Episode 362 – 9/11 Whistleblowers

by | Sep 13, 2019 | Podcasts | 26 comments

“But someone would have talked,” say the self-styled skeptics who believe the government’s official conspiracy theory of 9/11. But there’s a problem with this logically fallacious non-argument. “Someone” did talk. In fact, numerous people have come out to blow the whistle on the events of September 11, 2001, and the cover-up that surrounds those events. These are the stories of the 9/11 Whistleblowers.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

CLICK HERE for transcript and sources for this podcast.

Watch this video on BitChute / YouTube or Download the mp4


  1. Fantastically produced and impeccably referenced!

    I am going to share this with as many people as possible.

    I also got tired of the lazy argument that “someone would have talked.”

    Such “skeptics” are ignorant of how the foreign policy establishment has the mega-mediacorps by the kahonas…and how quickly they suppress any questioning of the official story.

    Thank goodness there are independent, investigative journalists like the Corbett/West team that put together these lucid, informative videos…that is before you are taken off YouTube (hopefully not).

    With sincere appreciation…Ethan 🙂

  2. Very good idea having the segments released in the days leading up to 9/11 in addition to releasing them all combined in a full doc.
    Also, I may have said it before but it bears repeating: your show notes are — and have been for years — amazing!
    I know of no one else online, anywhere, who puts so much care, effort and skill into providing links, transcripts and other textual information/documentation for any of their videos, let alone virtually every single video ever posted.

  3. Hi James,

    Fantastic work, as always!

    However, the download link for the mp4 doesn’t seem to be working…


    • Thanks for the tip, kachatel. The link has been fixed and should be working now.

  4. James

    The download the mp4 link for the full video is not working.

    • Thanks for the tip, Ukdavec. The link has been fixed and should be working now.

  5. Congratulations on another outstanding documentary. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to detail/evidence, and the enormous amount of time it takes to produce. I appreciate and always look forward to your work.

    From one Aussie to another, Broc, you are an amazing artist…

  6. Yes, interview Chris Bollyn!

  7. As a kid, my close friend’s dad was the pilot of the 2nd plane. My brother’s jeweler who made his engagement ring was also in one of the planes. The planes were real, absolutely. I forget which presentation it was, but it broke down the flight recorder data that hit the pentagon, also real (even if highly unlikely). I’m not saying it’s the truth, but what the evidence that I’ve plagued through has shown me.

    I have a really hard time believing the energy weapons hypothesis. I think the paint-based nano-thermite is far more likely, and even then, I think good, old-fashioned explosives (possibly just regular old C4/thermite) did the dirty deed, especially in WTC7, as evidenced in the recent AE911Truth release.

    A close relative who happens to be a cop in NY said many years ago, “they were probably rigged for demo from the get-go just in case they were going to fall over onto other buildings.” This has always sounded like the most likely scenario since I’ve heard it.

    I appreciate the research, but forgive me for being skeptical. And please, don’t get me wrong, I’ve done a boatload of research since none of this made any sense to me when I was a kid, hit personally by it.


    • From your link, dudley: https://youtu.be/jynKh0C82jw?t=230

      Wait, so this shot which discounts the value of the entire presentation is just skipped over because they released it a few *hours* later?

      Sorry, that’s just silly.

      Here’s a YouTube link for a search for a search of

      “cnn hezarcani shot analysis”: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cnn+hezarkhani+shot+analysis


      How about “cnn hezarcani shot debunked”: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cnn+hezarkhani+shot+debunked

      Still Nothing.

      Digging Deeper, view count aside, this does a pretty good job showing how silly it is (I also happen to write software used in aviation nowadays, and it adds up IMHO): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQDerPCbFVc

      The link referenced in the video purporting the fakery is linked here, and is unavailable (not taken down), possibly as more evidence of a retraction of a claim of ‘fakery’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

      The planes were real. Oh, I forgot to mention another friend’s father who ran trains who was eating lunch and watched them hit personally and was basically in full-blown PTSD for many years after the event.

      Please, not to detract from the topic by saying calling the no-planes theory a distraction, but it is absolutely a distraction from the reality of the evidence, in my mind.

      Many thanks,

      • Edit: Please, not to detract from the topic by calling* the…

      • I appreciate it too!
        Personally I have no tolerance for Judy Wood assertions anymore and close to non towards no-plane at the WTC. If they are the same planes as asserted, I would leave open (no serial numbers and possible exchange above military bases but especially no serial numbers or other hard evidence (e.g. black box) linking it to the specific planes) but no-plane is just based on spurious garbage imo, a detraction, misinformation and meant to divide and leave open for ridicule.

        But main reason for my comment. From your first comment I get you are convinced that the pentagon hit a plane but lack some extraordinarily great evidence/data.
        As in my own comment I’d like to recommend this presentation by Wayne Coste, narrated by David Chandler on the David Chandler channel.
        (It’s called Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11)

        It is from 2018, thus relatively new. And so far only about 400 people seem to have watched the whole thing.
        Both are of scientistsfor911truth and affiliated with ae911truth.

        • Thanks, Mielia!

          I believe the video that had switched me to believe the pentagon plane story had the same title card, so likely from the same people, perhaps a different speaker from AE911Truth. It was super dry, but chocked full of good evidence for the recreation of the, although unlikely, reality of a plane’s mass & trajectory according to the flight recorder data (which I believe is available on the net, although I haven’t sought it out myself, perhaps that’d be ‘fun’ weekend project).

          I’ll check it out, and if I find the presentation which persuaded me I’ll pass it along. I’d be hard-pressed to believe I didn’t find it here, somewhere, haha.


    • Aphix/Mike,
      Thanks guy. I liked reading your anecdote / comment / perspective. I appreciate it.

      • Thanks, HRS =)

        Love your contributions as well.

        Keep it real,

        P.S. I ran the livestream/recording for Anarchadelphia this past weekend, and would love to pass along some presentation video links when I get them uploaded, if you (or anyone) is interested.

        • Mike,
          That would be great!
          Perhaps the next “NewWorldNextWeek” thread might be a good spot where folks will see it.

  8. Barbara Honegger is a liability to the 9/11 truth community.

    I attended Zurich and she presented a similar version of her presentations (despite ‘some of my colleagues will not like, what I have to say’) which was thoroughly critiqued (by colleagues) here: original 2016 http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Honegger_Hypothesis_042916.pdf
    updated 2019
    (Reminder: Journalist, no physicist or lawyer.)

    10% of her presentation was maybe useful but her approach ‘let’s don’t care for the planes’ and ‘definitely pre-planted explosives’ regarding the pentagon was preposterous! She could become a second Judy Wood for the truth movement with that.
    Apparently this believe ‘no way a plane hit the pentagon’ is very widespread sadly. Heard it from Brian from HighImpactFlix and from Christopher Bollyn.
    Pleease if you believe that too, read that paper above but at the utmost watch this playlist (power point) on David Chandler’s channel (2018)

    Note also that there were two very short clips uploaded later with additional worthwhile info and two summaries which I don’t recommend – rather I recommend the full playlist!

    Second part of my comment.
    Apparently many people were busy the last two-three years, not only David Chandler, scientistsfor911truth, the lawyers committee and James Corbett but someone named Heinz Pommer. It’s about the WTCs.
    I watched his German interview (2019, nuoviso) and saw some excerpts of a Zurich Q&A (2017) where he answered questions in a satisfactory way (not avoiding anything, not tyrannical but heartful, knowledgeable), thus I consider his work to be considered and not that of a 2nd Judy Wood.
    If he really has a diploma I can’t say. If he really also has some experience as a nuclear technician I can’t say. But he was accurate about his professional description in the interview (compared to what I could find on the net) and not holding anything back.
    The 2018 document for a presentation he gave I skimmed through
    http://911history.de/pdfs/9II_excerpt_London.pdf (probably not conclusive for anyone, the interview helped me; no English subtitles available thus only the website can help for the English speaking audience)

    What he has put together overall on his website is probably the most viable of his material.

    There are still many questions and some points that seem questionable.
    I wanna add that I support the ae911 approach to go with Termite. It’s the most viable to reach any public support and an alternative theory like that of Pommer relies on too much circumstantial evidence and speculations/speculative hypotheses.
    But for the open-minded I wanted to recommend it to check out.

  9. Alexandre, you make subtle but extraordinarily powerful observation. The word holocaust. After 40 years and 1000 times said it lost all meaning. Then, when the emotional blinders were removed i could see the real meaning and purpose of the word. Funny how human behavior is so easily manipulated by a word in the hands of Master Deceivers. Not so funny really. You must have been a hell of an Ad-Man in your day.

    • Alex, did he work for Grupo ABC. Or was that after his heyday. I don’t mean to pry , just stitching together a world view of the late 50s early 60s. in America South.

      • Alex, Muito Obrigado

        • Alex. Sim, um pouco. vi um pouco do seu trabalho, Mistro. Yes um verdadeiro Barney Kessell!

  10. I’ve always been fascinated by the Barry Jennings interviews. His account of what happened in building WTC7 while he was actually in it at the time raises many questions:
    Was he deliberately sent there to die along with Michael Hess?
    Were he and Hess being watched and then set up to being killed as they approached the 6th floor?
    Were other people (like the people they had to step over on the stairwells) purposefully selected to die?
    How was it that the lobby was destroyed before both of the twin towers came down?
    These are just a few of the many questions yet to be answered.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member