An Interview with Photo Analyst Jack White
On JFK, Apollo and 9/11
Morgan Reynolds – April 13, 2010

Jack White Websites: www.911studies.com and sitewww.aulis.com

Jack D. White, 85, passed away June 18, 2012.  R.I.P.

Part I

JW: Before we start, do you mind if I read a very brief statement about 9/11?

MR: Alright, go ahead.

JW: My specialty is the study of photos—an image which may tell a story and which may conflict with official stories. With photos my expertise is better than the average person. I notice things which the average person may not. These are often very revealing. I have also studied other aspects of the three 9/11 events as well as the photos. I am knowledgeable about the events but that does not really tell us WHAT HAPPENED or how it happened. It actually raises more questions than it provides answers. So I really do not know what really happened but I do know what did not happen.

What we had on 9/11 was three distinctly different events.

Let me summarize quickly: New York was an all-day event most of which occurred within a two-hour period except late in the day with the destruction of building 7. Thousands of people died in these events, the likes of which was never seen in the history of the world, a spectacular show, it was one of the most photographed in history. Photographs show the physical happenings. But they also show events happened which defy the laws of physics. The damage was too great for the official story.

What we had in Washington was a 72-hour event where there was minimal damage and minimal casualties. Fires with black smoke were kept burning for three days to give the illusion of a great catastrophe. The opposite was true: The damage was so slight that it could not possibly have been caused as the official story alleges. Photos show that evidence was altered or planted or staged over a period of three days and other photos were altered by computer graphics.

Let’s go to the third event. What we had in Pennsylvania was a mysterious non-event where there was an alleged plane crash but even that is in dispute. There was no plane debris and no bodies, no meaningful photos. Was it shot down? Did debris fall over an 8-mile area? Or did a jet liner crash into the ground and leave no wreckage? Did passengers make numerous cell phone calls and overwhelm hijackers? This event is by far the most mysterious.
So what we have is three different events, all of which should have been fully investigated like other plane crashes. The reverse was true: instead of investigating what happened, the government covered up what happened. So this cover up is where the study of 9/11 must focus. And that’s kind of my stand on 9/11.

MR: Let me ask a couple of questions about…

JW: OK, you take over now. I’ll try to answer to the best of my ability.

MR: Sure. You have 50 years of experience in photos and graphic arts and while you were trained in journalism and worked for the Fort Worth Press, now defunct, and most of your career was spent in public relations and advertising, right?

JW: Yes, public relations, advertising and graphic arts.

MR: Who would be a client and what would you do for them? Run newspaper ads?

JW: Newspaper ads, television ads, we did annual reports, brochures, any kind of printed material and I worked daily with photographs. So over all this period, I became pretty expert at analyzing things seen in a photograph and how to use photographs. Our agency, the largest in Fort Worth, worked for nearly all of the city’s major corporations.

MR: OK, what is nice about that is that you are one of the few people that does research on 9/11 that has professional credentials that really directly apply to the tasks that you’re performing.

JW: My strength is analyzing photographs and of course there are thousands of photographs of the World Trade Center crash and the Pentagon but there are almost no photographs of the Pennsylvania event.

MR: Really most of us are, what shall we say, self-created experts. We do have expertise and we’ve collectively discovered a lot and gotten quite far. Let’s look briefly at your JFK studies. You have a great article in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, that Fetzer-edited volume, and I was curious because you say, “Starting in 1963…”

JW: Well, yes, the event happened in Dallas which was just 30 miles from where I live so I became very interested immediately. I worked in an ad agency and we subscribed to all of the newspapers and I saved all the newspapers that related to the Kennedy assassination. I started researching the JFK assassination the day it happened.

MR: Did you suspect that something was terribly wrong with the way things went?

JW: Maybe my immediate thought was that Lyndon “dooed” it!

MR: Oh, OK.

JW: Then over the course of years I read books that had other theories: the CIA, the Mafia, the Cubans, the Russians, but I finally came full circle, right back where I started, Lyndon and all his friends, that it was a coup that overthrew the government.

MR: I would say that there was a bunch of congruent interests involved, and you know the book, Family of Secrets by Russ Baker…

JW: Unfortunately I’ve not read that, I’ve read a whole lot of excerpts…

MR: You, for example, name Allen Dulles as a principal …

JW: Oh yes, Allen Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, those three plus the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was largely a military and CIA operation.

MR: There we would agree but whether Lyndon was a prime mover, I kind of doubt that although he was certainly the principal, immediate beneficiary, cui bono…

JW: Oh yes. Lyndon participated in the cover up.

MR: Oh yeah, for sure.

JW: I think they had to have his approval before they could proceed because they wouldn’t want him investigating.

MR: Right.

JW: He may not have initiated it but he had to approve it. This applies to both Lyndon and Hoover.

MR: Look who he appointed to the Warren cover-up Commission—Allen Dulles! And then Gerald Ford, of course he was complicit all the way through his whole career.

JW: I think Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush were also involved in some way.

MR: You have done photo analysis contributing to the exposure of all this over the years.

JW: I was a consultant to the House Committee on Assassinations on photo analysis, also Oliver Stone, I’ve had articles in various books, and I’ve produced four video tapes on the assassination. My discoveries included the faked backyard photographs, I became an expert on the Manlicher Carcano rifle photograph, the idea that there were multiple Oswalds, and that the Zapruder film was faked.

MR: Most of this evidence that we’re talking about couldn’t be admitted in a court of law because of the lack of sworn testimony under hostile cross-examination by the alleged photographer, the chain of custody, proving non-manipulation.

JW: That’s correct.

MR: Now let’s touch on your Apollo Moon studies. You didn’t make a contribution there until the 1990’s?

JW: In the 1990’s a documentary film appeared on the Fox Network, asking whether the photos on the Apollo moon missions were faked. I’d never really thought about it. I always thought they went to the moon and took a bunch of beautiful photographs.

MR: Laughter.

JW: But then I found, fortunately for researchers, the photos taken on the moon are on the NASA website so you can go there and download them and study them all you want. Every photo allegedly taken on the moon could not have been taken on the moon. They were taken on some studio on earth.
And I also did a time-and-motion study of the number of photographs that were taken on the moon on the Apollo missions. There were more photos taken than there was time to do and have time to do anything else. In other words, if they were doing nothing except take photographs and not doing any of their experiments and so forth, they would have shot one photo every minute.

MR: Every 50 seconds. Yeah, that’s a great result in terms of exposing a fraud.

JW: Any facts that I just give a generality about you can check on both of my websites, whether Apollo or 9/11. I may not remember some because they were 5-6-7 years ago. The websites are more accurate than my memory.

MR: Yes, but there’s virtue in having an oral discussion for various reasons. I went to a lecture by Jesse Ventura two weeks ago and he spoke without notes and charmed the crowd. Of course he’s promoting his book, American Conspiracies.

JW: Yes, he’s a great guy. He appeared in Dallas on the grassy knoll on one of the November 22nd anniversaries, spoke for five or ten minutes without notes and really fired the crowd up.

MR: Well, good. I want to get to the Pentagon next and then Shanksville because in a way it’s an easier case and ultimately leads us to the World Trade Center.

JW: That’s correct. To understand the crimes of 9/11, you must understand the crime scene and I started out studying the Pentagon. Uninvited firemen took the single most important photo of 9-11, exposing the truth! Two National Airport fire trucks were nearby at an accident less than a mile from the Pentagon and fearing an explosion, they were first on the scene. They found two small fires that they put out in seven minutes. They saw NO SIGNS of an aircraft crashing there. They took the famous photo of the unmarked Pentalawn.

Most of the photos from the Pentagon were staged or photoshopped. There are numerous examples of discontinuities in the photos like a guardrail in one photo and then the guardrail has been removed and replaced by green grass. They pasted fire in photos and staged “activity” for photos and photographed suspicious pieces of “wreckage” without signs of charring or explosion or ground disturbed where they lie. There are almost no photos with firefighters yet fires are seen.

I think a great deal happened at a later time and that’s why they kept the fires burning for 72 hours so there would be smoke in the background for these fake photos.

MR: This is also related to what Judy Wood and I call the smudge pots at the World Trade Center. If no airliners crashed, and I can prove that, into the Towers, then they had some other means to produce this billowing black smoke because the fires…I remember that morning well, as we all do, I walked over to an office mate’s office where she had a TV on, and I pointed to a smoking tower and said, “That tower will not fall.” It just wasn’t enough, knowing as little as I did about…

JW: It lasted less than a couple of minutes. The big fireball, most of the fuel on the second crash which was widely photographed most of the fuel exploded outside the building, so it couldn’t have caused damage inside.

MR: Yes, that’s a very powerful point. Let’s go back to the Pentagon and finish that up. You have a very good analysis of the five light poles that are knocked down.

JW: That was some kind of phony event to show that an airliner came in real low and hit all these poles. In the first place, the event is improbable. In the second place, what is called in aviation the ground effect force, if a large airliner were to fly too close to the ground, it compresses the air below it causing lift. You actually can’t fly a big airliner that close to the ground [at high speed] because of the ground effect.

MR: Yes, the experts say it would be half the wingspan would be the closest you could get to the ground flying at these extraordinary speeds, so you couldn’t get lower than 60 feet.

JW: Yes.

MR: You mentioned something not in the photos, the Barbara Olson phone calls.

JW: It’s well proven and I’ve talked to several friends, one friend in particular who repairs cell phones, and he says it’s impossible to make cell phone calls from an airliner in motion for several reasons, and of course there is the cell phone study by Dr. Dewdney in Canada. There are numerous reasons which I could enumerate and you know as well as I do for why you can’t make cell phone calls.

Then they changed the story, that she was on a seatback phone. The only problem there is that she didn’t have a credit card and you can’t make a collect phone call by phone. They got the story all mixed up. Her husband I think knows more than he’s telling about this.
[pursuit?].

MR: Yes, he was the Solicitor General, a high government appointee, who actually had argued before the Supreme Court that the government needs to lie in important instances. OK, you point out that there are suspect witnesses and my argument is that forensic evidence, scientific and physical evidence, trumps witness testimony every time yet 9/11 researchers like Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones who I have suspicions about, say the witnesses trump the logical and physical data.

JW: I’m not a lawyer, but in court you have to have witnesses testifying to identify evidence of any kind. You have to know the provenance of the photograph or wreckage, in other words, the witnesses and evidence must support each other.

MR: What’s your overall assessment of the witness testimony?

JW: The Pentagon witnesses seem to be either government people or news media people. There are very few other witnesses who support the official story. There were other witnesses who were just accidental witnesses driving down the freeway and so forth I found much more trustworthy than somebody connected to the government.

The pilots for 911truth organization have pretty well proved that there was a conflict in the flight path of whatever it was that flew in and hit the PENTAGON.

MR: Oh yes, that had to do with altitude, setting the altimeter…

JW: There four or five witnesses at the gas station that was just outside the Pentagon, and the official story has the flight path to the right of the gas station and all the witnesses said it was to the left. So you have two different objects flying in there…

MR: [laughter]. There’s so many good things you point out in the conflicts in the Pentagon photos, for example, the pieces that they show us look planted because they are unburned, there is no disturbance in the ground, certainly there is no part ID’d by the serial numbers…

JW: If a plane really crashed at the Pentagon or New York or Pennsylvania, all the government has to do is produce some plane wreckage with part numbers because every part of every plane has a part number.

MR: One of the more interesting things I learned from your 9/11 Pentagon studies was that these two National Airport fire trucks got there within ten minutes and put out these two small fires within seven minutes.

JW: Yes. They were not even mentioned in the official story. They just happened to be out on a call right outside the Pentagon, a traffic accident, and they were the first there and the first to photograph what really happened.

MR: Their experience and evidence shows it couldn’t have been a jet airliner crash with thousands of gallons of jet fuel aflame.

JW: Yes. Laughter.

MR: There’s so many ways we can prove the government’s story about that airliner is false, including of course AA flight 77 wasn’t even in the BTS data base but we’re going farther afield there. Let’s go to Shanksville, you make a point about the phone calls being impossible like the Pentagon story. Then we have the lack of serious evidence of a plane crash there except this hole that’s undersized.

JW: And there are no close up photos, there are just some distant shots of a hole in the ground.

MR: Then you have that Nena Lensbouer who lived near by on the scene and she said that the hole was smaller than the mobile home on her property.

JW: This lady Val McClatchey who allegedly took a photograph of a puff of smoke in the air over her red barn, that has been proved to be a photoshopped photograph where a puff of smoke has been added to just a scene of her farm. I’m convinced it’s a fake photo.

MR: As you say, there is so little evidence. I treat this claim about an Indian Lake debris field as a nullity because we don’t have any evidence about that.

JW: That’s true, but there are some statements and any kind of statements have some sort of basis it would seem to me. We also have some statements that it was shot down.

MR: That’s true but until someone comes to me with some evidence of a three-eyed giraffe I just dismiss it out of hand because the burden’s on them.

JW: I agree.

MR: OK.

Part II
April 14, 2010

MR: We left off at Shanksville—anything to add now? Otherwise we’ll go on to the World Trade Center events.

JW: You’re familiar with my website, page one is called the art of photo analysis and it has information you might want to include. It has four important points I’d like to add to the discussion now.

MR: OK.

JW: The first is, you should never accept official stories without close questioning. Anytime something happens that the government has something to do with, the first thing I do is to look at the official story to see if it makes sense. Number two is never accept official photos without looking at ’em real close because nowadays with computer capabilities and so forth we don’t know whether photos are genuine or not, whether activities have been staged to shock-and-awe effect like the World Trade Center with smoke and fireballs and so forth, so don’t accept official photos and official stories. Number three is the government has unlimited, excellent capability for faking photos. I believe there are lots of fake photos and many are the result of activities in which somebody was trying to achieve a certain purpose. Number four is some of the people in government—not everybody in government is bad—there are some people that I think have a conscience and must fake photos against what they really believe and so sometimes these people put secret clues in the photos and hope that in the future the fakery will be exposed. I’ve found numerous cases of this—JFK assassination, Apollo, and 9/11—so if you would look at that first page of my website, there is plenty of potential for questions and answers.

MR: OK, I will do that. Excellent points. Has anybody ever ratted out the fakery from inside? In other words, a real participant? I don’t think we’ve ever had that.

JW: I can’t think of any right offhand. We see the result—you’re talking about whistleblowers?

MR: Right.

JW: If you see the result of it, you have to believe that somebody did it hoping it would be seen. I can demonstrate…

MR: Yes, that’s especially true…

JW: …of Apollo. They left some photographs lying on the ground by a landing pad of the LEM.

MR: I saw that.

JW: It’s a real obvious thing which you don’t really pay any attention to unless somebody points it out.

MR: Yes, we’ve got shadows going different directions—one of the big things to me is that the moon is a planet, and the sun, if it truly has no atmosphere—let’s just accept conventional science on that issue—the daylight is going to be similar to earth, so from the git-go it’s obvious that it’s a staged, indoor deal. Where’s all the light? And it has to be a single source, meaning the sun.

JW: And yet you have light coming from other sources.

MR: Right. And it’s just not brilliant. They never explain that. It doesn’t make any sense. OK…

JW: Back to 9/11.

MR: Yes, 9/11. You have a list we can work from, an impossibilities list.

JW: The first thing is, I find a theme of many impossibilities. It just doesn’t make sense. All these things are impossible: I think the hijacking scenario is impossible, it’s impossible for steel and concrete to turn to dust, in other words, if all that falls down, it’s not going to turn to dust, it’s going to still be steel beams instead of turning to dust.

MR: Right.

JW: You have the impossibility of free fall for these buildings as if they were just falling through air instead of sturdy construction underneath. You have the impossibility of jet fuel melting steel, the impossibility of cell phone calls, I just think there are too many impossibilities.

MR: Let’s go back to the hijacking scenario: give me a couple of reasons why you think it’s impossible.

JW: Well, these 19 young teenage Arabs—close to teenage Arabs with no flight experience—I mean look at it as if you and I were going to hijack an airliner—would you know what to do?

MR: No [laughter].

JW: The average person with no training cannot possibly even know where to start to hijack an airliner.

MR: Yes, much less fly it.

JW: And they expect us to believe all that.

MR: Right.

JW: Also, none of these Arabs were on the flight manifest lists of passengers.

MR: And then the mainstream media interviewed ten of them [laughter]. It was a case of stolen identity and then Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, basically said when asked, “Well, we’re stickin’ with our original list.”

JW: The administration said immediately it was obviously the work of Osama bin Laden and yet Osama bin Laden is not even on the FBI list of wanted people [for 9/11].

MR: Yes, because they don’t have enough “hard evidence” to get an indictment. Yeah, it’s ridiculous. A few other things you mention, the planting of evidence, you do some photo analysis of that, at Church and Murray?

JW: At the World Trade Center?

MR: Right.

JW: I think they planted a few pieces of aircraft wreckage, particularly the fuselage piece on the roof of WTC4 and also the so-called engine at Church and Murray streets which ended up under a construction…

MR: Scaffolding.

JW: You’re probably familiar with that. It’s just impossible that any part of a jet engine somehow flew across the sky and ended up on a sidewalk without hitting anything and ended up under a barricade without damaging the barricade and a Fox video shows that immediately after that an FBI van with a lot of FBI men handling a large object on a dolly at that intersection so, it’s all very mysterious.

MR: Right. I don’t know if they pulled a tarp off that engine part or planted it at that time, delivered it to the site. At any rate, that part couldn’t possibly be off a 767 engine.

JW: Even if it were a genuine aircraft part off a hijacked airliner, all they would have to do to prove that is show a part number. They have not shown a single piece of aircraft wreckage from any of the events with the required aircraft part number.

MR: One of the things that really bothered me is that the alleged aluminum airliners, these Boeing 767s, simply disappear into the building based on either these videos, fake or not, well they are fake but…

JW: I think all the videos showing planes melting through the steel walls of the buildings are sophisticated animations, fakes.

MR: That’s impossible with no parts bouncing off, ripping off wings and tail sections, and so on, and then you don’t even see any parts in these airplane-shaped holes. The airplane-shaped holes are silly too, in my opinion.

JW: Yes, it’s like a Roadrunner cartoon.

MR: Right. Pretty crazy stuff. I’m wondering if the perps aren’t into what Larry Bird, the famous basketball player called “degree of difficulty.” They are just so over-the-top in putting this over on the American people.

JW: An aircraft wing is very flimsy. The only tough parts—engines and landing gear—might survive but a flimsy wing cannot slice through steel columns. It would break apart on contact with steel columns.

MR: There are all kinds of details that are suspicious and damning to the official story at maximum. One of them that comes to mind is that the video plane image at the south tower hits the building flush yet the plane was allegedly banking left and NIST said it hit 15 degrees off perpendicular. There are so many contradictions.

JW: Some videos show the plane in a descending glide and some show it flying level.

MR: Yes [laughter]. NIST as I recall said it was on a six degree below horizontal glide path downward. These details take me back to something that may have been forgotten in all this detail and that is if I were going to do this, if I were a terrorist, I would do a 747 to begin with to do maximum damage and then go in as low as I could and still guarantee hitting both of them and do it from JFK, LaGuardia or Newark, a nearby airport to minimize the risk of intercept.

JW: Yes.

MR: So the whole thing is ridiculous, and then that Portland Maine commuter flight, that doesn’t make any sense. Of course the government hasn’t offered us real evidence of these planes even taking off, the gate number, really documenting everything, there are no videotapes…

JW: A few of the planes were alleged to be in service two years later.

MR: Yes, that was another thing, they didn’t clean up the details, FAA regulations say you’re supposed to decommission…

JW: Yes. The National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] is supposed to investigate the scene of any crash, recover all the wreckage, the black boxes, that kind of stuff. This is the first time that I know of that the NTSB failed to investigate four major air crashes.

MR: In the case of suspected criminal activity the FBI is actually in charge but they probably use NTSB personnel for crash investigation. Let’s review some other issues, you know the black smoke that was used at the Pentagon for 72 hours…

JW: That black smoke I think was part of the special Hollywood effects.

MR: And that would be true at the World Trade Center also, right?

JW: Yes, both the Pentagon and World Trade Center had thick black smoke. Black smoke is a carbon-based, oxygen-starved fire as I understand it, and real hot fires don’t have black smoke, so it’s contradictory for them to claim that there was lot of heat involved when all the smoke is black because that indicates a low-temperature fire.

MR: Yes, I’ve been through the details of the NIST study and they actually try to…

JW: And of course no steel-framed building has ever fallen because of fire and yet here we have three buildings at one location all falling down because they claim fire caused them to fall down.

MR: Right and these fires didn’t look like all that much compared to that Madrid fire, the one in Philadelphia, etcetera, some of these skyscrapers have had really intense, large scale fires and didn’t collapse.

JW: Yes, the steel framework survives, it doesn’t turn to dust. In other words, when the building finally falls down or the fire is extinguished the steel is still there, it didn’t disappear or turn to dust.

MR: That takes me to the four theories that seem to garner some support for the destruction of the twin towers and really the other WTC buildings that were seriously damaged or totally devastated like building 7: one is jet fuel fires did it, the second would be nano-thermate or thermite popularized by Dr. Steven Jones, the third suspect named is mini-nukes, and number four is directed energy weaponry. Now the last two would be exotic.

JW: I tend to go with the directed energy weapons. I think that Dr. Judy Wood has done outstanding work in that regard.

MR: Well, I share your opinion and it doesn’t seem like these others can account for all the anomalous and extraordinary effects that we got at the World Trade Center.

JW: Let me make a comment: I think operations like this are designed with fail-safe back up, in other words, they do not put all their eggs in one basket, they may have back up systems. The plane crash is obviously not gonna bring down the building so they may have some other systems used in connection with the alleged plane crashes, explosions, and new weapons, or even mini-nukes or even thermate. In other words, I tend to think that the major weapon was some unknown, Department of Defense Star Wars weapon but they probably had back ups and other devices to go along with it. I think that there were explosions lower in the building timed to go off at the time the planes hit or the alleged planes hit, especially in regards to building 6 which is the most under-investigated building.

MR: Let’s go to building 6 because that was one thing I learned that was new in studying your website and mainly that the damage to building 6, the hollowing out, the sudden hollowing out…

JW: The hollowing out indicated these directed energy beam weapons may have been used with explosions just straight down to the basement from the top. It just doesn’t make sense.

MR: And what was the timing on that?

JW: My study of the photographs show that it was after the first strike but before the second strike. And then you had testimony from people who testified that there was an explosion at building 6.

MR: That’s what I found extraordinary was the early devastation of building 6, I didn’t know that…

JW: You don’t hear much about building 6 but it’s the best example of how the operation was carried out I think. A sophisticated military secret weapon staged either from an airplane, a satellite or something caused some sort of microwave damage. I really don’t know what I’m talking about because it’s all secret. But it’s not secret that they have these DEW weapons.

MR: Right, it isn’t, they’ve got a professional society, the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

JW: They hold annual conferences, presenting the latest in DEW weapons, how destructive they are.

MR: The proof of concept is more established there and the evidence is stronger there than it actually is for mini-nukes, oddly enough. While we’re on this topic, Dr. Judy Wood hasn’t garnered much support for her evidence which is extensive.

JW: Unfortunately she got kinda sidetracked by what’s the guy’s name?

MR: John Hutchison.

JW: Yes, and some sort of weaponry using his inventions or theories and I think that has kind of sidetracked her because I think it’s possible that that’s true but I think it’s more likely that the DEW weapons which she had previously advocated which had already been developed may have been responsible.

MR: The only questions remaining at this point that I would have concern the bigger picture. You mentioned, for example, the peculiar behavior of Bush/Cheney on 9/11.

JW: Bush especially and then Cheney and Rumsfeld also.

MR: So what would be an example of something you find suspicious about their behavior?

JW: First of all, Bush obviously was sitting there reading stories to children, they tell him this or that has happened, that we’re under attack and he looks kind of puzzled and he continues to read the book to the children instead of taking any kind of action at all. And you have Cheney, in other words, you have Bush who abdicates responsibility there at the school, and Cheney somehow becomes in charge and goes to the secret room down below the White House or something and is running everything. And then Rumsfeld is sitting over in the Pentagon in his office on the opposite from where all the activity is about to take place, in the empty section of the Pentagon where the explosion occurs. That Pentagon deal where the part of the building was under renovation was the part that was targeted, it was aimed where it wouldn’t hurt anybody, very minimal casualties. The whole Pentagon attack was very strange.

MR: Yes, why not hit the east wing where you can get possibly Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and so on.

JW: Yes, they chose the very section that was unoccupied.

MR: Just to amplify, I can tell you that I was in my second week in the U.S. Department of Labor as Chief Economist and the next day I was standing there with a couple of the Secretary of Labor’s aides and she was telling us about her day where the two Secret Service agents assigned to her virtually lifted her off the ground and took her to an undisclosed location—of course she’s a cabinet officer—and it’s very clear that the Secret Service didn’t do anything down there in Sarasota and that’s a violation of their normal procedures because Bush wouldn’t be in charge in an emergency. The Secret Service takes over.

JW: Yup.

MR: So it all just doesn’t make any sense.

JW: All of those activities in Florida didn’t make any sense at all, and especially Bush claiming that he saw the first plane crash on television and of course it was not.

MR: Right, all that is very puzzling too. That brings to mind the 9/11 Commission, remember Bush/Cheney didn’t want to testify…

JW: That has an oddity too, they wouldn’t testify alone, they had to both be questioned at the same time and there could be no transcript or recording of what they said.

MR: [laughter] And not even any notes and they wouldn’t testify under oath, you know, basically swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The 9/11 Commission didn’t have most of the witnesses under oath. At least the Warren Commission had its witnesses under oath. OK, here’s an even bigger overview question because it’s gone on now for eight years plus now, we’re coming up on nine years, I’m saying it’s been a long time we’ve been at work on this, here’s the way Jessie Ventura put it: “There’s enough meat on this bone to arrest and indict people,” to have an official prosecution and break it open. Well, that doesn’t look like it would ever happen, does it?

JW: It does. Won’t ever happen because the perps are still running the show.

MR: Yes, so is this all simply historical work, we’re going to indict them before the bar of history? Because it doesn’t look like we have any prospect of succeeding.

JW: No, the government is too big, too monolithic an operation. The ordinary person like you and me doesn’t have a chance of getting anything done. All we can do is to try to expose the truth.

MR: What do you think about the general public? Do you think they’ll ever get it? They get it on JFK.

JW: A lot of people, I kind of hate to say this, a lot of people are not smart enough to get it.

MR: [laughter].

JW: They don’t want to bother with it, they don’t want to be discomforted, made to feel uncomfortable by way of learning something that they don’t want to believe anyway, that the government not only lies to them but the government is willing to kill its own citizens and start a war somewhere.

MR: So it’s really a form of denial where people really don’t want to know about this.

JW: I call it the ostrich syndrome because they bury their heads in the sand. They’re like the three monkeys, speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil.

MR: [laughter].

JW: They don’t want to know. It makes them uncomfortable and people would rather watch a football game than watch some program about 9/11.

MR: Yes, some truth-oriented program about 9/11.

JW: Back in history this was commonplace, back in ancient Rome they called it the Circus Maximus and I have what I call the Circus Maximus theory of history where anytime there’s a big event that the government doesn’t want you to know about, they stage some entertainment to distract you.

MR: [laughter] Right. Very, very compelling analysis. I think we’ve got a great interview.

JW: I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me.

MR: For me, it’s not only the great work you’ve done, it’s the fact that you’re a sensible man. Too many of our colleagues in 9/11 research are just volcanic, you know.

JW: The group that Jim Fetzer put together, some of them are nuts. Some of them made some interesting comments but many of them are so egotistical that they think that they are in charge of the investigation.

MR: [laughter]. I think I’m going to add that or maybe not, it may not be useful.

JW: My main goal is that, I just hope that someday the history books that people then study get it all right.

MR: I agree. That’s a worthy ambition even though we can’t realistically expect any convictions. OK, thank you Jack.

JW: OK, call again. Thanks.