TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims a confiscated FBI video from 9/11 has surfaced, proving a scud missile, not a plane, hit the target. They allege that for twenty years, communities have suspected a missile strike, but witnesses were silenced, and the FBI concealed the video evidence. The speaker asserts the video clearly shows a scud missile, not a plane, and accuses a "deep steak cabal" of orchestrating the event and promoting a false narrative in the 9/11 report, which stated the plane disintegrated. They believe the missile targeted a specific marking, which was ignored, and that the public bought into the lie.

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. The speaker admits to previously attacking people who questioned 9/11. The speaker states they are now ashamed of this behavior, but admits to doing it on tape more than once. The speaker claims their reasoning at the time was that questioning 9/11 was divisive. The speaker concludes that they were a child and an idiot at the time.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 argue that some conservatives sound a lot like the Marxist Islamists at an event. They say there's a grievance culture on the left that blames the West, Israel, capitalism, and the Jews, while a mirrored far-right view claims 'America actually was never great. America never landed on the moon' and that a shadowy group is manipulating all of this. They note conservatives sprinkle 'kooks' and 'American haters' into weekend events to maintain the big tent. They warn that because you vote Republican doesn't make you the preacher at the front of the church, if they spend all day criticizing the president as 'covering up a Mossad rape ring' or 'being a tool of the Israelis for hitting an Iranian nuclear facility.' Reverence should be 'the fundamental tenets of the American Republic,' and abandoning them for a pseudo coalition is a 'gigantic moral and political mistake.'

He was the lone shooter. He acted alone. The binders were blank, and we didn't know the media was gonna be there, and the binders are blank. And if you don't think that they're blank, you're antisemitic. You're antisemitic. You're unamerican. Unamerican. The towers fell. The planes hit the towers. Weapons of mass destruction. There's weapons of mass destruction. War. We need to go to war. China's coming. Russia's coming. Iran is coming. Ripped to the SS Liberty. Accountability's coming. Wear your mask. Did you see my hearing? Look at my jeans. Did you see me in my pajamas? Are you asking questions? Don't ask questions. Didn't do it. It wasn't us. We didn't do it. Are you an anti Semite? Are you racist? Are you bigoted un American? You're un American.

I'm a "no planer," meaning I don't believe planes were used in the 9/11 attacks. People believe what they saw on TV, but there was no plane wreckage at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Remotely controlling a plane that size to hit the towers dead center is nearly impossible. Flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville, but there was minimal wreckage, unlike a typical plane crash. The plane supposedly went underground at 580 mph, yet a hijacker's bandana and a passport were found at the site. Also, cell phone calls from the planes at high altitudes wouldn't have been possible with the technology at the time. Experienced pilots couldn't replicate the attacks in a simulator at high speeds, and exceeding a plane's maximum operating speed like that would be extremely difficult and dangerous.

"In the morning of 09/11/2001, 19 men armed with box cutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily defended airspace in the world." "Osama bin Laden." "NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC seven's collapse." "This man never existed nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention." "They dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it." "The rescue of Jessica Lynch." "This is the story of nine eleven brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about"

Speaker 0 asserts that 9/11 was a MacLeod operation and emphasizes that the third World Trade Center building (WTC 7) went down as evidence; he argues that if one building was wired for demolition, all of them were. He states that after showing this to contacts at the Army War College and the headquarters Marine Corps, it became clear to him that 9/11 was a controlled demolition scenario. He claims that 09/11 led directly to sixty thousand Americans dead and wounded, and suggests hundreds of thousands more in other countries were killed, wounded, or made homeless. He warns that if Americans ever understand that Israel did this, they will “scrub them off the earth” and will not care about the cost, implying that Zionists are conducting an all-or-nothing strategy because losing this would end them. He contends that it will be a “bloody brutal war” and that the Zionists are “gone” if Americans realize what happened. He reiterates that three buildings went down, with the third not being hit by a plane, and that it was wired for controlled demolition, implying all of them were. He describes presenting a picture and asking others to simply look at it without argument, and states that, without exception, they concluded that they did it on 9/11. Speaker 1 recalls that at the time of the event, he did not know who did it, but based on his experience in the Marine Corps and in demolition, it was definitely a controlled blast, a controlled drop, and that this could not be denied.

In this video, two speakers discuss their views on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 2 left a Ron Paul event when someone mentioned that 9/11 was an inside job. Speaker 2 explains that he found it stupid and lacking evidence. Speaker 1 then asks about Building 7, to which Speaker 2 dismisses the conversation as a no-win situation. They briefly discuss their support for Ron Paul and their views on government involvement in terrorism. Speaker 2 expresses his dislike for conspiracy theories without evidence. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 mentioning Alex Jones and Speaker 2 reiterating the need for evidence in conspiracy claims.

"On the morning of 09/11/2001, 19 men armed with box cutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily defended airspace in the world." "Overpowering the passengers and the military combat train pilots on four commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor." "These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who like to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink haired strippers..." "Osama bin Laden." "That investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest, and a cover up from start to finish." "It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed." "This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise, you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity." "This has been a public service announcement by Because ignorance is strength."

The speakers discuss their views on Building 7 and the 9/11 attacks. Speaker 0 believes that the buildings came down due to isolated pockets of fire or controlled demolition. They express frustration with conspiracy theories and wish those who promote them would be kicked out. Speaker 1 mentions the history of government-sponsored terror and questions whether the government was involved in 9/11. Speaker 0 dismisses these ideas, stating that real evidence is needed before making such claims. Speaker 1 argues that the implications are significant and that evidence withheld by the government should be released. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of making things worse for the victims' families.

Speaker 0 references the World Trade Center bombing and a diplomat who allegedly issued a terrorist visa with CIA involvement. Speaker 1 expresses disbelief at a plan to fake a terrorist event to secure congressional funding. Speaker 0 responds that faking the deaths of 4,000 people is impossible, implying the event must be real. Speaker 0 adds the event should not be blamed on Muslims.

The first participant asks the second to identify who did each major event. For MLK Jr., the second participant says, “That was a CI operation because they considered him a dangerous communist. And but the FBI was bugging the, in churches where he was giving some of his speeches in churches. They were bugging the podiums and following him around. He was a top target, for elimination.” For JFK, the second participant states, “I think that was a CI hit. They they may have employed some mafia connections to carry it out because that was their mafia assassination program.” Concerning LBJ, the first participant notes, “LBJ was very involved in all that in Dallas. So,” and the second participant adds, “he an evil man.” The first participant affirms, “He was an evil man.” Turning to Pearl Harbor, the second participant claims, “They knew the attack was coming was coming. They knew where it was gonna happen in Pearl Harbor and when. And they they told no one, and they let it happen on purpose. That that's from the commander of the Pacific Fleet. I would say that's a pretty pretty credible witness.” He continues, “So, yeah, that that was a false admitted that. They admitted they had the and they heard it was gonna happen. And, you how know, else were you gonna get Americans to be on the side of this war that had nothing to do with us?” This leads to the discussion of 9/11. The second participant says, “My opinion. As a criminal investigator, as a former CI officer, nine eleven was not the act of a bunch of poorly flight trained terrorists that executed an unbelievably meticulous, piloting of those aircraft, even even pilots. There's there's pilots for nine eleven truth now, and they say, we could not have done that. Not possible.” He adds, “And then we go to the passport issue, and we go to the Tower 7, which was a controlled demolition.” The second participant further asserts, “You talk to any structural engineer, and and and I I have. And the fact I think George w Bush blacked out. I think it was 40 pages of the 09/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. So what wait a minute. This report was supposed to be for the American people on what happened, and you blacked all these pages out? What in the world?” He continues, “I do not think that it was a bunch of un poorly trained or untrained terrorists that did it. I think there was another source behind it. I think it was intentional, and I'm going just from a a criminal invest investigative perspective just looking at the evidence, what evidence we have, that that was an intentional act, And it would fall right into the MO that you and I are talking about.” He concludes that the event was “Horrible” and emphasizes that “the shadow government deep state or especially the CIA. It does not matter. Their pawns on their chessboard, they don't care that three thousand people were horribly killed that day, but it achieved the aim of gutting the US constitution, bringing in the horrific Patriot Act Mhmm. Giving the CIA unthinkable authority for secret prison prisons and torture beyond waterboarding and and secret renditions and all of that, the FBI, the ability to to, spy on Americans came out of the Patriot Act. So it was the perfect national security state, energizer that the Patriot Act was, and 70 of the congressmen and senators that read the Patriot Act didn't even read it. They just signed off on it without even reading the bill.”

Speaker 0 asks if the government was involved in the 9/11 attack and if there is a conspiracy. Speaker 1 disagrees, but believes it's the first time fire has melted steel. They mention the collapse of World Trade Center 7 and suggest it couldn't have fallen without explosives. Speaker 0 asks who is responsible, and Speaker 1 admits they don't know but insists it was an implosion. They suggest looking at films and consulting physics experts to understand. Speaker 1 says it's unthinkable, but if someone could prove it, it would be significant.

One speaker believes people should be allowed to have differing views on immigration and debate the merits of the Israeli lobby's power. However, Pat Buchanan discredits this conversation because he gives the sense that he has another agenda related to personal dislike, conspiracies, and the belief that Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics. Another speaker questions if a certain individual exclusively targets people in the same group and makes Holocaust jokes. This speaker suggests this individual is like David Duke, who would endorse their shows. They believe David Duke is part of a campaign to discredit people on the right, and that Nick Fuentes is doing the same. They clarify that this doesn't mean everything he says is false, that he isn't talented, or that he's a bad person, but that he is clearly part of a campaign to discredit non-crazy right voices.

Speaker argues that all theories about 9/11 hinge on foreknowledge. "huge bets put in the public financial markets against shorting the airlines involved in nine eleven and the banks and the buildings that were collapsed." The "FBI found out who made those trades and has hidden the names for twenty four years." They sought a real investigation, noting "the first one by Philip Zellico was fake, and he was basically just a cutout for Condie Rice, the former National Security Advisor." He advocates action: "we're gonna actually chain ourselves to the gates of the FBI until you tell us this." He calls 9/11 "the second most important thing that happened, in my opinion, in American history first was killing president Kennedy." He adds, "there may have been foreign involvement, very likely foreign involvement in that. I can't say conclusively, but I think that's true." "America was changed completely by that day."

In this video, two speakers discuss their views on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 2 left a Ron Paul event when someone mentioned that 9/11 was an inside job. Speaker 2 clarifies that he didn't leave because he believed it, but because he thought it was stupid. Speaker 1 asks about Building 7, but Speaker 2 refuses to continue the conversation. They also discuss government involvement in terrorism and the need for evidence before making claims. Speaker 2 criticizes Speaker 1 for bringing up the conspiracy without evidence. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 mentioning Alex Jones and Speaker 2 stating that evidence is necessary to imply a conspiracy.

Speaker 1 states they respect Ben Shapiro, agreeing with him on some basics and his love for Israel. The speaker disagrees with getting involved in foreign wars and prioritizes their own country's interests. Speaker 0 mentions being criticized for an "America First" mindset. Speaker 1 elaborates that disagreements should be addressed with debate, not character attacks, which they attribute to the left. They lament the tendency to impugn a person's character instead of addressing their arguments, finding it "incredibly low." They claim the left short-circuits debate by attacking character, labeling opponents as racist or indecent to avoid engaging with their ideas.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about his Jewish identity and references a "virulent anti-Semite" acquaintance who is supposedly friends with Holocaust denier David Irving. Speaker 0 brings up the Holocaust, referencing "smokestacks of Birkenau" and questioning the validity of the Holocaust. Speaker 0 claims this acquaintance denies the Holocaust by pointing to shadows in aerial photos of Dachau. Speaker 0 says this person questions how 6 million people could disappear. Speaker 1 denies being a Holocaust denier, stating he had a Bar Mitzvah. Speaker 0 says the acquaintance seemingly admitted people died, but questioned the number. Speaker 0 says everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that the number of deaths is somewhere between 600 and 6 million.

Speaker 1 claims a legitimate investigation into 9/11 never occurred and questions how the perpetrators were identified so quickly. Speaker 1 alleges the Bush administration ignored intelligence, suggesting they wanted the attacks to happen, citing Condoleezza Rice's memo from August 6, which stated Bin Laden planned to use steel planes to attack buildings. Speaker 1 states that every war starts with a false flag operation. Speaker 1 references a BBC report that allegedly broadcast the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 before it actually happened, claiming the reporter spoke of the collapse 27 minutes before it occurred.

Speaker 0 argues that for years the radical left have compared Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers, and that this rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism seen in the country today and must stop right now. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 describe the unfolding World Trade Center attacks. They say they cannot confirm that a plane hit one of the two towers, but live pictures are showing events. They report seeing another plane and state, “We just saw another one apparently go” and “into the 2nd Tower,” suggesting the second plane’s impact and calling it deliberate. They note, “Now given what has been going on around the world, some of the key suspects come to mind, Osama bin Laden. Who knows who knows what?” Speaker 3 and Speaker 4 respond to the crisis, with one expressing concern about the attackers and implying a confrontation with the culprits. Speaker 4 adds, “But he said, you can you can come and debate me. He invited that debate. He certainly didn't invite the violence,” and comments on the global nature of the problem, identifying “the people on the extremes, the Islamists, the radical Islamists, and their union with the ultra progressives.” They state that these groups “often speak about human rights. They speak about free speech, but they use violence to try to take down their enemies.” Speaker 5 reiterates a personal, contextual stance with the line, “I'm Israeli. And I …” (implying a personal perspective on the conflict). The dialogue collectively frames the incident as a large-scale terrorist attack and discusses the broader ideological landscape, contrasting claims of human rights and free speech with the use of violence by extreme groups.

Speaker 1 questions the official narrative of 9/11, suggesting a conspiracy. Speaker 0 disagrees, citing intelligence failures. Speaker 1 mentions a BBC report on Building 7's collapse before it happened. Speaker 0 dismisses the claim. The discussion shifts to Israel and Iran. Speaker 1 insists on the truth of the BBC report. The conversation ends abruptly. Translation: Speaker 1 questions the official story of 9/11, implying a conspiracy, while Speaker 0 disagrees, citing intelligence failures. Speaker 1 mentions a BBC report on the collapse of Building 7 before it occurred, but Speaker 0 dismisses the claim. The conversation then moves on to discussing Israel and Iran, with Speaker 1 standing by the accuracy of the BBC report.

Speaker 0 claims Netanyahu was responsible for 9/11, which helped him get into Iraq and Afghanistan. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks who bought the World Trade Center two months before the attack, accusing Speaker 1, Brian, of being paid off and a Mossad agent for not answering. Speaker 1 denies Israel was behind 9/11 and denies being Mossad. Speaker 0 calls Brian a fed and refuses to speak to him. Speaker 2 asks Brian why he won't answer the simple question and accuses him of dodging. Speaker 2 suggests Brian is inflating the situation and acting like a toddler. Speaker 0 calls Brian a shill for not answering. Speaker 0 gives Brian three seconds to answer who bought the building or be considered a paid-off shill. Speaker 1 refuses to answer.

Speaker 3 launches a documentary-style indictment of Tucker Carlson, asserting he has “many connections Tucker Carlson has to the CIA and other groups,” that Carlson is “leading a major part of America off a cliff with his false conservative platform,” and that he is “a total shill, a puppet being used to distribute propaganda.” The speaker argues the left-right paradigm is false, claiming CIA agents train people in media propaganda regardless of network (CNN or Fox). Anderson Cooper is cited as an example, with the claim he interned at the CIA and was born into the Vanderbilt family, making him the face of CNN and Carlson the face of Fox. The speaker then traces Carlson’s background in detail: born 05/16/1969 in San Francisco; his father Richard Carlson divorced and remarried Patricia Swanson; Carlson attended multiple boarding schools in Switzerland and Rhode Island; graduated from Trinity College in 1991. The claim is made that Carlson attempted to join the CIA after graduation but was denied, with the suggestion that his journalism path was encouraged by his well-connected father. The narrative then catalogs Carlson’s father’s career: Richard Carlson started in journalism as a copy boy at the Los Angeles Times and a UPI reporter; later worked at several LA and San Diego outlets; became involved with San Diego Federal Savings and Loan (headed by Gordon Luce, a Reagan-era figure); ran for mayor of San Diego in 1984 and lost; Reagan announced his nomination to the United States Information Agency in 1986; served as Director of Voice of America, described as a propaganda broadcasting division; VOA is linked to the CIA, with the assertion that its purpose shifted from abroad broadcasting to domestic and international propaganda, including a CIA black site in Thailand (Cat’s Eye/Detention Site Green). The father’s later roles included ambassador to the Seychelles and CEO of King World Public Television; he became vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (an Israel-lobby-linked group). The speaker asserts that Carlson’s path mirrors his father’s, arguing that Carlson’s early journalism work included policy review (Heritage Foundation publication), where Heritage Foundation’s founders (Paul Wyrick, Edwin Feulner, Joseph Coors) are described as influential, with Feulner allegedly connected to KCIA donations and UN reform task forces linked to CFR and the Project for the New American Century. The Heritage Foundation’s funding is linked to Coors, Chase Manhattan, Pfizer, Dow, Sears, GM, Amoco, Mobil, with David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan leadership invoked to support broader conspiratorial links among the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, CFR, and related networks. The claim is made that Buckley and Crystal (William Crystal) were CIA-connected or staffed, and that Tucker Carlson’s journalism career spanned outlets including Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Weekly Standard, New York Magazine, Reader’s Digest, Slate, Esquire, The New Republic, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, The Wall Street Journal, and television work for CNN, PBS, MSNBC, before Fox News. The video then connects Carlson to Murdoch’s News Corporation (which also owned The Weekly Standard) and to Genie Energy, with other board members named such as Jacob Rothschild and James Woolsey; Carlson’s overlap with Rockefeller- and Rothschild-linked networks is highlighted, including Charlie Rose’s Vanity Fair article about a Rothschild–Rockefeller merger and Rose’s program history. The speaker argues “these overlaps” explain why Carlson ridicules 9/11 skeptics and avoids addressing Rothschilds on his show, implying his gatekeeping role. A separate segment covers a Washington, DC climate-conspiracy joke by a city official about Rothschilds controlling the climate, followed by a joking discussion about microaggressions at UC Santa Cruz. Speaker 3 reiterates the claim that Carlson is “CIA?” and contends mainstream media is controlled, citing Operation Mockingbird as a precedent. The speaker concludes that even if direct government documentation isn’t present, Carlson’s numerous connections and the overlaps among the elites make his CIA linkage plausible to believe, urging viewers to do their own research and turn off the television. The transcript then shifts to a late-appearing discussion involving a Ron Paul event in Minneapolis (2008) with speakers debating 9/11, Building 7, and government involvement, with participants sharing mixed views on 9/11 conspiracy theories, evidence, and the appropriate stance on such claims. Towards the end, Steven Jones, a Brigham Young University physicist, offers a televised segment presenting a hypothesis that explosives might have contributed to the World Trade Center collapses, including Building 7, mentioning molten metal in basements, thermite, and a kink in the collapse symmetry, while acknowledging FEMA’s report noting only a low probability for the conventional (fire) hypothesis and calling for further investigation. The exchange ends with a brief acknowledgment of the need for follow-up by viewers. A final red-string/prophecy monologue introduces a biblical-tinged conspiracy frame involving “Jews” and “the red string,” Rahab the harlot, and spies, cutting off before a concluded point.

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”