-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c and it clacks at a rate in a cycle that irritates the pilot so that he can't ignore it. He has to slow down, you know. Now there's no possibility a hijacker first time in the airplane is not only going to, you know, fly it at 390 miles and 4-a-mile-mile but do it with that clacker, you know, and descend and hit that thing's under. It can't happen.

Airline pilot and aeronautics expert John Lear filed a declaration explaining why the speed of United Airlines flight 175 was impossible. I filed an affidavit on January 20, 2008 this year in support the complaint and in opposition of the motions dismissed. A lot of my information was taken from aerodynamics for Navy and naval laborers and I explained why an airplane cannot fly 500 miles on a thousand feet. It has to do with drag and it has to do with power and it has to do with the fact that they use turbo fans. It just can't happen.

At high altitudes like 35,000 feet, where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the air is very thin. The fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust. But at low altitudes, such as 1,000 feet, the air is over three times as dense.

Attempting to go faster than the maximum operating speed of 414 miles per hour, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine. Because of the much denser air, the fan blades will start cavitating or choking, causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. In other words, before ever getting close to the 540 miles per hour speed shown in the 9-11 airplane videos, the engine would start acting as a break. Why the airplanes couldn't have traveled as fast they did and how they couldn't be flown as well as they were and why there, you know, there was no wreckage in there. I think this book... I think other pilots haven't come forward because this is...

Well, other pilots are employed. They can't afford to come forward. There's very few, you know, people, there's a lot of... But this is our country we're talking about, you know? They can't do it. A lot of my information was taken from aerodynamics for Navy and naval aviaries and I explain why an airplane cannot fly 500 miles on a thousand feet. It has to do with drag and it has to do with power and it has to do with the fact that

they use turbopans. It just can happen. So anyway, the governments and NIST contention that they flew 500 miles an hour, it didn't happen. This rare super slow motion video of Flight 175 that hit the South World Trade Center Tower on 9-11, 2001. Take a really close look because there are two impossibilities I'm going to show you here. This video was allegedly shot by Michael Herzeghani, a diamond. merchant based in Los Angeles, California. The first impossibility is a real airplane couldn't have sliced through a building with a steel facade, with reinforced concrete flooring, and 47 steel

support beams. A jet's wing can't slice through steel building like a hot knife through butter. But that's the story the news media wants us to believe, and most people are still believing this hoax. But the second impossibility is in plain sight. In fact, I can't believe it took me over 12 years to see. Let me show you a still of this video. I've highlighted a building that's clearly behind the South World Trade Center Tower. Yet when we pay close attention to the video, Flight 175's wing should appear in front of the building, not behind it. This is a layering CGI glitch, and this proves that this video, which was seen all over the world over and over and over again, year after year is a CGI rendering.

Thus, it's not an amateur witness video. It's a fake. And this is one of many, many faked videos put out by the news media. In this shot, we see the plane's nose emerge from the World Trade Center Tower. This is physically impossible. Add to this the fact that if we reverse the tape, the plane does not appear in the wide-angle shot because it has only been inserted in the narrow shot.

Also there is evidence that a layer mask has been used, behind which the editors have tried to make the plane disappear. However, the position of the layer mask, which was intended to be behind the tower, drifts to the left due to the camera drift and reveals the damning evidence of their video fakery. Finally, because this shot was aired live, after they realized the errors in their production, they frantically fade the footage to black, but are too late to conceal their tricks. This is just one of many anomalies exposed in Simon Shack's film. The fabricated live images you have just seen were from Fox News Channel, allegedly filmed from a helicopter. This damning clip from September Clues shows that NBC were also using video fakery.

The footage on the left is the live image and on the right the evening news image. The sequences are synchronised and in slow motion. The images at first sight seem as though they are from totally different. are from totally different camera positions, but in fact they are not. By comparing the perspective of the towers we can see that these two images are probably filmed by the same camera and certainly from the same position. They have in fact modified three aspects of the recorded live images to create the evening news images. Firstly they have added a blue-gray tint to the image to

make it seem different. Second, they have removed the entire background imagery of the river and New York skyline. And third, they have added a fake aeroplane which does not appear in the live shot. NBC were also broadcasting live. In their live footage, seconds before the strike on World Trade Center 2, what has been described as a ball comes into the shot on a seemingly straight path. This ball was not commented on by any of the presenters and has never been discussed on mainstream news.

In NBC's live footage, the feed switches to a different camera about four seconds before the second impact. Note that no plane is seen in any of NBC's live images. In this lower-quality VCR recorded version, the camera does not switch so we can see the resulting explosion. If we consider the path of the ball, it appears to be what causes the impact on World Trade Center 2, Both its trajectory and its speed show that it would have been at the point of impact at the time impact occurred. So we have just seen the footage which NBC broadcast live. Now let's compare that to what NBC showed on their evening news. This damning clip from September Clues shows that NBC were also using video fakery.

The footage on the left is the live image and on the right the evening news image. The sequences are synchronized and in slow motion. The images at first sight seem as though they are from totally different camera positions, but in fact they are not. By comparing the perspective of the towers, we can see that these two images are probably filmed by the same camera, and certainly from the same position. They have in fact modified three aspects of the recorded live images to create the evening news images. Firstly, they have added a blue-gray tint to the image to make it seem different.

Second, they have removed the entire background imagery of the river on New York skyline. And third, they have added a fake air... Possibly the most disconcerted of all was the mayor of Shanksville, Ernie Stuh. Yeah, my brother and a good friend from me were the first here. They were standing in Shanksville on a street... standing and they were your wagon stand right there and they were the first here

then came it the fireware all were they were they were in the school after the but there was a there was no airplane no air no air

no air she were she were here to the unfallstead and there was no There was nothing. Only this loch. This is it.

That is this what she said. I always thought that he the upshot still. That is she. But there is nothing to see. Which brings us to flight attendant C.C. Lyle's

call to her husband. I'm calling from the plane. I want to tell you I love you. Please tell my children that I love them very much. And I'm so sorry they I don't know what to say. There's three guys. They've had that plane.

I'm trying to be calm. We're turned around, and I've heard that there's planes that been thrown into the World Trade Center. I hope to be able to see your face again, baby. I love you. Bye. It's a frame after telling him to listen carefully. And also, if you'll notice, there's no background noise. Here is unamplified video taken from the back of a commuter jet.

Now here's Cici's call. Nothing. The tape has from me. her husband's answering machine is louder than her background. This call was also from CC's cell phone. It was about like 9.30. I guess that's when the call started. Then I guess about I didn't answer the phone until the last time she called,

which was, I think it was like 9.51 or something to that. It was towards the almost close to 10 o'clock by that time. And then that's when I get the phone call from her and I actually had a chance to speak with her. Once the phone got disconnected, then I sat up in the bed because I did all this laying down. I set up in the bed like it was like I just woke up. I'm like, was that a real call? So I looked at the call of ID and noticed that it was a call and it was from her cell phone. And I'm like, okay, wait a minute.

How can she call me from on the plane from a cell phone because cell phones don't work on the plane? Cece's call took place at 947, which means she would have been at 20,000 feet. How could she make that call unless on the ground? Thomas Burnett's wife, Dina, said she also knew he was using a cell phone because of caller ID. Jeremy Glick's wife wrote her deposition that she also couldn't hear any unusual sounds and that the connection was very clear, quote, as if he was calling from the... Outside the Pentagon, CNN's military affairs correspondent, Jamie McIntyre and Jamie you got very close to where that plane went down.

That's right, Judy. A while ago, I walked right up to next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put out the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in this sideway. But from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. and as I said the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around.

Some could be mistaken that a plane did indeed cause the damage. But when you superimpose a plane over the damage, you would be right in thinking the damage and plane debris should have been far greater. But if there never was any plane, then the images make a lot more sense. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon, and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. The plane does not fit in that hole.

So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What hit it? What's going on? The police state's Reichstag fire. Explosion. He was in the lobby and then,

the third explosion. The whole lobby collapsed. What was it like? The whole building just collapsed inside the lobby. Is it a secondary spru? Yes, it was. Yeah, definitely secondary. It was.

When we was inside waiting to go upstairs, and on the way upstairs, the whole fucking blew. We just collapsed on everybody inside the line. I don't know about the first one, but I know the second. I don't know about the first one, but I know the second was it was telling. Then it was a third one, too, after that one. You got it. Everybody was inside the hell of the way to go upstairs, and they're just letting loose.

Everything just letting loose inside of those. Like, what you told me, that there was a plane or whatever hit you about me in the second day? There was three exposures after that. We came in after the fire, we came when the fire was going on already. We was in the staging area inside the building, waiting to go up to the floor. Oh, I didn't. The whole lobby class on the long minute. Just make them after that?

I was just there, everybody trying to wake your way out. A lot of people, people, tap inside. It's floor by floor that are popping out. It was like if they had detonated. Yeah, detonated. Yeah. It was if they were planned to take down a building. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

All the way down. I was watching it and run it. Floor by floor, it started popping out. It was if they had deadenade. Yeah, dead and negative. Yeah. It was if they were planned to take down a building. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

All the way down. All of a sudden, it was like bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, like bullet shots. I saw from the corner, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, just went down. And as the bombs were gone, people just started running, and I sat there and watched a few of them explode, and then I just turned around, and I just started running for my life, because at that point, World Trade Center was coming right down. From the corner, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. The whole building just went, and as the bombs were gone, people just started running, and I sat there and watched a few of them explode. The only way that a building can accelerate as it collapses is by having pre-engineered, precisely timed, and precisely placed explosives, in other words, controlled demolition.

building seven come down. And it was a controlled demolition, a classic controlled demolition. That building had no reason to come down. There's no history of a high-rise fire and a fireproof resulting in failure with a building because the building is in New York City, Parlance, a class one, which is a single word, fireproof. I demand to know, as should everyone, especially the media, Why important testimony made that day from over 150 police, firefighters, and first responders regarding explosions wasn't included in the commission report, nor investigated further. There was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode in three an hour later. inside the lobby. Is that a secondary explosion? Yes, it was. That was the plan. You want to call your mother or something?

Five minutes in the elevators exploded on us. Yeah, we said something's wrong, yeah. The plane hit up on the 80th floor. I mean, in five minutes, so now the elevators are exploding on the first level of the lobby. And it's the first thing I think of when I get up in the morning, and it's the last thing at night before I go to bed. I lost Tommy O'Hagan, Kenny Cumpel, and Bruce Van Hines that day. 343 firefighters, including three of my good friends, Thomas Hetzel, Bobby Evans, and Mike Kiefer,

perished that day. And these were some of the best and the bravest people in the world. And they, along with the rest of those who were murdered and died horrible deaths. deserve justice. I saw Building 7 come down. Well, me and Mr. Hesch, the Corporation Council, were on the 23rd floor. I told them we got to get out of here.

We started walking down the stairs. We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion. It blew us back into the 8th floor. And I turned to Hesh. I said, this is it. We're dead. We're not going to make it out of here.

In 2001, Barry Jennings was the deputy director of emergency services for the New York City Housing Authority. After the first plane hit the North Tower at 8.46 a.m. the morning of 9-11, Jennings was called to the city's Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center Building 7, along with Corporation Council Michael Hess to help coordinate the emergency response. Hours later, World Trade Center Building 7, also known as the Salomon Brothers Building, collapsed at freefall acceleration directly into the path of most resistance. After seven years of investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, determined that

the building had not come down due to explosives or controlled demolition, as many alleged, or due to structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, an explosion in the building's fuel oil systems, or any of the other suggestions that had been put forward and retracted by NIST over the course of its investigation. In September 2008, just as NIST was presenting its final report, concluding that WTC7 had spontaneously collapsed from ordinary office fires, it was reported that Barry Jennings had passed away in hospital the month before.

No further details of his death were offered. Dylan Avery, seeking to bring closure to Barry Jennings' life, answer questions about his death and honor the bravery of a 9-11 survivor who spoke the truth even when it was unpopular, hired a private investigator to determine the circumstances of Jennings' death. In a remarkable and bizarre turn of events, however, after pursuing the case, the investigator referred the matter to the police, refunded his fee, and told Avery never to contact him again. To this day, no time or cause of death of Barry Jennings has ever been publicly announced or confirmed. stepped over bodies. We know that happened. He and Hess both talked about internal explosions.

That building housed the CIA, the Secret Service, the SEC. I'm just confused about one thing and one thing only. Why will trace center seven went down in the first place? I'm very confused about that. I know what I heard. I heard explosions. 9-11 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative. after being shown a video, a close-up video of building number seven coming down. And that got me going because it's obvious to me that Building 7 was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the impact of a jet.

From what I understand, the outer skeleton of the building, the outer columns was like a fishnet. And you had these inner core columns, which were substantial, thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineer is always over-designed a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9-11. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven, it was a progressive collapse that it was caused by fire. But progressive collapse, unlike the Twin Towers, the Twin Towers collapsed from the top down.

That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of Building 7 collapsing, It collapses uniformly. It's collapsing from the bottom. The building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground, and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly, which the video shows,

all the load-barren columns would have to have failed simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the Twin Towers, and if you could visualize cast-iron stoves, stacked one on top of each other. The stoves up at the top, there's fire, and they've been damaged. But the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. So the structure of the...

underneath all of that is intact. So it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. If something else is going on, I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires, I think, and they examined the dust, and they found what they call thermitic material, which is like an explosive incendiary, which was in the dust samples. And that's documented.

There were reports of the buildings were undergoing an example. extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to. All kinds of workers, they had access to the core of the building. And on the day of the attack, the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators. And the elevator company was the elevator company. It subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that. The police state's Reichstag fire. When I was talking to Canada Fitzgerald, brokers and bankers in the days leading up to 9-11,

they themselves were buying these airline puts, Canter Fitzgerald brokers. They told me, based on rumors, that were coming out of Alex Brown associated with Buzzy Cromgard. So this looks to me as if CIA insiders knew enough about what was going on, but chose to make money.

And there's much more, including an extraordinarily high number of bets against Morgan Stanley and Martian McLennan, two of the World Trade Center's biggest tenants. Could this be a coincidence? This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence. It is absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world, from Japan to the United States and North America to Europe.

ABC News has now learned that the Chicago Board of Options Exchange launched their investigation into the unusual trading last week that may have given them enough time to stop anyone from profiting from death here in the U.S. He also give investigators, Peter, a hot trail that might lead them to the terrorists. He literally watched the plane go into the building, going to the World Trade Center. Amazing story. That alone is amazing story. He was delayed because his wife insisted that he finally, after years, take his child to school. So he took his child to school that one day, because normally he would have been in the building at 6 o'clock in the morning. That's that business, right?

So you owe your wife a lot and your child a lot, right? I was taking my son Kyle, who's now 28, to his first day of kindergarten, that fateful day on September 11th. And that's why I'm alive today. I ran down to the building, stood outside the doorway, grabbing people as they came out, hoping that one of my people would come out. Because we had the 101st to the 105th floors. None of my people got out. I said, would to myself, wouldn't it be fantastic? If I could own the twainthouse.

We got very, very lucky. The governor of New York, George Pataki, decided one day that maybe it would be good to privatize the ownership of the World Trade Center. So I got a call from a governor's office. and they said, would you ever consider owning the World Trade Center? It was very, very good for the family, very good for us, and we're very, very fortunate. On the morning of 9-11, I'm getting ready, getting dressed. So go to the dermatologist.

I have light-colored hair, light skin. the sun is a disaster for me. I can't take the sun. She said, okay, but you're going to the dermatologist. You're going this morning, and you're not going downtown. We got very, very lucky. I had an obligation to collect the insurance proceeds from the policies. A new governor was just elected.

Elliot Spitzer An old friend Who I knew well And I said Elliot If you don't help me I'll never collect from the insurance companies And guess what He listened

And he said you know what You're entitled I'm going to get you the money And in six months He got me The $4.5 billion We got very, very lucky The police states

Reichstag fire I said the West really doesn't understand militant Islam. So I wrote a book in 1995 and I said that if the West doesn't wake up to the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next thing you'll see is the militant Islam is bringing down the World Trade Center. And of Adam, which today we relate the word Adam to America. And those are the biggest, the tallest buildings in the world. And they will be totally, they will be brought down completely. And that will be the sign of the beginning of tremendous wars that will end only in the coming of the Mashiyah.

FBI reports confirmed that the men were not taking somber pictures of a horrific event. When their 76 pictures were developed, they revealed the men had indeed been celebrating, smiling, hugging each other, and high-fiving. One of the pictures even featured Sivan Kersberg holding a lighter up with the burning tower in the background. And these were no ordinary tourists. Oded Elner had $4,700 stuffed into his sock. They lied to the police about where they had been that morning. They were carrying plane tickets for immediate departure to different places around the globe.

The FBI confirmed that two of the men had ties to Israeli intelligence and came to suspect that they had indeed been on a mission for the Mossad. And of course, after returning to Israel, Elner claimed on National Israeli TV that they said, had been sent there to document the event. And at that point, we were taken for another round of questioning, this time related to our allegedly being members of Mossad. The fact of the matter is, we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily.

Our purpose was to document the event. Their purpose was to document the event? But how could they possibly have known what event they were documenting at that point? Before the second plane strike, when those few who even knew about the situation had assumed it to be an accident or pilot error. And when did they arrive at the parking lot to document the event anyway? The FBI reports show how the men gave confused and often conflicting accounts of when and how they learned about what was happening and when they arrived at the parking lot. Odette Elner even said they had arrived there shortly after 8 a.m., which would have been 45 minutes before the attacks even began. This is in line with one of the eyewitnesses that had placed their urban moving systems van at the parking lot at 8 a.m.

How could they have been in place and ready to document the event unless they knew what was about to happen? It has been more than 16 years since a civilian working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence. At first Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation but later took responsibility for his. work. Now Fox News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the U.S. who may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11th. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron has details in the first of a four-part series. Since September 11th, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new

patriot anti-terrorism law or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are, quote, tie-ins. But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, quote,

Evidence linking these Israelis to 911 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information. A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as Country A and said, quote, according to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of Country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the U.S. of any U.S. ally. I believe that the American government is sort of trapped by the Israelis. Jeffrey Epstein is one of their tools to trap them. How more do you think of Dershevitz's denial?

Hold on a second. I want to give you an example. Bill Clinton, President Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, met Arafat in the 90s, and there was no deal. the reason was Epstein. They were being blackmailed by Epstein. Ehud Barak was also a friend of Epstein,

the Prime Minister of Israel at the time. But he was being blackmailed by the Israeli right-wing as well. And they stopped an agreement with Arafat. They were about to reach an agreement there for a two-state solution, but that was stopped because of Epstein. They were both being blackmailed by Epstein. And they trapped a number of U.S. presidents by using Jeffrey Epstein. And it wasn't only about sex, it was also the money issue.

Where was the money coming from? the Israelis have the American government captive. I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College at headquarters Marine Corps, and I made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9-11 was a Mossade operation. and what I showed them immediately afterwards, the third building at the World Trade Center going down, WPC7, and they look at that, and I said, now you understand that if one of the buildings

was wired for demolition, all of them were wired for demolition. And what Americans need to understand, they didn't. They didn't. And if they do understand that Israel will fall. black ass disappear from this earth. 9-11 has led directly 60,000 Americans dead and wounded. God knows how many hundreds of thousands

of people in other countries that we killed or wounded or made homeless. If Americans ever know, ever know that Israel did this, they're going to scrub them off the earth and they're not going to give a rat's ass what the cost is. They are not going to care. They will do it. The Zionists are playing this as truly an all-or-nothing exercise.

Because if they lose this one, if the American people ever realize what's happened, they're done. It'll be a bloody, brutal war and they're gone. I mean, it's not even going to be a close contest. Three buildings went down. The third was not hit by a plane. It was wired for controlled demolition. therefore all of them were waived for controlled demolition. You know, what I have done when I presented it to these people,

and I said, just look at this picture. I'm not going to give you an argument, just look at it. And they look at the film, and without exception, they come back and they say, they did it, they did. Yep, they did. They did 9-11. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us.

Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man is simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation. deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information

and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidnightshow.com.