Think Differently. Solve the Impossible.

This episode helps you think clearly in a noisy world, cut through misinformation, and find the solutions as applied to thinking clearly.

 

Transcript

Let's start with 9-11. For whatever reason, it's on the Tucker Carlson show now, twice.

It's in the news.

It used to be something you could even, when it happened, and I even mentioned it to a business partner.

He's like, we can't talk about that.

For whatever reason, I think people today, especially if you were younger, weren't alive then or forgotten, when it happened, you couldn't talk conspiracy.

You were that afraid to talk about it.

And so it's interesting at this point.

Now it's the amount of Carl Tuckerson.

So I think people are starting to wake up to what happened on that day.

There was actually a conference, I don't know if you know, in early September called Turning the Tide on 9-11.

There was Congressman Kurt Weldon and another congressman who are involved in their trying to open up a new investigation into 9-11 or actually what I should say is a real investigation until 9-11 because the 9-11 report was actually just a cover up.

Or very incomplete or what's the point?

If you don't have an open mind, it's kind of like global warming.

If you're a scientist whose career is vested in exploring why there's global warming, not if, you're going to come to the conclusion, you're just going to explain why, not if.

I'm sure that had a lot to do with the official 9-11 investigation like a lot of things.

Anything's official, there's vested interest in careers and politics.

Tell me how you could have, how can you have a real one?

You mean at this point?

I mean, you interview people who were there at the time.

I mean, Kurt Weldon at the time was the head of the Armed Services Department of the government.

And he's come out and made statements now that he wasn't even made aware of a lot of the things that were going on.

There were things that were kept secret from him, and he's the first person who should have known everything.

So what's his position?

What's he supposed to do?

Kurt Weldon, I'm not sure what state he was from, but he was the head of the armed services.

A Senate or a congressman?

Either a Senate or a congressman.

I'm not sure.

But in any event, he's the one who should have really been completely informed and briefed on everything that was going on.

And it's very clear from the way the whole thing happened that this was set up to blame Osama bin Laden.

It was set up to blame terrorism.

The key thing the day it happened that started me, not in a conspiracy, the biggest, what, why did I question?

I'm watching TV, the towers are burning, and immediately the reporters are, oh, there's only one person that could have done this, Osama bin Laden.

I'm like, how do you even know who that is?

How do you make that conclusion so fast?

How come we're not just watching the towers burning, wondering what just happened?

Yeah, it was a, how is this like, you sound like you really know, if you knew that much, you can't know that much that fast.

Of course not.

And that's why I said it was set up to blame him.

And often in cases like this where there's an event like that, and they have ulterior motives for doing it, they need to have a patsy.

I mean, you could go back to the murder of John F.

Kennedy, and Lee Harvey Oswald was the patsy in that case, and I've looked into that too, and there's no possible way that he could have killed Kennedy.

The conspiracies are started by mistrust, because we're not being told the truth or all the facts.

So we're left to our own imagination, and they blame us for being crazy and cuckoo, for not believing what they tell us when they know they're not telling us everything or the truth.

Exactly.

It's very clear.

And actually 9-11 is a good point for me to start off with, because honestly, I lived in New York when it happened, and I experienced it on that day.

Personally, I experienced the days and weeks and months afterwards.

And to be honest, at the time, I didn't question anything.

I believed what they said.

I believed the hijacking story.

And it really took me a decade to actually look at it with more of a critical eye and an open mind.

And it took basically YouTube videos that we're talking about the conspiracy theories about 9-11.

And my initial reaction, which I think is most people's initial reaction, is no, that can't be.

And, you know, I wanted to listen to the videos to prove that they weren't true.

Then what changed your mind?

Well, what changed my mind is that the evidence was just so obvious.

And things that I didn't consider, didn't think of, didn't pick up at the time, just, it just made sense.

I mean, just.

Give me a few, yeah, go ahead with some of the things.

I mean, I looked at the premier organization, by the way, and looking into this from a technical perspective is architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth.

I don't know if you've heard of them or not, but that's a group of 4,000 architects and engineers who basically have looked at looked at the collapse of the towers, looked at all the information and come to the conclusion that the only way that things could have happened, the way they did, is with control demolition.

And it's really just basic physics.

And I didn't even think about this because let's say you do have a systemic failure in a steel frame building.

And you have, I mean, the planes hit toward the top of the building.

So you're going to have pancaking of floors starting at the top.

If that was a natural event, you have more than 50 floors of structural steel below the impact point, which were not damaged.

They're not damaged at all.

No, that's a great point, John.

I used AI to prepare questions for you today on 9-11.

It actually locked up, by the way, when I asked it one question, I...

Yeah, I got one of those red boxes that are kind of rare, that can't compute.

Try again later.

On that one, the pancake, it actually tried to convince me that 9-11 is not an inside job because of the momentum as those floors fell, it was more and more of a big bang pushed downwards.

But what you're saying is, it doesn't matter.

It could have hold, the steel could have held it.

What I'm saying is that there was more intact structural steel below the impact point than there was damaged steel above the impact point.

Is that based on the rubble, the wreckage, or how do you know that?

It's just based on where the impact was and how many floors were below and how many floors were above.

But the other thing, which is the real kicker, is that the collapse was at freefall speed.

And freefall simply means that there's no resistance from underneath.

Now if you have a pancaking effect, every time a floor falls, it's going to hit an intact floor below it.

That's going to slow the collapse.

This is something in physics that's really bizarre.

If you push on a table, you think that you don't see the table moving.

The table has to actually push back, otherwise there'd be no pushback.

There has to be some pushback.

There always has to be some pushback, unless you like you say it's just air.

There has to be that moment of pushing back.

Exactly.

So there should have been a resistance from underneath to the collapse.

And that resistance should have slowed the collapse to the point where it wasn't falling at freefall speed.

And that didn't happen.

The other thing is it fell directly straight into its footprint.

Now, what they're trying to say is that all of the supports on all four corners of the building gave way at exactly the same time.

Not slightly different.

There should have been some leaning effect, some torque.

One gives way, it's a three-legged thing, that it's got to tilt like a chair missing a leg.

All four legs would have had to go down at exactly the same time, which you're right, that is kind of, is anything possible?

Yes.

But that's a little bit unprobable.

A pancake at a random chaos effect of airplanes crashing.

That's very hard to believe that it would have happened at exactly the same moment.

And the other thing, by the way, is you literally had structural steel turning to dust.

That also would not have happened in a collapse caused by fire.

You would have still had at least partially intact steel beams falling.

So let me tell you, when I was around then and I remember watching the news, and one thing that seems strange to me was, I know you're dealing with a tragic loss and just trying to recover people.

When an airplane crashes at sea, they recover every little piece from the ocean and put it back together to see how it failed.

And I remember them just trying to haul stuff off from the World Trade Center, and I thought it was going to the ocean.

I think I'm not reading it correctly because I don't see that in the notes here.

Now, they're saying it was taken to landfills.

I remember it being taken to the ocean.

But my point is, I asked Shatt, but I thought all the wreckage was immediately removed.

So how can you even study this stuff?

And that's when it locked up.

Well, I'll tell you, from being here, what really happened is they didn't treat it like a crime scene.

They literally had trucks coming in and removing the steel, and that steel and the remains were actually sent to China to be recycled.

And that's what that's what Chatt said to it.

Said some of it was recycled.

The point was, how does Chatt, how does AI know how the investigation was done to say that it wasn't an inside job when in fact, they don't even have all the pieces to it.

They went to China.

Exactly.

But there's so many other factors too, which is there's another example, which is they're saying that fires brought down.

I know there was a plane impact supposedly.

And that's another whole theory, which I'm not necessarily going to get into because there are people who think there were no planes.

But let's get beyond that because I don't think that that's critical.

But assuming that there were planes, you still have a situation where, what was I going to say now?

I'm losing my train of thought.

I'm sorry.

There are planes versus no planes, and you still have planes.

But you just don't...

Oh, well, that's where I'm going.

Okay, so I'm sorry.

So never in the history of the world has there been a steel-framed building brought down by fire?

Never.

I thought you were gonna say, never in history of the world have terrorists who've never flown a big airplane like that hit it on target not once but twice at the top of the building, not the middle of the center, not overshooting it, the skill required to turn an airplane around and hit it twice.

Well, that's a whole other issue.

I'm not even going there yet.

But what I was gonna say is that there have been many buildings, steel-framed skyscrapers all around the world that have been on fire, some for as long as 30, 40 hours, totally engulfed in flames, but yet they haven't collapsed.

Here you have a situation where you have buildings on fire, the trade centers, and they collapse in less than two hours.

And you know, the smoke, I've got the picture in my head now, it's not like the building was on fire, fire.

It was smoky.

Yeah.

It wasn't even hugely on fire, it was just smoky.

The plane hit, there was an explosion, it blew out some windows and was smoke.

There wasn't even really, I'm sure there was some fire inside, but it wasn't like the whole building's like on flames.

There's another story, too, which is, and I forget his name, but there was a firefighter, a fire captain, who went into the building to try and save people.

And he made it up to, I don't remember which building, by the way, but he made it to the 78th floor.

And when he got there, he radioed back to control.

He said, we should be able to put this out.

It really isn't a problem.

There are a couple of structural fires, but it's no big deal.

Now, he said that, and within five minutes, the building collapsed.

And he probably died.

Of course.

The point being that he is a professional firefighter who is saying that these fires are not going to bring the building down, that he can handle them with a hose.

Do we have that on tape someplace, or how do we know that?

It is on tape, actually, if you want to do the research.

I don't have it, you know, at the top of my head.

But the recording is available.

Which they would come from the fire department probably, right?

The local PD.

And, you know, that's why there's also all of these organizations.

They're firefighters for 9-11 Truth, they're pilots for 9-11 Truth.

So, I mean, there are a lot of people in different industries involved in 9-11 that don't buy the official story.

And, by the way, getting to what you were talking about, the skill that it would take a pilot to do that, do you, I mean, to say that these planes were flying at 600 miles an hour at that altitude, if you look at the specifications for the planes, they should have broken up in midair, because they're not able to take that kind of torque and that kind of...

Three, four, three, you know, they're not going to speed of sound to 700 miles per hour, they're not going 600 miles per hour.

Well, they said they were going five or 600, but I'm just saying that at that altitude, the plane should have actually broken up before impact.

At that low of altitude?

Yeah, I think...

I don't...

You might know better about the physics than I do.

This is just something that I've read.

But supposedly, they're not...

The lower you are to the ground in a plane at speed, there's just more torque and...

There's going to be more air resistance.

I guess because of gravity too.

And...

But I don't think that those planes are designed to go that fast anyhow.

But like you said, it's kind of...

The more significant stuff is the fact that the building should have been able to withstand the crash.

And so, what are the reasons...

Now we have to speculate on why, if a government or the CIA or even another government, the terrorist government, were involved on doing this.

I mean, because it could still have been a terrorist government, and now they're trying to make it look like it's a US government inside job instead of taking credit.

Why would they do something?

Why would it be an inside job?

What's the benefit?

I'll give you the reasons.

There are actually quite a few of them.

Well, for one, one of the governments that I believe is involved is the government of Israel and Mossad.

I'm going to take a segue away for a minute.

There was a group of, they call them the Dancing Israelis.

There was a group of Middle Eastern men who were filming from Liberty Park in New Jersey to the trade centers as they were burning.

And they were dancing and filming.

That's why they're called the Dancing Israelis.

And a woman saw them and reported them to the police.

So the FBI and the police picked them up, of course, and brought them in for questioning.

Now they were held for, I believe one to two months, but then they were let go with no charges.

And how do we know that?

How do we know stuff like this?

Just the sources and because if we're going to talk about conspiracies on one extreme, we should talk about like, where do we get our evidence to support the conspiracy on the other?

Well, I believe this was in the newspapers.

I mean, if you look it up, I mean, it's documented.

This is not somebody's imagination.

But the interesting thing that I find is that they then went back to Israel.

And by the way, there was a lot of people who felt that they were Mossad agents.

They were working at a so-called trucking company which conspicuously disbanded after they left.

But in any event, they went back to Israel, and they were interviewed on a show in Israel.

And reportedly, and I say reportedly because I don't speak Hebrew, so I'm just going with what people have translated.

They said that the reason that they were there is they were there to document the event.

Now, if you're documenting an event, that means you know it's coming.

Why would Israel, we're giving them back in the day, it was only $20 million a year annually to fight the Palestinians.

Why would Israel want to blow us up when we're giving them money?

Well, because what they wanted was to start wars and disturb the Middle East.

They wanted to disrupt all of their Arab neighbors.

Then they make us go do the Afghanistan thing even though it's kind of, they've already blown up the towers and they're dead.

Why go now?

Why fight the Afghans?

Why go over there now and get our soldiers hurt?

Actually, there's actually footage of Netanyahu, literally saying 9-11 was good for Israel.

Okay.

So just going with that and believing it for a moment, how then would the US government support that?

Why wouldn't we stop the planes before they hit the towers, not allow the World Trade Center to be detonated?

All this other stuff, why would we allow it?

Or is it all an Israel inside job while the American government, our own security was somehow inept?

No, we were involved.

And you have to also, I think, understand how much control the Israeli government has, over the US government, through organizations like APAC and various Israeli lobbies.

Well, that would explain why we give them millions and tens of millions of dollars every year, forever now.

It does explain it.

And that's why there literally was a conference in September this year called 50 States, One Israel, where two representatives of every state in the United States went to Israel, was wined and nined by Israel on their dollar, basically with the idea of promoting them going back to their states and supporting legislation against speaking against Israel, legislation against boycotting Israel.

Essentially, they were being bought off.

And if you look at APEC, they are the third largest political donor to our politicians.

So they are very big.

We'll come back to the 9-11.

This reminds me of all of a sudden, you're even allowed to talk about Israel and Palestine.

I remember in the 90s when a reporter on NPR was fired, just in the hallway talking to a new reporter, he asked, what should I know about this conflict?

And she's like, get him out of Palestine.

And it's that simple.

She was fired just for making that statement in private.

You couldn't speak about this.

I'm fascinated by why now, it's not only can you speak about it, you can even say that both sides, you can say the bad things about the other side as well.

I can't keep up.

Why is this now you can speak about this and you couldn't in the past?

Actually, the truth is that you can and you can't speak about it.

I mean, there are laws, for example, now like on college campuses, they are literally taking foreign students who speak against Israel and they're kicking them out of the country.

So it's not that you can speak about it.

I think that what it is is the gross abuse of the Palestinians that most people in the world can see today is just getting out to the point where so many people are fed up enough that they're just not going to stay quiet anymore.

I don't think it's being allowed.

I think it's just reached a fever pitch because of what's going on.

But getting back to 9-11 for a minute, there was another reason why our government would be involved.

And they wrote a document one year prior to 9-11, and it was called Plan for a New American Century.

And you can look that document up, it's online, it's legit, and it was written by people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and-

Cool names, I remember.

Yeah.

Basically, they're the people they called the Neocons in those days.

And if you read that document, the plan is to invade seven countries over five years.

Those countries were Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan.

I don't know if I'm missing one.

So what you're saying is that by helping Israel, allowing Israel to, working with Israel to take down the Trade Center, they were also giving themselves an excuse to go to war, which they wanted to do anyhow.

Exactly.

And the other thing you have to understand is that people like Rumsfeld and Cheney had very large investments in military contractors.

So going to war is very profitable for those military contractors.

And these people like Cheney and Rumsfeld made a killing on, you know, their investment in those companies.

And Rumsfeld, for those who don't recall, he was the secretary of defense for the United States.

Correct.

And one other interesting thing about the day of 9-11, which you may not know, is they were running a simulation on that day, the Air Force was, called Able Danger.

And essentially, that exercise was to basically look into what would happen if planes were hijacked and they were planning to fly them into buildings, which is kind of odd because that's what happened.

But that exercise took our Air Force out off the coast of Canada away from the trade centers so that they were not able to respond quickly.

So what are the odds that the terrorist, if that's what happened, picked the exact right day to do that?

Because on any other day, there would have been fighter jets ready to scramble to take them down.

What I had heard is that the fighter jets that were available and scrambled to, there was the delay, communication problems, whatever, et cetera, et cetera, they just didn't get there in time, F-16s.

I would say deliberate delay, frankly, but so there was that also.

And I'll go one step further, which is why I say controlled demolition.

And this is from my own experience, and I thought it odd at the time, but most people don't realize that those fires from 9-11 were still burning in the very early part of December.

How does that happen?

Well, because there's still stuff to burn.

There's still piles of trash.

For months?

I don't know about that.

Something else was in there that was flammable or?

What I'm saying is that there was, there was, they also, some people say they found thermite in the dust from 9-11.

And thermite.

They built the steel out of something that would continue to burn.

No, thermite is an incendiary that's used in controlled demolition.

And still burning.

It burns for a very long time and it burns at a very high heat.

And that would explain why the steel would literally melt, as it did.

Okay, so back to present time.

And I think I asked you this, but we're not certain.

Why is it in the news now 9-11 is in the news now all of a sudden with Tucker Carlson's and everybody else?

What would be the significance of if everybody now somehow believed it was conspiracy?

Would it change anything moving forward?

What's the future look like?

I don't know.

I mean, honestly, I hope that they do bring a new investigation, although honestly, I'm not holding my breath.

I kind of look at 9-11, I kind of look a little bit like Epstein.

There are a lot of very high people that would go down with this.

It's not conspiracy to say for fact, whoever's forming the investigation already has an outcome they want to prove.

Otherwise, they're not going to allow it to happen.

That's not a conspiracy.

That's just common sense.

I agree.

But let me just bring up another point.

And this bothers me as somebody who is a realist, who does a lot of research in these areas, and undoubtedly is called a conspiracy theorist by many people.

And I just want to talk for one second about the weaponization of the term conspiracy theorist, because a conspiracy theorist, let me just...

It's okay.

I get what you're saying.

Like they're making conspiracy people look like they're crazy, when in fact, conspiracy is a normal thing.

The business is conspired.

You give referrals at B&I Business Networking International.

Is that a conspiracy?

Because I'm referring a painter to your house and I'm a realtor, and you're gonna send me someone to buy a house from?

That's conspiracy.

Exactly.

But the point is that conspiracy theory, that term was invented by the CIA after the JFK assassination.

And the reason that they invented it is there were a lot of people questioning the official story of the JFK assassination.

And obviously, there were a lot of people behind that assassination who did not want to go down with shit.

So let's just label them in a bad way, frame them as...

Exactly.

So they weaponized the term.

Prior to the JFK assassination, conspiracy theorist was not a term that meant crazy tin foil hat wearing person.

That came after that, essentially operation of the CIA to weaponize that term, to basically mean somebody who's crazy.

Okay.

So tell me about this new...

I didn't know that we were forming a new 9-11 investigation panel.

And keeping an open mind, because I said it's impossible to believe that it can be honest and open, transparent.

I agree with you.

Who's doing it?

Congress?

No, actually, it's coming from...

Well, it's coming from some former Congress people, but it's also coming just from these organizations, like, as I said, Pilots from 9-11 Truth, Firefighters 9-11 Truth, Architects, Engineers 9-11 Truth.

I mean, they have been pushing for decades for this.

And I think that what's started to happen is the general public is starting to catch on.

I mean, I'm very big in social media and I use it for me as a guide to where people's minds are.

And if I go on to, you know, posts about 9-11, I am really seeing at this point that more than half the people say it's an inside job and understand that the official report is fake.

Now, my personal opinion being skeptical is that any new investigation will just come up with a better explanation.

Or the classical one like our cell phones bad for you.

Well, maybe, but we need to do more studies.

Like maybe, but we need to do more research.

Maybe, but let's say everyone believes it even a step further.

Let's say they discover what you told me, that it was Israel and our government working together.

What are the fallout on that?

If everyone was to believe that, how might things change?

I think it would be a huge change because first of all, I think that politicians that support Israel would be voted out of office.

I think that would happen quickly.

I think organizations like APAC, which would be questioned, and they should be.

And of course, you're going to be immediately condemned as a what's it an anti-Semitic or the term for being not pro-Israel.

They're going to point fingers at you, say you're big at a bad person and so forth.

They can do that if they want, but there's nothing anti-Semitic about being against the policies of a government.

Yeah, it's like, well, I'm not just because I'm Christian.

Hello, I do something bad.

I tell somebody, I'm still Christian, so you're still a Jew or whatever it is, your religion, it's nothing personal against your religion or your ethnicity, it's just you're a bad person.

Exactly, and first of all, they're bad people in every religion.

I happen to be Jewish.

I actually hate what's going on in Israel and Israel's influence in our government because people talk about the rise of anti-Semitism.

And I think to myself, the reason anti-Semitism is going up is because of the behavior of the only Jewish country in the world.

If they would behave more like a peaceful, honest country, then I don't think people would blame all Jews for it.

So let's play it forward.

Let's just say everyone believes it, so we have to vote in some new politicians or change things.

How do things look different in terms of Israel and these seven wars?

Do they just stop and wait it out now because they know they've been caught, and they're just going to wait for a new generation of kids who don't remember any of this to come up and start it over again?

Or how does the world look the next week after?

No, that's a really good question.

I honestly don't know, and I think that a lot of it depends on, first of all, who comes in.

I've, this may sound very skeptical, but my own personal belief about all politicians is that by nature, they tend to be selfish.

They tend to be more psychopathic or more sociopathic than your average normal person, because anybody who wants power is going to and is able to rise to the top is going to have to lie, cheat and steal to get there.

That's just the way it is.

Very much like the CEO of a large corporation of America.

So, you know, I think that ultimately you're going to have a problem with politicians no matter who it is.

But I think that the most important thing is for the population, the normal people, to understand that and not just blindly follow these politicians' edicts of whatever they say.

Well, you know, the way they get you, John, is the healthcare right now.

You know what, I need my health care.

So no matter what, I need my health care.

So I'm sticking with, in this case, I think it's the Democrats who have the government shut down, waiting for their health care.

That's how they get you.

They'll pick something that they know is your weak, a kill is a heal and promise you that and return for your support.

Yeah, but the problem is we don't even have health care.

And again, this is why I said there's so many topics that I could go into.

Well, it's a lie.

They're not going to actually give you what they claim.

The politicians never do get do what they say they were going to do.

What I'm saying is we don't have health care at all.

The whole system is broken and it was broken from day one.

What we have is symptom care and symptom management.

We don't have health care.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So anything else on 9 11?

Or do we want to try to cover one more thing during this episode, which might be the Moon Landing hoax?

Well, the Moon Landing hoax is interesting.

I mean, there's a lot less to talk about there.

I think the evidence is a lot, a lot, I mean, it's not a lot weaker.

I think that the basic evidence for the Moon Landing is really very simple.

It's the telephone calls that were supposedly made from the White House to the Moon.

And, you know, if you listen to those calls and you understand that the Moon is, you know, several hundred thousand miles away, that there should be a delay in terms of when the president speaks, when the astronaut hears him speak, and then answers.

Oh, you mean not like on a...

So it's...

it'd be radio, right?

Like that radio...

You're saying the speed of...

But doesn't radio waves travel at the speed of light?

Pretty darn fast?

Well, first of all, that's not how it happened, according to their explanation.

What they...

what their explanation is that the president called Houston the control center, then the control center relayed that to the astronauts, and then it was basically patched through Houston.

OK.

And what's the...

So Houston, Houston, the radio waves might have gone from Houston to the Moon and back, but then it was a regular phone line from Houston to the White House.

OK.

And by that, you mean land line, which back in the day were wires basically in the ground.

Yes.

We had talked to people, which were pretty fast.

I mean, we're talking electricity, but what was, yeah, but not the speed of light, not like a radar.

And also, also though, the call was extremely clear.

It's also the clarity.

There are a lot of people that say that even normal phone calls in 69 were that you'd have static, it wasn't clear.

Those were the days where like, operator, I need to make a call.

Yes.

And then, oh, you know, and you would hear the click over like relay station to relay station.

It would take some time and you get a clear call maybe, or you'd have static.

We're talking wires in the ground going across the country.

Yeah.

Also, the other thing is, if you also just imagine this too, you know, fine.

If you have a rocket and you get it to the moon, fine.

How are they getting back?

I was wondering the same thing.

Where's the rocket to...

Yeah.

I mean, it's a staggering amount of complexity to launch something that's moving in space and land somewhere else that's moving and all the relative motions and so forth.

That's not easy peasy.

No, not at all.

And the other thing that's also been brought to my attention is if you look at pictures of the flag that they planted, the flag looks like it's blowing in the wind.

Do you have wind in outer space?

So that's one.

It's ironic.

I'm anti-AI.

Well, not anti, but I see that it's trying to trick us into believe in stuff.

That's not true.

I'm using it here to ask AI this morning.

Why do people believe the Moonland's fake?

So it said flag waving in the wind on the moon.

And the US flag appears to ripple and there was no air on the moon.

Here's what chat said, the motion came from the astronauts twisting the pole and osculated because there was no atmosphere to damp it.

I swear, I swear that's the chat will make something up.

If it wants to prove its point to you, it will make this up just like it makes up a book or a blog post if you ask it to.

Right.

Which is why I'm very skeptical of AI and that could be a whole nother subject, but I'm not.

Here's why it's great.

I have a friend who said the same thing.

Well, we'll lose that battle.

No, because the more lies you tell, the deeper you dig the hole, right?

So the more lies AI tells me, the more I'm like, no, man, you're busted.

The more you try to explain it, the more I'm like, just give it up, start over.

I know what you mean.

Just want to mention one more quick topic, which is technocracy.

And I think I mentioned that to you before.

And that's kind of where we're going now in this kind of.

I don't know what that is.

So what does the term technocracy mean?

Hold on.

I wrote down the exact definition.

Let me just read the definition.

Technocracy is the government or control of society by an elite of technical experts.

Now, technocracy was a movement in the 1930s.

Obviously, in the Depression, people were really grasping at straws for anything.

But it's basically the idea that most people are too stupid to know what's good for them.

So we need, you know, technical experts in every field to decide everything.

And, you know, basically, we should have no choice and no ability to make decisions for ourselves.

That movement died.

But I believe it's very much alive and well right now through the UN and Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.

And I believe that's what the whole climate hoax is really about.

The whole climate hoax is about creating a desire and a need for people to give up their sovereignty to a group of experts who theoretically know better about how they should live their lives and to save the planet, so to speak.

Okay.

So I think that's why that's important.

But also, there are some interesting connections that I can make.

And that is, if you look at Elon Musk, for example, Elon Musk's maternal grandfather was the head of technocracy in Canada in the 1930s.

And this is a whole other subject, but I've done a little research into a lot of our super billionaires.

I was skeptical, mind you, from the beginning.

I am always skeptical.

These billionaires who, oh, I'm just smart and lucky.

Be it.

I call baloney.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anyone who's really an entrepreneur knows better, right?

You know someone or you know something.

And yeah, the Elon story, I was skeptical from the beginning.

And the other thing is, I mean, I could take Jeff Bezos, his grandfather was one of the was one of the founders of DARPA.

I don't know if you know DARPA.

DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Project arm of the Department of Defense.

And but John, for a moment though, I kind of see I can kind of take their side in that.

What if you, what do you mean?

Because are, I'm sorry to say it, there are, there are some people who are not very intelligent.

And it's not that they don't have other gifts and things to contribute.

But it's like you go to the doctor, you know, the doctor works on you.

You don't work on yourself just because you want to be a doctor.

I mean, maybe these people did have good intentions, like, you know, we, but maybe more transparency would help.

But then maybe they're like, we tried transparency and nobody voted for us.

So we're just going to go rogue and do our thing the way we need to.

Somehow, I don't think so.

I mean, honestly, and I could, there's so many things even if you look at evolution and Darwin's theory, which I don't believe that either.

I believe that essentially what you have is elitists who throughout the centuries have decided that they needed a reason to justify why they need to be at the top of society.

Which I can go with because then it's not based on smarter than you and I know it needs to be done and I'm going to do it because like global warming, we don't have enough time for you to, you're not smart enough to realize that I got to do it.

What you're saying is it's not about that intelligence.

It's about I want to rule the world.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I think that if you look at history, I mean, you go back to Genghis Khan, the Romans, you know, any civilization existed, their goal was to take over.

And I don't know why people live today and think that somehow that's not still the case.

They were in a democracy, in a free country.

And yeah, I voted.

Did you vote?

Yeah.

What did did human nature change?

I don't think so.

I think that people with power are always going to want more power.

I think that's just natural.

And I think that's what's going on.

And I do too.

I think this is a way for if there was a king or a queen, we would know who the king is and we could at least have our finger on it.

By going underground and not knowing who the king and the rulers really are, we can only complain about what we can see, which is, you know, well, it's, it's, you know, vote, you know, write your congressman.

Because we don't know who the real people that we should be who are trying to rule us.

We don't know who they are.

Well, I do, but okay, well, tell me, I would love to know because, um, tell me what, who you think is at the top of the food chain, trying to rule us.

Well, I mean, the top of the food chain mainly is the Rothschild family.

I heard that one.

The Rothschild banking family that basically owns all of the central banks around the world.

You know, that's, I mean, I actually lived in finance for 27 years.

So, you know, that actually was my field.

And, you know, it's really interesting that the central bank, our federal reserve, which is not federal and doesn't have reserves, essentially charges our government, in other words, taxpayers, six percent in order to print the money.

We pay interest on, we pay interest on the money that we use.

For why?

Why?

Right.

The biggest change we could make immediately is if we just got rid of the federal reserve and not charged or allowed them to charge interest.

To which, just when I think I'm making progress, maybe having conversations like this, my brother, who's very smart, he's an engineer, he must have saw it on TV or someplace because he goes, oh, the federal reserve, it's not federal, it's private.

Because if it was part of the government, it would be political and it would get messed up due to politics.

So it needs to be independent and private so that it's better.

I'm like, have you just thought about what you just said?

And where did you see that?

And how can you believe it?

Because you're such a smart person.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.

And if you also look at the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve was created on an island called Jekyll Island off of Georgia.

And the preeminent book on that was written by a man named G.

Edward Griffin, and it's called The Creature from Jekyll Island.

And what exactly happened is bankers from around the world, the Rothschilds had their representatives, Kuhn Loeb, Schiersen, the Lehman Brothers, and they all went to this island and they drew up the charter of the Federal Reserve.

But these were bankers drawing up rules for themselves.

So obviously-

Private.

So hello.

I mean, can I have a bank?

I'm private.

Can I have a Federal Reserve?

I'm private.

Who get the-

This doesn't make-

It doesn't make any sense all around.

It's hurting people, like you say, because they're charging us interest on money.

They create out of thin air.

It's even worse than that because they create inflation.

I mean, the truth is that when you say there's inflation, what that means is that they're printing too much money.

And remember that whoever gets the money earliest has an advantage.

If I print $1,000 and I now have the $1,000, I can spend it at the prevailing interest rate before inflation goes up.

So I've got it first.

The further you get away from the creation of the money, the less value that money will have.

I think that's one of the reasons Jeff K was assassinated because he actually, for the short time he was alive.

He was trying to put our currency on silver, yes, and get away from the Federal Reserve.

The American government, people don't realize on a dollar bill where it says, this is legal tender.

That's because it's not American money.

The Treasury didn't print it, then by the Constitution of the United States says, only the government can print money, which is why a dollar bill.

Which is actually why the Federal Reserve actually is unconstitutional.

That too.

And by the way, if you look at the history, there were two previous private banks before the Federal Reserve.

It's why the dollar bill says it's legal tender, blah, blah, blah, because it is unconstitutional if it were in fact actual government money.

That would be because only the government can make money, not the.

And to get in to get into the interesting point, if you look at the dollar bill, there's also the all seeing eye on the back of the bill.

And if you understand symbols and what that means, essentially that's a Freemason symbol.

And there are one of the other thing that JFK did, by the way, is he was trying to attack secret societies.

And there are a whole bunch of those.

There's the Freemasons, there's the Illuminati.

There's-

I wonder if Kennedy also knew the truth about the moon.

And that was another reason.

Well, we hadn't gone to the moon when he was killed.

Or even-

he was killed in 62 or 3.

And the moon landing was 69.

So he might have known that the plans were fake.

Something like that.

But I want to mention one other thing in relation to 9-11.

Because this is where I come up with the idea of potentially no planes.

And there was-

in 1962, there was something called Operation Northwoods.

At the time, the government wanted to invade Cuba.

And the Joint Chiefs of Staff came up with a plan they called Operation Northwoods, which was essentially a plan to blow up airliners, fly them into buildings, bomb ships at sea, and blame it on the Cuban government.

And one of the things they talked about is having planes that were literally remote-controlled, flying empty with fake passenger lists.

So when you look at that plan and then you look at 9-11, you say, well, maybe they took some stuff from that plan.

It would make much more sense to take over the navigation controls remotely than to believe a terrorist who wasn't a pilot could fly a plane to that skill level.

I agree.

I mean, I believe if there were planes, they were not flown by terrorists.

They were remote-controlled.

The technology, the remote-controls were hijacked.

Yeah.

Exactly.

But I mean, so Operation Northwoods is an interesting thing to look at because, you know, by the way, that plan never happened because Kennedy vetoed it.

But the interesting thing is, I mean, it got really close.

When the Joint Chiefs of Staff approve it, literally all Kennedy needed to do was sign it and they would have done it.

So it was that close to happening.

So back to present times, assume enough people become aware of 9-11 that they actually start to push for change in regard to Israel and how we work with them and even within our own government.

What might people expect as pushback, what in terms of misinformation from those sources, that they should look out in the news to see, no, you're being conned again.

They're giving you an excuse to explain why they did something.

Let's say I admit it, I did it, I did 9-11, but I had to do it for blah, blah, blah, your freedom, your security, whatever.

What should they be on the lookout maybe to recognize for?

No, you're being conned again.

Well, first of all, the funny thing is these people who want to control us, they really don't have a lot of different plans that they use.

You have to understand that the main factor that they use is fear.

This happened in COVID as well.

I mean, I was shocked that every night on the evening news during COVID, they had a death count.

I mean, to me, that was obvious propaganda trying to scare the public.

And then the reports of, oh, the funeral homes are overflowing.

We need ice trucks for the bodies.

It's like, I laughed at that because I knew it wasn't real.

So I'm going back from between New Mexico and Utah for work.

I live in Utah, go to New Mexico to work.

Go to New Mexico, and some guy is trying to tell me he works the hospital.

He's mad at me because I'm calling, I'm saying it's not that bad.

He's like, yeah, we have bodies stacked up in the double body bags and they're leaking.

We have no place to put them in.

I'm like, is this guy serious?

Has he seen it?

He couldn't have seen it, because I had just broken my hip rock climbing.

I'm in Utah.

I go to the ER and there is nobody in the hospital.

They let me right in because it's an emergency.

I'm a rock climber.

I broke my hip.

I go right in.

There's nobody there.

It can't be that black and white between the two states.

No.

So how did this guy get this in his head?

Because he's told it.

It doesn't mean he's seen it.

That's what he's told.

And he just buys it.

He believed it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, I actually have some smart friends in New York who, you know, there was this hospital that was supposedly, I think, Elmhurst Hospital supposedly had the most cases of people dying of COVID.

Friends who actually went there just to see for themselves.

And they said the hospital was empty.

Right.

Yeah.

So how do we get, is it even possible?

Because I believed at one time in global warming, I believed in the war on terror.

I believed all this stuff.

How do we get it to where it doesn't take 20 or 30 years before everyone changes?

Because we're not going to make anything different if you don't get quicker at responding to realizing you're being lied to.

Exactly.

I mean, to me, I think the key is, and this goes into some of the psychological experiments that have been done in the 1960s and in MKUltra.

The most important thing, and I've actually seen this in my own life, is that the people who understand what's going on have to not comply, and they have to not comply in an open way where other people see them not complying, because we are herd animals.

And if we only see people doing one thing, we're more likely to do that thing also.

However, if we see people saying, no, I'm not going to do this, then you increase the odds of other people saying the same and doing the same and rejecting the prognosis of the ones who want to scare us.

It reminds me of wearing a mask or not.

No, I was definitely one that's not wear it at all or do this with it instead of this.

As much as I could, I would.

No, I didn't wear a mask either.

And it's like people were so crazy.

It's like, and also the insanity of a lot of it.

Like, for example, in a restaurant, you had to wear a mask to go to your table, but you got there and you could just take it off.

I mean, how does that make sense?

Well, I was one of the first musicians, songwriters to play at this restaurant, bar restaurant, when COVID was starting to open up.

And they did exactly what you're saying.

Okay, you can play music, but you have to be seated as if you're eating dinner.

This was their loophole.

And in front of me, they had this plexiglass.

Well, I'm so tall, I'm sitting and my face is right over the plexiglass, where all these people are sitting on the patio.

I didn't sit down, I don't sit down, I'm standing.

I stood up, but that was their loophole.

You gotta sit, Daniel.

Then it's okay to play music, we think.

All ridiculous.

And none of it is based on science.

And this is another thing that I think, because I always think about words, and I think words are very important and intentional.

And when people say something, and they said this about climate change, and they said this about COVID, they said the science is settled.

Okay, if you hear that term, science is settled, that's not science, that's called religion.

Well, we don't know everything.

Science is never settled.

Real science is always open to investigation, always open to new data.

But religion is not.

Religion is dogmatic.

So when you hear somebody say it's settled, or this is the way it is, and there's no other possibility, that's not science.

Right.

Yeah, unfortunately again, I know people like during COVID, for example, I knew someone who said for fact as if it was a fact, if you get vaccinated, you cannot get the COVID.

I'm like, all you have to do is read the newspaper.

No, you know that, everyone knows that's not true.

But they were still like, it's a fact.

Because that's what they originally said and that was their lie.

And they stuck to it.

And, you know, this goes back to also what Hitler said and what all the propagandists have said throughout time.

And that is that the bigger the lie you tell, the better.

Because if you tell a huge lie and you keep repeating it, people will believe it.

And they'll believe it because it is such a tremendous lie that they can't comprehend the idea that it wouldn't be true.

So back to helping people think better, is there any hope then or are we just going to have a majority of the population believe the bigger lie when it's told and it's going to take them 20 years to question it like with 9-11?

As I said, I think that the only way to break through that is with people who do understand not conforming in an obvious way so that other people can see.

I'll give you an example.

I mean, I didn't wear a mask walking around during COVID.

I remember times where people who were wearing masks would see me without and they would pull their mask down.

I'm not saying that happened all the time, but the fact that they saw me not complying, it gave them permission to do the same.

Right?

Yeah, kudos to you.

Yeah, butterfly felt.

We actually had a kind of scary event in a subway once.

I was with four of my friends and none of us were wearing a mask.

And the police actually came onto the train and they were threatening to arrest us if we didn't put a mask on.

But we were all very calm, very polite, and said, no, thank you, we're not going to wear a mask.

And, you know, the police stayed there and they were very aggressive.

But at the end of the day, they said, OK, and they got off the train and we we triumphed because we didn't put masks on and we stuck to our guns.

Nice.

And, you know, I know a lot of people witnessed that.

And I just think that something like that can have an effect.

Oh, it definitely does.

Definitely.

So you mentioned MKUltra.

To me, that's I don't even remember what that is.

I think it's kind of way out there.

What is it, real quick, the MKUltra mine?

MKUltra was mind control experiments done in the 1950s and 60s.

And basically, it was uncovered in the 70s.

Rolling Stone wrote an article about it.

It was awful.

They literally took homeless people, prostitutes, even college students, people who they felt wouldn't be missed, so to speak, if something went wrong.

And they were testing LSD on them and they were literally abusing them.

They were trying to figure out how to control the mind, how to plant ideas, how to get people to follow certain things, forget certain memories.

If you know the movie The Manchurian Candidate, essentially, that came out of MKUltra, because one of the things they were trying to, you know, how do you create, you know, a sniper, a, you know, an assassin, that's right.

How do you make somebody into an assassin so that they don't remember what they did after they did it?

I mean, these are all experiments that were done regarding psychology.

Because then you could use that to try to assassinate in another country a world leader.

And when they interrogated your guy, if they caught him or her, they wouldn't remember who or why the US government sent them or the CIA.

They'd have no.

Incidentally enough, Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Robert Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, it is believed by a lot of people that he was a Manchurian candidate in the sense that he was interviewed after the incident after killing Kennedy.

And he literally in interviews had said, I didn't know where I was.

I thought I was at a firing range.

So it is believed that he may have been the first literal Manchurian candidate actually used to kill somebody.

And why is this part real significant to you?

You told me in the things we could talk about, 9-11, fake moon landings.

Why is that part so, that piece of puzzle so important?

What, MKUltra?

Yeah.

Because I think that it speaks to propaganda, it speaks to, you know, I think that the whole COVID narrative was a propaganda campaign that came out of their knowledge of human behavior.

Oh, okay, I see.

They got the playbook on how to manipulate people's thoughts and beliefs.

Exactly, exactly.

So, you know, and I think they've gotten really, really good at it.

And I think the news does that, you know.

Which explains why my older brother, who's a genius, is so easily got the wool pulled over his eyes.

And I'm trying to figure out the little piece of the MKUltra, the knowledge that the MKUltra people have.

How is that changing my brother's beliefs?

Mind control.

Also, it's like, it's the same kind of things that cults do, for example, like remember, they told you to stand six feet away and, you know, they weren't allowing people to see their parents and you weren't allowed to have big gatherings for holidays.

You know, when people are isolated, they're more likely to listen to authority.

The six foot one was definitely one that I just laughed at.

Yeah, like there's some science behind this six foot rule.

Like I'd love to see that data.

There is none.

But you know, all of this is, you know, what they've gained out of their experiments.

And then there was, I don't know if you've heard of Edward Bernays.

I mean, there's so many different.

No, but I just thought of a solution.

If we can get the playbook or at least start thinking about what the playbook might have been, we can reverse play it.

Like if you know how, like a chess move, if you know the possible plays, like a football team, if you knew the football team's playbook, then you would have a better offense defense because you would know how to better react to it because you know the plays.

Right, well, that's why I say one of the ways to react to it is to visibly disobey.

And that actually came out of the Milgram experiment and also there's something called the Ash Conformity Experiment where basically they did the experiment in many different ways.

And if people were not allowed to see a person go before them and disobey, they almost always obeyed what they were, did what they were told.

Something like 80% of people did what they were told if they were not able to see somebody, you know, say no.

But if somebody said no before them, that 80% that went along went down to 10%.

No is a key word.

It's a big difference when you see when you essentially have permission to go against what you're told.

And I think but I also think that there are some people, there are 20% of people that just won't go along regardless.

They're too afraid.

No, they understand.

They just they're just not manipulatable.

Oh, okay.

They have 20%.

There's a certain percentage of people that are just critical thinkers naturally and just don't follow along.

Now, what do you suppose the Rothschilds or the world elite would do if everybody started to disobey, say no, and, you know, even the cops aren't going to enforce it because they're saying no.

What would they do then?

What could they do?

I don't, honestly, I don't know.

And that could even get scarier because one of the things that could be on their plate is a limited nuclear war.

I mean, one of the...

If I can't have it, I'll blow it up.

Well, they are very much psychopathic, and I don't want to get...

I don't know if you're religious at all, but I would personally say that these people in control are Satanists.

And whether you believe there actually is a Satan or not is to me irrelevant because they're following satanistic principles.

And those principles exist, whether Satan exists or not.

What do you think of the...

Probably heard of the reptilians or the idea there's some other energy or entity that's non-physical that's controlling people like Rothschilds, which could be like Satan.

Putting your religion aside for, could it be another force that's non-physical?

I have a hard time with that.

If I want to get religious, I would say, I wouldn't say reptilian, I would say demons.

That works too?

Absolutely.

More relatable, understandable, common.

I would say demons, and I believe that there are essentially demonic entities, whether you...

I don't know if you call them reptilian or not, but I do believe...

I like the way you used demonic because that fits into religion.

It's the same thing in the end, whether you call it a reptile or satan or...

It works anyhow in terms of the process, because then basically we have the Israeli government officials, they are possessed possibly by the demons.

Well, they're possessed.

In the religious bent, you would say that in order to gain power, you have to give up your soul to the demonic entities.

And one of the things, and this is a whole nother ball game, but that I've discovered is that in the olden days, we know that there were child sacrifices and people sacrificed to various deities, whether it be Baal or Moloch or Satan.

And I, in doing a lot of research, have discovered, unfortunately, I think that those child sacrifices still exist today and always have and never stopped.

It's just that now they're underground.

And, you know, they're not publicized.

I mean, 300 to 500,000 kids disappear in this country every year, never to be seen again.

Yep.

What do you think is happening to them?

Human sacrifices, sex trafficking.

Well, if it was sex trafficking, and they'd eventually they'd eventually surface again.

Oh, so imagining I'm the demon, and I can't make you push the button on nuclear war, my options are basically to go find another planet or solar system or physical world than to dominate because I can't get it here.

And then I'd leave the humans alone.

There'd be world peace.

Yeah, that would be nice.

Yeah, maybe.

But, you know, I mean, I do believe, by the way, in multiple dimensions.

I don't know if you do.

I mean, it's that's quantum physics, the idea that, you know, we live in a universe, but there could be a parallel universe literally right next door to us, or even in it, in us.

And, you know, it's kind of like a radio station.

You know, you turn the dial on the radio and you at some point you pick up a station.

But if you keep turning, you're going to pick up another station.

Well, in physics, it's pretty commonly accepted or it's just an observation.

The theoretical physicist can't observe the small particles, the quarks and things they study, and measure them at the same time.

I can't put a yardstick to it and see it at the same time.

It's mind-blowing because that means, like you say, well, why?

And that kind of supports the idea of these other alternate realities, these, what did you call them, places you can go.

Different dimensions.

Different dimensions, yeah.

Well, one of the things I also think about is when you look at CERN, the Large Hadron Collider, there are a lot of people who think that CERN, with its collider, has the ability to push us into parallel dimensions or open up portals so that creatures or beings can come from one dimension into our dimension temporarily.

Now again, that's way out there.

I'm not saying I believe it.

Actually, to me, it's common sense.

I don't need to believe in a religion or the devil to just follow the rationale.

We have very bad people and it could just be bad, but a possession makes more sense on some level or possible.

And if it's a possession, then we can find a solution for that.

Like anything, you can find the problem, you can find the solution.

By the way, you see that in some of our musical stars, like for example, Beyonce, she literally says that her on-stage persona is Sasha Fierce.

And to her, that Sasha Fierce is literally a different person, a different being who possesses her during her concerts.

Now, that could actually be true.

Yeah.

I actually think that's an easier solution than just thinking you can vote and change your congressman's mind because everyone has their own beliefs.

If we're just being possessed by the devil or the demons, I can wrap my head around the solution for that a lot easier.

I can see the king.

I can remember talking, who's the king at the top?

We'll find him, then we can develop a solution, right?

But I mean, this is all really super interesting.

But I think for me, it's really funny because when I was in school, I hated history.

I really did.

It was boring as all hell.

Because all they talked about was there was this war and this year, and this one beat that one.

But in a lot of my travels and studying and reading things and looking back at what actually happened, I remember a few things from teachers would, I had a good teacher who said, remember the history is always written by the winners, or at least the official history.

So in order to know the truth, you have to look into alternate histories and alternate views.

And in my research, it's in looking at all these alternate views that things have really started to make sense.

And you start to put dots together and say, wow, okay, now this happened because that happened, and this connects to that.

And it makes it much more understandable.

And there are some really very bad people in our past.

Rockefellers are awful.

They were awful human beings.

John D.

Rockefeller was disgusting.

I mean, he controlled our education system, he controlled our whole allopathic medical system was created by him.

He, you know, controlled banking, he controlled oil.

And later on, his descendants are the ones that pushed us into the climate change shit.

I mean, oddly enough, it was a petroleum executive by the name of John L.

Strong, who started the whole climate change thing at the Rio conference in 1992.

Yeah, I've heard the name Strong before.

Yeah, he was actually connected to the Rockefellers.

And, you know, so Henry Kissinger was connected to the Rockefellers.

And then Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum was connected to Henry Kissinger.

Kissinger discovered Schwab.

So it's like all of these people have connections.

Or possessions, or a deal with the devil.

Something like that.

I'm not going to say they're possessed or not.

But, you know, and then you look at all of the different secret societies that exist.

Like, I'll give you another one.

The Council on Foreign Relations is a US think tank.

And every secretary of state since the early 1930s, when the council was formed, has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

What it comes down to is our government, our politicians are not making laws.

They're not making any decisions.

They're being told what to do.

Just break the words down.

Council on Foreign Relations.

This is not like me and you getting together and deciding we're going to, you know, talk about foreign relations.

Like you say, these are high level officials, which means they're making the policies as a group outside of Congress.

Why would they spend the time doing that unless they knew it was going to be effective?

These are busy, well-to-do people that don't waste their time.

You could say that's valid, because we all have the right to have an association.

Every business industry has an association, even the Tennis Racket Association or the Golf Association.

And I guess they still have the right to lobby the government.

I guess it comes back to though, do people really believe their vote counts?

And I vote for a congressman, and that's what matters when they just need to pull their head out of the sand and realize that, no, it's the stuff like the Council of Foreign Relations and other groups that are pulling the strings.

Exactly.

I mean, there's actually a very famous interview with Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State.

And the Council on Foreign Relations, they started in New York City, but they had just opened up an office in Washington, DC.

And it was asked by a reporter who said to her, so how do you feel about the Council on Foreign Relations being down the street now?

And Hillary, without skipping a beat, said, I think it's really great.

Now I don't have to go so far to get my marching orders.

Yeah.

And people might have thought that she was being funny, but I don't think she was being funny at all.

I think she was being literal.

And for the people that still think that's conspiratorial, look at from the other side.

Like your Hillary, just for a moment to open mind, you want to do the right thing.

You want to go to the experts, and you see that the Consul on Foreign Relations happens to have a lot of experts.

You would go there because you would trust them.

Now, what about your voters?

You go back, you know what?

You don't really know what you're talking about.

It's my job to do my job in Congress, so I trust these people.

It's not conspiracy, it's just getting, she's getting caught in her way of thinking and sucked into it and manipulated and so forth under that logic.

Just trying to present the other side of the logic.

I see the other side.

I don't buy it, though, because there's so many of these organizations.

And if you look at what actually, I look at what happens.

I say to myself, look, if government really wanted to make things better for the average person, they would.

Why is it that the rich always get richer?

Why is it that the lower classes get poorer?

Why is it that the middle class disappears?

These things are not happening by accident.

They're happening on purpose.

Because those at the top are grabbing more and more for themselves.

So I don't believe these think tanks are doing the right thing.

Right.

So to beat down Hillary now, to, I just gave her make-believe credit.

For that to be true, she'd also have to not be a critical thinker, because if she was a critical thinker, she'd be like, wait a minute, people put me in this position for me to think for myself.

I don't need that console.

If they want to run for Congress, they can.

This is my job now.

And I'm thinking for myself.

And I don't think I need them.

I'll go ask my voters, that kind of thing.

Exactly.

But so many of me, there's the Club of Rome, there's Chatham House.

You can't keep up with them.

It's like just when you think you have a handle on who to watch and know about, it's staggering.

They've definitely spread out like insects, like a disease.

You can't swat them all down.

They're saturated with the organizations.

Yeah.

I mean, there's the Bilderberg Group too.

I mean, I've heard of them.

It's like, and they have all these meetings.

And the interesting thing about the Bilderberg Group is for the first like 20 years of their existence, they denied that they existed until somebody broke into one of their meetings and proved that they actually existed, and then they had to admit it.

Question, why were they hiding in the first place?

Yeah, it comes back to that thing again.

You have the right to do that, but then do we really have the right to influence Congress or make laws and so forth, being covert?

And whether you do or not, for the rest of us, you know, we need to, for us to really have good change in the world, we gotta know about these things.

And I guess, like you say, when just use our gut feeling, our intuition and say no.

Yeah, you have to use your intuition.

You have to have discernment.

You have to be able to see propaganda when it's pushed at you.

And you have, you know, I think that the most important thing is to understand that the goal is to put you into a state of fear.

Because in a state of fear, that is part of how you're manipulated.

That's what came out of MKUltra.

One of the things anyway, is that people in fear are much more likely to obey what they're told because they go into fight or flight mode and their ability to critical think is reduced, sometimes removed completely.

So whenever I hear a news story that's somewhat, quote, fearful, whether it be a new COVID variant or, you know, bird flu or whatever, you know, I just think it's just bullshit.

They're just trying to make me scared.

And I say that to myself and I understand it.

And so I don't go there.

I don't go to fear.

Yep.

Is there anything we haven't talked about you'd like to add in terms of topics?

I could always add, but it's been a long time.

But I mean, I think that to me, and as I said, I love history now.

And I think that one of the things that's important is in order to understand where you are and how to get out of where you are, if you have a problem, it's important to also understand how you got there in the first place.

You know, it's like you can't get out of the woods unless you know how you, you know, you're lost in the woods.

You can't get out unless you know how you got in.

And, you know, this, a lot of this goes back to the early 19th century with Rockefeller, the Rothschilds, the, I don't know if you've heard of Cecil Rhodes.

He was the diamond magnet.

He was financed by the Rothschilds, ended up dying.

In his will, he left a lot of money to be given to people.

You've heard of Rhodes Scholars, right?

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.

Now, the actual intention of Rhodes Scholars is to pick people who have no morals, who will basically rise to power and do what you want them to do.

And Cecil Rhodes formed something in London called the Roundtable Group, which was a group of people, wealthy people like him, who were trying to basically steer world events.

There's a very good podcast done by James Corbett.

It's in three parts about World War I, where he actually lays out how this Roundtable Group actually started and created World War I.

Because one of the things they found out very early was that wars are very profitable.

And one of the things the Rothschilds did to make themselves money is they always financed both sides of every war.

In the Revolutionary War here, they financed the English, they financed the colonists.

In the French Revolution...

Well, you gotta keep the war going longer.

So if one side has an advantage too much, the war will be over too soon.

So you gotta keep both sides.

Yeah, but the point is they realized if they finance both sides, both sides are gonna end up paying the principal back eventually with interest.

So it's a way of basically...

Not to mention the fact that they also own a lot of the defense contractors, so they make money that way too.

But you finance both sides and you can make money both ways.

The other thing that they do is they do something called controlled resistance, which may be why you're allowed to talk Palestine right now, by the way, which is one of the things that Rothschild said is that if you're going to play a game, you should control both teams.

And not only should you control both teams, but you want to own the refs as well.

Because then you can basically control how everything goes down.

And they are aware that they're going to get pushback against things that they do that hurt people.

So they create opposition to themselves that they control.

So that opposition is there so that people see it and they don't form real opposition.

Also, they don't follow the logic.

They're like, well, you know, they can't logically work things out because it's not like...

They wouldn't have thought of that logic, like we're being played by both ends.

Kind of like Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Really, you're going to vote one or the other?

You've been played.

Either side you play, you're being played.

Right.

I mean, personally, I don't vote.

This is a whole other issue.

I can say, actually, my last guest, first time has actually felt OK to say, he said it first.

I'm like, I don't vote either and people give me hard time.

I refuse to play a game that is a game.

And I can't say that to my family because they're like, it's your right to vote.

You need to vote.

So you go for it, John.

Actually, I disagree.

I say that, you know, the movie Wargames?

Yeah, 1980s.

1980s, the motto in that line is, the best logic is not to play.

And I view voting that way.

I think, I actually think that the reason that they push you to vote is because if you vote, you are essentially agreeing to the system.

You are agreeing to participate in that system of so-called democracy.

I think the only...

You're holding on to the belief, because you have nothing else to your religion, nothing else to take as a place.

You're holding on to the belief, when you should just let it go, that you're not being played.

It's cognitive dissonance.

If I don't vote, I'm actually recognizing it's a game.

And I think people can't handle that.

I know.

That is one of the hardest things I have in speaking to people, is to get them to try and understand that politics is a stage show.

And behind the scenes, the same people that run the Republican Party are running the Democratic Party.

For me, it was real easy.

So I had a long run on this, John.

I voted for George, here's how, I'm almost embarrassed to say it, but this is how I can speak now.

I voted for George Bush Senior.

And then when the Junior ran, I voted for Al Gore.

So now I'm on both sides of the extremes.

George Bush Senior, hardcore Republican, dad, and then Al Gore, climate change, believed it.

And I finally realized I was being played when Al Gore gave up too easily.

That guy just almost smiled as he read his concession speech on the steps of the Supreme Court as if, I mean, Donald Trump would go down, kicking and screaming, right?

I'm like, something's not right here, man.

I'm like, that was it.

You know, to the Trump fans, Donald Trump isn't the answer to anything either.

And neither was neither was Biden.

It's just a back and forth.

And in actuality, I think that is why they switch back between one party and the other.

Exactly.

It's too.

It goes back to a bomb.

It's two faces of the same coin, though.

It's the same.

The policies don't change very much.

And then you get into surveillance.

And by the way, getting just quickly moving back to 9-11.

The other thing that came out of 9-11 is the surveillance state, you know, the Patriot Act and all of the mass surveillance that we have today.

That would never have been possible without 9-11.

Which is, I think, one of the conspiracy people really believe is one of the main reasons for it all.

All the laws and the terrorist laws that came in after that.

Anti-terrorism, war on terror, all those.

And also, think about the terminology.

We had the war on drugs, the war on terror.

It's always the war on this, the war on that, you know?

Yeah.

It's not a goal.

It's a prevents.

It's, yeah, the language doesn't provide an end game.

We, it's not like we're, there's someplace we're going to.

It's, there's no solution.

There's no destination offered, like peace.

What about the goal?

What about the goal for peace?

You know?

Yeah.

It's not the strive for peace, the effort for peace.

It's the war on terror.

So we can't strive for peace.

You know what I'm saying?

The semantics with the words, with the language.

And also the propaganda that they use when they have like the war on terror, which Bush said, you know, if you're not with us, then you're with the terrorists.

I mean, that's bullshit.

Yeah.

Are you with us or are you against us?

This is another one they pull of the hat.

That's just a manipulation.

Yeah.

To which you got to be prepared to answer that.

Are you with me or against me?

I'll throw it back at you.

Are you with me or against me?

Okay.

How about neither?

Yeah, exactly.

That's actually a common, like in life coaching, common thing that people don't realize.

It's one or the other.

I have to take this job or that job.

Can you look for a third job?

Is there only two options?

That's something they do try to do to you though.

Sure.

The Democrats, Republicans, one or two, war or no war.

No war or no war with us.

I know.

And the funny thing is that if you look at Trump today, Trump is bringing in the surveillance state like you would not believe.

With the digital IDs that he's going to be pushing, he's talking CBDCs and crypto currencies.

And basically JD Vance is a Peter Thiel operative.

So you have Palantir and the government getting huge contracts to have drones that could literally be used to assassinate US citizens at some point.

You have him talking about people who are noticing what's going on in Gaza, as calling them terrorists, calling people who are conspiracy theorists.

I would be labeled a terrorist under the current government, because I believe in conspiracies.

It's just ridiculous.

And all of this is happening under Trump, and because it's Trump, the Republicans are okay with that.

But if Biden was doing the same policy, they would be against it.

It's like what happened with the vaccine.

Trump created the vaccine, and all the Democrats said, I'm not taking that, I'm not taking that, Trump created it.

As soon as Biden took over, they were all over it, because it was their guy.

It's like, it's crazy.

It sounds like you've studied this a lot, John.

I really appreciate you being real crystal clear.

You got a lot of, you cited a lot of facts, names, figures.

You're not just making this stuff up.

So a lot of good stuff.

And I said, there's a lot more in depth that I could go.

And I think if you want to do a second part at some point, what I'd really like to do is give your listeners places to look, to find the information that I'm talking about.

Because one of the things that I firmly believe is I don't believe anybody should just listen to me and take my word at face value any more than they should listen to anybody else's word at face value.

But I have receipts.

I have places I've looked.

We can put some of them in the show notes and give them to me in a second.

But ironically, when I asked ChatGBT, what's the solution to the conspiracies other than following the government with blind faith and we can't trust that?

And ironically, what you said is exactly what Chat said for once, give me an answer I kind of agree with.

It's the trust issue.

So how do you fix the trust?

So Chat literally said, you got to see it for yourself.

With climate change, you got to see the data for yourself.

And so what you're saying is very reasonable.

I think that's the answer.

So what are a few things real quick, places, sources?

Like for example, if you want to look into technocracy and I think that considering all that's happening with the surveillance and moving to essentially what I think is going to be a social credit score and controlled money and all everything else.

The best documentary I found is something called The Agenda.

And it's by a man by the name of Patrick Woods.

He is considered to be the preeminent expert on technocracy.

So I highly recommend that.

It's about two hours, but it's absolutely worth it because it is very well explained what technocracy is, how we got here and where we're going.

What's his name again?

Patrick Woods.

Got it.

What about 9-11?

9-11, I think that the best person for 9-11 is James Corbett, of the Corbett Report.

He has done many, many different documentaries, one called 9-11 Trillions Follow the Money, which basically follows the money trail of 9-11, which is interesting because a lot of people made tons of money in the stock market on 9-11 by buying put options on airlines and buying call options on defense contractors.

You know, essentially, there were people who knew what was going to happen before it happened, but they were never investigated, so nothing was ever done.

But people made millions and millions on that day.

So in a real investigation, we're talking about we're going to have a real investigation in 9-11.

Those people, seriously, you're going to tell me, you just arbitrarily put a put on airlines or whatever.

Yeah.

And arbitrarily put a, you know, bought some stock in defense or bought this.

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

You know, also, I mean, there's Larry Silverstein, who owned the Trade Centers, who actually six weeks before the so-called attacks, he bought a terrorist insurance policy on the buildings.

Afterwards, of course, I have my own business, and relentlessly, when you're getting errors in emissions insurance, they're going to, after that, they gave you this form to sign in terms of, do you want to buy terrorist insurance?

Why would I need to buy terrorist insurance?

Are you kidding me?

And they scare you if you're not going to buy it as if nothing, if you don't buy this, you're not insured for anything else.

I'm not buying that.

Yeah, but the odd thing about that too was that not only did he buy terrorist insurance on both buildings, but he actually valued the buildings at double what they were actually worth.

So he made a huge bet, which obviously paid off.

And the other thing is, which was very interesting, is Larry Silverstein was known to have breakfast at Windows on the World every day of the week.

Do you know that on that Tuesday, 9-11, he did not go to Windows on the World and have breakfast?

And that's why they call him Lucky Larry, although I'm not going to think that it's luck.

Yeah.

I don't find any luck in that at all.

That's just, we can't prove it.

It's just another thing that fuels why people don't question the official.

So what come to my mind is, is it possible, all this is in the news now, to make people realize 9-11 was an inside job, who would benefit from that?

Who would benefit from actually people becoming more aware, besides people?

That's a good question.

And I don't think that the investigation is intended to really find the real culprits.

But if it did.

Well, I'm even thinking of Carl Tuckerson.

I'm going to be a conspiracy.

Thank you.

I'm going to go way deep conspiratorial thinking now.

It's good that people find out the truth.

But generally, the government doesn't want us to know the truth.

So why, who would benefit if it wasn't the government that would want us to know something else?

And still have it be a devious kind of, it's all it's in my best interest.

Is there anybody like that?

It's in my best interest for you guys to discover this truth now.

I just have to wonder because...

I'm just going to say, there are some things that are Biblical, and I don't know if you want to go there or not.

But I mean, there are Biblical prophecies about end times.

And if you look into the Zionists and what they believe, they believe that in order to get to end times, there will come a time where everybody, the world will be against Israel.

And then God will come and save Israel.

This is just prophecy under Jewish tradition, Zionists specifically.

So perhaps…

The Zionists, the Zionists would want it.

Yes, they would want it because they would want to bring that prophecy to reality, that the world turns against Israel.

And that would happen if it was found out that Masad was behind 9-11.

And the Zionists, they would not be part of the same team that wanted the seven wars and wanted Israel to kill Palestinians and so forth.

That would be a different group of people, the Zionists.

No, it wouldn't because part of turning everybody against Israel were all those wars in the Middle East.

Okay.

And if it's found out that the Zionists were behind getting the US to be involved in that, would that not look very poorly on them?

So the same people potentially, 9-11 could be the Zionists trying to expose it now?

Potentially, and I know that sounds strange.

But it's just understanding biblical prophecy.

And of course, I'm not saying biblical prophecy is true.

I'm just trying to expose what their thought process is.

Well, it's a good process.

You don't have to believe in the religion or not.

There's a lot of crazy religious people out there that do crazy stuff in the name of religion.

You don't have to believe in the religion to go, oh, I see why you're doing that or not.

Exactly.

So I find that interesting.

But let me just give you a few organizations that are involved in 9-11 Truth that you can put in the notes.

So there's AE911 Truth, which is Architects Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

There's also PF911 Truth, which is Pilots for 9-11 Truth.

They're both.org, by the way.

And there's also 911firefighters.org is another one.

And I would also recommend that if people are interested to look up Plan for a New American Century and read it.

Because one of the things that was mentioned in that document is that they're planned to have seven wars in five years.

It would be very difficult to pull off absent a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.

They actually use that term, like a new Pearl Harbor.

And I don't know if you remember.

I think the towers are like Pearl Harbor, got us into that war.

The towers got us into the war on terror.

That's a pretty good analogy.

But what I was going to say is one of the first things that Bush said about the terrorist attacks is he said, this is our Pearl Harbor.

He used the same terminology, as is in the document, which I find interesting.

As he had already thought that far ahead when the event's happening.

Not, oh, shoot, I better get to New York and help people.

No, this is our Pearl.

Like, his first thought is this will help me get into another war.

Not, oh, dang, the city of New York's under attack.

Yeah.

What is your priorities?

Like, where is your first thought going to?