reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that historians are wrong about historic buildings, asserting that major structures around the world were not built in the 18th–19th centuries but by an advanced civilization that existed before us. They claim there is documented proof that construction records, receipts, and blueprints for several famous buildings do not exist or cannot be produced. Specific claims include: - The Cathedral of All Saints, Albany, NY; Big Ben (Elizabeth Clock Tower) in London; the Field Museum in Chicago; and the Philadelphia City Hall supposedly expose that they do not have construction records. - The New York Public Library (NYPL) is cited as lacking original blueprints or engineering drawings for its own structure, with a request for the original construction documents met by redirected searches and in-person visits rather than direct answers. - The main assertion is that the city funded these projects with taxpayer money, so construction documents should be public records, including blueprints, ledgers, and technical drawings, and the speaker questions how many horses and chisels were used, how marble was hauled, and how the buildings were actually constructed. - The NYPL’s archivist allegedly claimed that the original blueprints and engineering drawings or contractor specifications exist but are only available to NYPL staff, and that no building plans are shared with external researchers, including scholars. The speaker states the NYPL did not confirm possession of the originals or provide catalog numbers, conditions, or evidence that they exist, leading the speaker to conclude that the blueprints are being withheld. - The speaker notes personal emails from an individual in charge of substantial construction funds who maintains that, as a publicly funded project, there should be a large paper trail, and asserts that the proof of construction for the NYPL is hidden away and only accessible to staff. - A broader claim is made that five world-famous structures lack construction records, implying that the documented timelines for their construction are false and that the public is misled about the true history of these buildings. - There is an update from the Field Museum in Chicago: the museum’s library archives manager and the Art Institute of Chicago archivist indicated that the Field Museum did not receive full planning records, and that the collection holds very few original drawings with virtually no job filings or administrative records. The Field Museum allegedly has no known architectural or engineering drawings, no job files, no ledgers, no contracts, or project documentation, and there may have been a purge of materials. - The speaker states that a new FOIA effort is underway to obtain further evidence and insists that more documentation is necessary to verify or refute these claims. Throughout, the speaker credits ongoing FOIA requests and audits of institutions as they pursue “the truth” and claims that these revelations could rewrite the timeline and history of the buildings and the world as we know it. The episode is identified as episode 157 of “my lunch break,” with sponsor and affiliate mentions interwoven. The overall mission is to reveal that publicly funded buildings lack public construction records and that major historical narratives are false, with ongoing efforts to obtain original blueprints and records.

Speaker 0: We have just exposed that the United States National Archives, NARA's cartographic branch, is missing the documents, the blueprints and the rest, to hundreds of federally funded structures, and the records are completely missing. Speaker 1: NARA gave us the master list, granting behind-the-scenes access to their internal documentation and the official records of the US government's construction records. The master list shows every single federally held architectural record, including whether they have the original blueprints, construction drawings, ledgers, and documentation for buildings funded, commissioned, or maintained by the US government. Out of 21,400 structures in the master list, the new custom house in New Orleans, built in 1849, appears; there were reportedly two earlier ones—the first customs house designed in 1809 and replaced around 1819. Around 1819, they say, this worked for decades. Speaker 0: Can you Speaker 1: believe this? This is the mainstream narrative for you. Around 1819. That doesn’t work anymore. They try to tell us all about the thirteen hundreds, but they can't figure out what happened in the eighteenth hundreds from a supposed federally funded project. I’ve had enough of their stories. And then a third structure arrives on the scene. It’s a palace—the current US customs house in New Orleans—which the master list identifies as one of the oldest and most important federally funded buildings, a major work of architecture commissioned by the US federal government in the 1800s. This is a granite building with a grand marble hall. Yet the National Archives holds zero documents on its construction—zero. Not one document. This is 1849. This is not 1492. This is only, like, four or five people ago. Only 177 years. And the Marble Hall, a Greek revival style room, is described in that master list as a centerpiece, yet the National Archives does not hold a single construction document. Let’s go further. A federally commissioned building tied to record group 77, the US Army Corps of Engineers, falls under strict federal record-keeping laws requiring preservation of original blueprints, engineering drawings, specifications, inspection reports, and construction ledgers. The master list classifies it under CWMF (centralized waterway management file) and consolidated file 35, signaling that detailed blueprints and primary documentation are missing or no longer exist as standalone records. All of this proves that the documentation was expected to exist, yet there is not a single original construction record. This undermines their claim that the structure was actually constructed in 1849 as described. Zero documentation. No ledgers, no blueprints, no logs. Where are these receipts to their story? Remember from episode 160, NARA told us that if it is missing from the master list, they do not have it in their holdings. NARA is the legal custodian of all permanent federal records; permanent records are required to be preserved in NARA holdings. If the records are not within the master list, they were destroyed, never transferred, misplaced, or never existed. And that last option would make verification of construction history impossible. I’ve begun asking for FOIAs. I sent one on 12/01/2025 for the Alexander Hamilton US Custom House at 1 Bowling Green, New York. They have twenty business days under FOIA law to reply after status received; they’ve responded, and I’ll keep you updated. This structure was not within the master list, so it is publicly funded. We’re just getting started today. Welcome to episode 162 of my lunch break. If you’re new, welcome. Thanks to sponsors on Patreon. The master list is provided, and the episode can be purchased with a USB containing the master list. The list shows that in New York, New York, the master list contains only nine structures in its catalog at the National Archives, which is insane given New York’s hundreds of federally funded buildings. We have exposed that NARA’s cartographic branch is missing documents, blueprints, and the rest for hundreds of federally funded structures, to the point that they don’t even name the buildings in the master list. This is a massive exposure. Why hasn’t any mainstream scholar challenged these narratives? A systematic documentation failure is suggested: not having the Alexander Custom House listed, and other structures like Federal Hall, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, and James A. Farley Post Office are also not on the master list. Nothing from these structures has survived, or, as I believe, they never existed. We’ve shown emails where archivists need to reconsider their job. There is something massive going on, and the history we’re told is unverified. The master list goes back to 1705 (Fort Plans in Costco Bay, Maine). The first thing we find is a fortress in the middle of the water with no documentation proving construction in 1705. A map from 1720 shows an old world palace off the coast of Maine, contradicting the notion that materials could be shipped a mile offshore in the 1700s. The master list may reveal incredible structures in North America as we continue from the bottom up.

The speaker details ongoing outreach to hundreds of records departments and officials to obtain a single blueprint for an old world building, specifically focusing on the Field Museum in Chicago. They claim mainstream history states the Field Museum was constructed from 1919 to 1921 as a 480,000 square foot palace with 75-foot interior columns, designed, engineered, and completed in two years, and assert that blueprints and related documentation should be publicly archived as proof of this construction timeline. He argues that by the early 1900s Chicago had strict building codes and permit laws requiring stamped architectural and structural plans, with plans to be permanently kept in the city’s engineering archives, including blueprints, engineering load calculations, plumbing, electrical, and HVAC schematics, logs, and permits. He contends that, if the Field Museum’s narrative is true, these documents should exist and be accessible today. The team has contacted various places, archives, and museums with a set of questions aimed at verifying the true construction records: blueprints, engineering drawings, ledgers, engineering calculations; evidence of communications between architect and builder; costs, including marble shipments and origins. They begin with the Chicago History Museum, which preserves Chicago’s architectural, civic, and engineering history and claims to hold architectural drawings and maps since 1856, including records from major firms like Graham, Anderson, Probstin White—the firm tied to the Field Museum. They note the History Museum’s responses to their inquiries: staffing reductions, limited ability to answer questions about architecture, and that the collection is complicated. They claim the museum admits they only have renovation drawings from the 1980s and cannot confirm originals; they suggest they may have copies but lack originals, leaving the status of original blueprints unclear. The speaker asserts they have “unlocked another building that does not have blueprints” and emphasizes the Field Museum’s large, marble construction as a key case. They recount further email exchanges showing the Chicago History Museum responding with negative findings for original blueprints, engineering calculations, and contractor ledgers, while offering some photographs. They question why a 1915 photo labeled “construction of the Field Museum” exists when construction supposedly began in 1919, suggesting the building appeared roofed before the stated start date. They press for inspection, occupancy, or dedication certificates but the museum again states they do not hold these records. They connect this issue to Soldier Field, implying a broader pattern of shared architecture and funding knowledge. They acknowledge the Field Museum was said to be under construction 1919–1921, yet present contradictions about pre-1919 imagery. They thank supporters and donors, reiterating that they will continue investigating and exposing inconsistencies. They report contacting the Field Museum directly on 10/27/2025 to describe their research project and institutional affiliation as an independent researcher producing a long-form documentary on landmark buildings’ architectural and engineering history, requesting blueprints, ledgers, and public records from the last two hundred years, but receive no reply after follow-ups on 10/28/2025 and 11/11/2025. They declare the archivist’s knowledge that original blueprints are not held and assert the Field Museum is exposed. The speaker pledges to continue exposing buildings worldwide and promises more discoveries weekly, thanking supporters and subscribers as they continue.

Speaker 0: The Cathedral Of All Saints, Big Ben, the Field Museum, Philadelphia City Hall, the New York Public Library, and the Emmanuel Church in LaGrange, Illinois all share a massive issue: they do not have the original blueprints. Proving that they actually constructed these structures, when they say they did, and we have exposed this right here on this channel. We know that their narratives are all the same, which I believe are all generated by the AI. There’s never an author to any of these mainstream stories. It doesn’t matter which country the building is in. They’re all the same. They’re all constructed in a year. And then there’s a mysterious fire that burned down the original one, replaced by a guy with zero training, and then he never builds anything ever again in his entire life. And they don’t have the blueprints even though these buildings were publicly funded, paid for by the taxpayer, yet they say only the staff can see them. To this point, we have not received a single blueprint, and we have changed archivist minds as to how they should look at their job moving forward. This is no longer a theory. Within the last 10 episodes, we have taken this research to a whole new level of exposure. A full audit is taking place live. For everybody in the world to see, they’re caught off guard. They wanna know which institution we work for. They don’t like this because the story that they have worked so hard for years to believe is being dismantled in seconds by the people that want the truth, all of us. We want the blueprints. We want the ledgers. We wanna know how much water the donkeys were drinking while hauling thousands of pounds of stone to the site. We wanna know which stores they were buying all their chisels from. We want the records. We want the verification to their story, and the FOIA requests are a brand new weapon for us. We are forcing governments to respond legally, and to this point, they are failing horribly. The timeline that we all live in is completely fake, and we are just getting started. When we contacted the National Archives and Records Administration, nara.gov, we want the blueprints to the Federal Hall in New York City, so I formally requested the original construction documentation for the Federal Hall or the US Custom House that was supposedly completed in 1842 under the US Treasury Department. I want to know if the National Archives holds or has ever held any of the following materials related to its design or construction: the original blueprints or engineering drawings, specifications, ledgers, inspection reports, and the rest. I also put in there because we all know the rules now, and we’re cornering them very quickly. NARA replied back: we searched the cartographic branch’s architecture master list and, unfortunately, did not find any records that appear to be responsive to your request. A master list from the National Archives? They found three drawings from the US Custom House in New York City. However, these are dated nineteen o five, which is sixty-three years after the thing was done. So we all know that those don’t count at all. We did not locate any other reference to the US Custom House in New York City during our search and then gave us a massive finding aid for all of our reference. Do they know who they just gave the master list to? I have to say, I don’t think that that was a good idea for the mainstream narrative. The master list is the internal index of all architectural records held by the National Archives. If a federally funded building ever had blueprints, they would be cataloged in this master list. This is huge. The master list includes every federated architectural record created by, submitted to, transferred to, or preserved by any federal agency. If the federal government commissioned a building, paid for a building, inspected a building, or even maintained a building, then under federal law, the architectural records need to be preserved, and they would be within this master list. And they have admitted to us that the Federal Hall has zero documentation inside this master list, meaning that the federal government is implicitly admitting they have zero verifiable proof that they ever constructed the structure in 1842 or at any point for that matter. I want to take a look through this master list. Welcome to episode 159 of my lunch break. I hope you’re all having a great day. And if you’re new, welcome. Get 10% off all Dubby products right now by using code MLB. I’ll put the link in the description below. This is clean energy, no sugar, no artificial flavors, no jitters, no crash. There’s over 15 flavors to choose from, and every purchase helps this channel. Speaker 1: I thank all of our sponsors over on Patreon. Thank you to flatearthdave.com. You can check out his app, the flat earth sun, moon, and zodiac app. I’ll put the link right in the description, and you can use my referral code MLB. If you click the Tartaria button, you’ll see the my lunch break playlist right here. Speaker 0: I want to see this master list. We can see that it shows the date of construction, the city, and the building’s name. So we type in the US Custom House, and we can see that there’s 170 of them inside this master file. We scroll down to the one in New York City to confirm what this individual is telling us. And as you can see, we’ll be able to pin these institutions down, telling them that there are zero documents regarding their building inside the master list right out of the gate. Here it is: Confirmation, the US Custom House, New York City, the only documents they have, three of them from nineteen o five, exactly like they said, a consolidated file with no location. So do they even have these three pages from nineteen o five? And then I had a crazy idea, an idea that I should maybe type in the US Capitol Building. What files do the federal government have on this palace that was supposedly constructed without a power tool in just seven years from 1793 to 1800, the beginning of our timeline in my opinion. So why is it, when I type in The US Capitol Building into the master list, that the only construction documents that the federal government has on their own structure is from 1935, a hundred and thirty-five years after it was supposedly constructed? A consolidated file with 10 pages of documents. There are sketches. There are no records. A moment that everybody in the world right now watching is gonna see that the mainstream history is exposed. This is a horrible mistake, I’m gonna be honest with you, to give me this master list. I cannot believe we have this. We no longer need them to confirm anything. We have their log. We have their records, and we know what they don’t have. The nation’s capital. It’s blueprints from the seventeen ninety three to eighteen hundreds construction project. Those blueprints, the ledgers, they’re gone. I told you we were just getting started. New York Public Library update: they claimed only staff could see the blueprints, then said originals are only available to staff because they’re fragile, then said they’re not processed or conserved yet. They’re not available to the public. I replied that since originals aren’t available to researchers, I won’t share my report. If the originals ever show up, we can revisit this. The New York Public Library is clearly lying and contradicting themselves. Stop emailing me.

A narrator from the YouTube channel My Lunch Break recounts a growing investigation into whether widely publicized historic buildings actually have the original blueprints, ledgers, and construction documentation to back up the established narratives. The core claim repeated across episodes is that many famous structures—such as the Cathedral of All Saints, Big Ben, the Field Museum, Philadelphia City Hall, the New York Public Library, and Emmanuel Church in LaGrange, Illinois—were built without verifiable original blueprints. The channel asserts that these buildings share a pattern: they were allegedly constructed in a short period, followed by a fire that destroyed the original structure, and were replaced by a builder with no formal training who never built again. The channel stresses that the public-funded projects supposedly had blueprints, yet “they don’t have the blueprints even though these buildings were publicly funded, paid for by the taxpayer, yet they say only the staff can see them.” The investigation moves from rumor to methodical inquiry. The channel describes conducting formal FOIA requests and opening a “brand new weapon” for information: FOIA requests to obtain blueprints, ledgers, and construction records. A focal point is the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The host states that they formally requested the original construction documentation for the Federal Hall/US Custom House in New York City (1842, under the US Treasury Department) and asked for the original blueprints, engineering drawings, specifications, ledgers, and inspection reports. NARA responded, saying they found three drawings from 1905—dated 63 years after the supposed construction—within the cartographic branch’s architecture master list, and that no other responsive records appeared to be present. The host emphasizes that the architectural records master list would, in principle, contain documentation for any federally funded building, including construction records, blueprints, and related documentation. They argue that the master list shows zero documentation for Federal Hall in New York City, which, in their view, implies a lack of verifiable proof that the building was constructed in 1842 or at any point. They claim this pattern extends to other federal buildings, including the U.S. Capitol Building, where the only construction documents accessible through the master list are from 1935—decades after construction began—and consist of approximately 10 pages of sketches, not architectural drawings, structural calculations, or construction records. The host insists this does not constitute construction documentation and claims it undermines mainstream historical narratives. The channel then discusses the New York Public Library, repeating that staff-only access to blueprints was claimed, followed by a contradiction that the originals were not yet processed or conserved, with researchers allegedly denied access. The host asserts that the library’s statements contradict themselves and argues that the institution is hiding the absence of construction records. The host also recounts a separate exchange with the Utah State Archives regarding the Salt Lake City and County Building—allegedly built between 1891 and 1894—where the archivist provided a 2017 restoration records list rather than the original 1891–1894 construction documents. The host reports ongoing exchanges in which the archives admit they do not hold complete architectural blueprint sets, structural calculations, foundation drawings, or detailed construction ledgers for the original construction period, and asserts this as evidence that the traditional timeline may be incorrect. Across these threads, the host calls for verification of construction records and questions the reality of the conventional historical sequence. They point to a recurring pattern: many monumental palaces and city halls worldwide, built in the 18th or 19th centuries, lack accessible documentation in authoritative archives, leading to the assertion that the standard historical narratives may be built on incomplete or missing primary sources. The overarching theme is a demand to identify the actual builders and to uncover the true record of these structures, challenging the accepted timeline and methods of construction.

One of the most significant discoveries in history was finding the Library of Ashurbanipal in Iraq. The city was supposedly destroyed by fire, which baked and protected many clay tablets until they were found. These tablets, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, were taken to the British Museum in London, but are largely off-limits to the public under the guise of preservation. I believe this is to protect a fabricated narrative. The Vatican has 53 miles of texts and artifacts from a previous advanced civilization hidden from the public. The British Museum is hiding millions of Old World items. They claim they want to protect the artifacts, when instead they are protecting the narrative. The museum director, Nicholas Cullinan, could change this, but UK laws and the board of trustees may be a problem.

The host opens Episode 157 of My Lunch Break with a provocative claim: historians have been wrong, and there is actual evidence that global structures were not built in the 18th or 19th centuries as commonly taught. He asserts that these structures were constructed by an advanced civilization that existed before us, and that there are documented proofs showing that construction records, receipts, and blueprints for major monuments do not exist or cannot be proven to have been created by the timelines attributed to them. He lists several well-known buildings as examples where construction records allegedly are missing or unrecoverable: the Cathedral of All Saints in Albany, New York; Big Ben (the Elizabeth Tower) in London; the Field Museum in Chicago, Illinois; and Philadelphia City Hall. He claims that these sites expose that construction records do not exist and that there is no proof they were actually constructed as claimed. The host focuses on the New York Public Library (NYPL) in New York City, describing how he and others sought the original blueprints, structural engineering drawings, contractor ledgers, calculations, and material records for the building, which has long been believed to have been constructed in the 19th century. He emphasizes that taxpayers funded the project and that, by law, construction documents should be public records. He questions how many horses would have hauled marble, how many chisels were purchased with taxpayer money, and how the alleged competitive construction process of the era could align with the idea that such palaces were built with primitive means. A correspondence with the NYPL’s reference archivist is detailed: initial emails redirected to general websites with suggested keyword searches and in-person visits, rather than direct answers. The host reports that the NYPL later claimed the original blueprints and related documents exist but are fragile and, because the building is in use, are not available to researchers. According to the archivist, no building plans are shared with external researchers, even though the building is publicly funded. The host notes that no catalog numbers, no condition reports, and no evidence of copies or public access were provided. He cites emails from a staff member who reportedly oversees hundreds of millions in construction projects, claiming that the documents are held by the library and are accessible only to staff, not to the public or external researchers. The host contends that this pattern—no accessible construction records for major landmarks and official claims that records exist but are off-limits—extends to the Field Museum in Chicago. He references a Field Museum library archives manager and a connection to Burnham Brothers, noting that the museum reportedly has very few original drawings, virtually no job filings, no ledgers, and no contracts or project documentation. An archivist at the Art Institute of Chicago is cited as saying there may have been a purge of materials, and that, as far as is known, there are no architectural or engineering drawings or other primary construction documents for the Field Museum. The host summarizes that, across five major cities, there is a pattern of missing original construction documents, no ledgers, no logs, and no public receipts to verify the standard timeline of construction. He argues that this could lead to a profound re-evaluation of the accepted historical timeline and identity, insisting that the pursuit of the truth continues with upcoming FOIA requests. He teases forthcoming discoveries and invites viewers to follow as he and his team continue to audit these institutions and seek concrete evidence.

The story is insane. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it says that on 03/10/1861, they got the land from Alan. Alfred's first project was approved. And just sixteen days later, the foundation was finished with the laying of the cornerstone where I know it now. I've mentioned this a few times, but we have this 100% pinned down now. We are exposing this right now in real time. Are you ready? The stone is larger than the rest and is hollowed out to allow a box of mementos where it was opened up in 1961, and the documents were already gone. So a new container was put into the stone. A new container put into the cornerstone where we now know what is going on here. We know that the previous civilization put valuable items inside these cornerstones all over the world just like we showed in our one hour special episode 77 where they just couldn't remember where the cornerstone was to the Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. They had a 100,000 people there to watch, and then nobody could remember where it was. We know that they know exactly where it was. They never forgot. They simply went and removed it. And this is so clear now. The cornerstones hold incredible information, possibly the details on how the building was constructed or materials inside. There's something inside these cornerstones, and we called it right here on this channel. Unbelievable. Especially when we drive this point home and show the world that we are correct. And we take a look at The US Capitol Building where in 1991, a search for the Capitol cornerstone was conducted. Remember, we are told that this building was constructed in 1793. We are at the point in our research where we understand that they are not going to wait a hundred and ninety eight years to go look for a cornerstone for the first time. And if they really did build it, they wouldn't have forgot where it went. This right here is a 100% evidence in my opinion that our civilization are the finders or the founders of these structures. They did not construct these buildings. They would know where the cornerstone is without a doubt. A search for the capital's cornerstone was conducted, including use of metal detectors. Metal detectors for stone? The cornerstone. Are you able to see very clearly now? To locate the engraved plate. It was, of course, never found, so we are told, where we know that they located it and found whatever was inside from the previous civilization.

The video presents a sweeping series of claims that several world-famous buildings were not constructed as commonly believed and that the original construction records for these structures are missing or inaccessible. - The host asserts that structures around the world were built by an advanced civilization before ours, not in the 18th/19th centuries as widely told, and that there is documented proof that construction records, blueprints, receipts, and ledgers do not exist for many famous sites. Specifically named are the Cathedral of All Saints (Albany, NY), Big Ben/The Elizabeth Clock Tower (London), the Field Museum (Chicago), and the Philadelphia City Hall, with the claim that none of these have verifiable construction records. - The New York Public Library (NYPL) is a focal point of the investigation. The host describes mailing the NYPL for the original blueprints, engineering drawings, ledgers, and contractor records for the New York City palace (the NYPL building). The library allegedly replied with generic guidance rather than direct answers. After follow-up, the librarian purportedly refused to provide the requested documents, stating the blueprints exist but are fragile, not shared with researchers due to accessibility and preservation concerns, and that no building plans are shared with external researchers, even though the building is publicly funded. The host alleges the blueprints are “off limits to the public” and only available to NYPL staff, and that no catalog numbers, conditions, or evidence confirming their existence were supplied. The host references a specific contact who allegedly oversees hundreds of millions in construction and who allegedly indicated there should be a public paper trail, yet could not provide actual records. The host accuses the NYPL of withholding evidence and suggests the claim that these blueprints exist is unsubstantiated. - A major update concerns the Field Museum in Chicago. The prior episode indicated the Field Museum may not have the full planning records, with archivists noting few original drawings and a lack of job filings or administrative records. A subsequent email from an Art Institute of Chicago reference archivist suggested a purge of materials and that pre-1885 materials could have been lost to an office fire. The Field Museum’s archivist allegedly stated there are no known architectural or engineering drawings, no job files, no ledgers, no contracts, or project documentation for the Field Museum, casting doubt on the museum’s construction timeline. The host emphasizes that these findings would support the broader claim that many iconic buildings lack verifiable construction documentation. - Throughout, the host attributes the absence of records to a broader cover-up and expresses a determination to pursue FOIA requests to obtain actual responses, promising to reveal what those requests uncover. - The narrative interjects humorous references to Donkeys Incorporated Club as “true builders” of the past, with donkeys doing the work, and includes extensive sponsor mentions and channel promotions. - The host concludes that five world-famous structures allegedly lack original construction records and that FOIA requests will be used to pursue further confirmation, aiming to demonstrate that widely accepted historical timelines may be false. The overarching message is a call for the public to demand primary construction documents and to expose what is alleged to be hidden or inaccessible archival material.

The speakers argue that Big Ben’s clock, presented as a 316-foot Gothic revival tower powered by a gravity-driven rope-and-weight system installed in 1859, was in fact built with and operated by an unseen, older technology that has been removed or hidden. They contend the clock has undergone five restoration projects since 1906, and that there are hollow cavities, misaligned shafts, and tunnels discovered during later work that do not appear in Charles Berry’s supposed 1850s blueprints. They question the mainstream claim that ropes and weights powered the mechanism, noting there are no original blueprints or early maintenance records for the installation, and that the earliest technical diagrams for the escapement postdate the tower’s completion. They suggest the clock was either placed into an already existing structure or operated by a power system later covered up, not the rope-and-weight setup described in official accounts. The presenters point to 2017–2022 laser surveys showing vertical alignment deviations of only a few millimeters over 96 meters, arguing this precision exceeds what eighteen-hundreds technology could achieve. They claim there are no physical proofs that the ropes were part of the original configuration, no sketches, engravings, or early documentation of the original drive system, and that the supposed gravity escapement was patented for smaller clocks, not a 316-foot tower. They propose that the “destruction projects” since 1906 were actually repurposed foundations and attempts to retrofit a modern clock into the tower, not genuine restorations of a weight-driven mechanism. The speakers also argue the great bell and quarter bells are not original or correctly explained, noting the first bell cracked before installation, the replacement cracked soon after, and that the hammer used was allegedly much heavier than required. They allege the structure could not have housed five-ton weights and ropes due to lack of reinforced cavities near the upper chambers and even distribution around the center, implying the tower was not designed for heavy moving weights. Instead, they claim the tower’s design favors weightless, old-world technology, with the geometry and internal hollows serving resonance or frequency balance rather than mechanical timekeeping. They extend the pattern to other famous clocks worldwide (Prague Astronomical Clock, Kremlin Spasskaya Tower, Philadelphia City Hall Clock Tower, Rajabbe Clock Tower in Mumbai, etc.), arguing that many historic clocks show hollow passages, sealed tunnels, missing original blueprints, and internal voids that modern engineers class as air ducts or service passages. They reference reports by AECOM acknowledging limited records of Big Ben’s original construction and the lack of full plans, suggesting a deliberate concealment or loss of the true, older technology. The overarching claim is that these clocks share a global pattern of missing blueprints, hollow resonance chambers, and destruction-style restorations, indicating the real drive systems were weightless old-world technologies tied to resonance and vibration rather than visible rope-and-weight mechanisms.

Speaker 0 argues that several famous buildings—the Cathedral Of All Saints, Big Ben, the Field Museum, Philadelphia City Hall, the New York Public Library, and the Emmanuel Church in LaGrange, Illinois—do not have their original blueprints, making it impossible to prove they were actually constructed as claimed. He states that their narratives are all the same, generated by AI, with no author, and that these buildings were publicly funded yet the blueprints are claimed to be accessible only to staff. He asserts that in ten episodes they have pushed their research to a new level, conducting a live audit, and that FOIA requests are a new weapon that government responses have failed to provide the requested blueprints and ledgers. Speaker 0 describes contacting the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to obtain the original construction documentation for the Federal Hall in New York City (the US Custom House), supposedly completed in 1842 under the US Treasury Department. He requests the original blueprints, engineering drawings, specifications, ledgers, and inspection reports, noting that Federal architecture records would be preserved under record-keeping laws. NARA replies that, after searching the cartographic branch’s architecture master list, there are no responsive records; only three drawings from 1905 for the US Custom House in New York City exist, dated 1905, which is 63 years after the building was completed, and thus allegedly not relevant. He emphasizes that the master list is the National Archives’ internal index of all architectural records created, submitted, transferred, or preserved by federal agencies, and asserts that the federal hall has zero documentation in this master list, implying no verifiable proof that the structure was constructed in 1842 or at any time. Speaker 0 then claims he wants to review the master list himself and demonstrates using it to search for other federal buildings, noting for the US Capitol Building that the only records available are from 1935—10 sketch pages, not architectural, engineering, or construction documents. He argues these sketches are nontechnical and not construction records, and that 1935 is far too late to be authentic construction documentation for a building begun in the 1790s. He contends that the master list proves the mainstream history is exposed as false, describing the Capitol as an “American, neoclassical style palace” whose original blueprints and ledgers allegedly do not exist in the master list. He asserts that this pattern appears across seven or eight buildings, suggesting a broader trend of falsified records. Speaker 0 revisits the New York Public Library, referencing prior coverage (episode 157) where the library claimed that blueprints exist but are restricted to staff due to fragility and processing status, contradicting earlier statements that external researchers cannot access them. He reports a back-and-forth with the library, noting that the library now claims originals are not available to the public because they are not processed or conserved yet, which he argues is a contradiction. He quotes the library asking for his documentation while not providing theirs, calling the library’s stance a lie and stating that researchers will be revisited if the originals ever appear. He closes by stating they are grateful to other institutions for cooperation but see the New York Public Library as hiding the construction records, urging the library to stop emailing him.

Speaker 0 discusses the idea of proving a new civilization within old-world buildings in a single video, noting that capital buildings with different architects shouldn’t look exactly the same. He visits the Texas State Capitol, stating it was made in 1988, largely by convicts or migrant workers, and that it took six years and ten months to build, questioning whether power tools existed in 1885. He then moves to the Mississippi State Capitol, describing a contest in which 14 architects submitted plans and Theodore C. Link of Saint Louis, Missouri won; he suggests the design looks like other capitals. He visits the Arkansas State Capitol and calls the builders “a bunch of prisoners,” then questions whether cars existed for a walking figure in a scene. He shows the Florida State Capitol and notes that “they tore down the original.” At the Minnesota State Capitol, he says there was a competition with 41 submissions but the design looks the same as the others. He covers the Montana State Capitol, explaining there were two competitions in 1896; the winner’s design was deemed too expensive and another competition followed, with Charles Bell winning, though the resulting building allegedly still resembles the others. He notes that Arkansas’s design is allegedly identical to Montana’s, and that a competition for Montana’s design produced a rejected plan that Arkansas supposedly uses as its own. He documents another competition in Utah, describing a lengthy process and a nail-biter vote, after which the resulting Capitol supposedly looks like the others. He asserts the pattern of sameness across these capitols supports a narrative that the structures are manipulated for a consistent appearance. He closes this section urging viewers to subscribe and support the channel. Speaker 3 shifts to a focus on documented records, explaining that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) should hold construction documents for federal buildings. He states that the National Archives’ master list for the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. contains only 10 pages filed in 1935, which is far later than the building’s supposed construction period of 1793–1800. He reports that he emailed NARA to confirm these records and was told that if blueprints are missing from the master list, they are not in NARA’s holdings. He claims this constitutes “the end of the mainstream narrative” and states there is no evidence in the National Archives to prove the original construction. He asserts that adults in classrooms grade children on a story that is “completely fabricated” and that receipts or verification are needed for all stories, calling for an ongoing demand for verification across history and beyond. Speaker 0 continues, signaling that this is the eighth time they have exposed a structure with no documentation for blueprints, ledgers, load-bearing calculations, or other proof of construction. They announce plans to examine Louisville and expand the investigation to more structures, stating that nine structures have no verified documents and that purported scholarly sources admit they do not possess the blueprints. He lists structures including the Cathedral of All Saints, Big Ben, the Field Museum, the Philadelphia City Hall, the New York Public Library, Emmanuel Church in LaGrange, The Federal Hall in New York City, the U.S. Capitol Building, Crescent Hill branch library, and Westminster Presbyterian Church, reiterating the demand for blueprints and construction records. He claims the mainstream history is collapsing and frames this as a worldwide audit, one building at a time, with expectations to reach many more structures. He signs off, inviting viewers to watch more episodes and to provide receipts for the stories presented, and previews future focus on a castle tower in Riverside, Illinois.

The speaker describes submitting a FOIA request to the city of Charleston, West Virginia, seeking the original construction documents for the Kanawha County Courthouse (reported as built in 1892) and the Charleston City Hall (completed in 1921). The motivation is that a massive late-19th-century stone government building should have detailed archival records, including blueprints, ledgers, contracts, and cost records, and that a courthouse should routinely handle such legal documents for its own building. The FOIA request specifically asks for copies of the original construction documents for the courthouse, including sections built in 1892 and the additions in 1917 and 1924, and for the design and construction documents of the Charleston City Hall across the street. The presenter notes that this is the twelfth such building for which the channel has obtained a response indicating the city has no construction documents. In the city’s initial reply, the senior staff associate (an attorney for the city) states that the city has no documents responsive to the request for the Kanawha County Courthouse. They also say that for the City Hall, documents exist but cannot be provided as copies due to reasons related to copyright, age, and quantity. The attorney notes that the city reserves the right to assert exemptions under West Virginia FOIA, but does not identify a specific exemption. The presenter pushes back, demanding precise legal bases for any denial and insisting on copies or scans of nonexempt records, citing West Virginia FOIA provisions that "every person has the right to inspect or copy" nonexempt records and that the custodian "shall make copies available if so requested." They press to see the actual documents (ledgers, contracts, materials costs, sources, and transport details) to verify the building history. Following the challenge, the city’s position appears to shift. In an email dated 02/04/2026, the city acknowledges a right to inspect or copy but then pivots to offering an appointment with the city engineer’s office and references a security exemption (section 29 b-1-4(a) 15) tied to terrorism, introducing a new basis to withhold involvement or access. The presenter criticizes this as a retreat from earlier justifications and argues that the exemption would apply only to records revealing current security-sensitive layouts or infrastructure, not to historical records from over a century ago. The presenter reiterates that the requester cannot travel to West Virginia for in-person inspection and reiterates willingness to pay for copies or arrange electronic access. The city subsequently states that not all records are exempt and claims lack of time to produce copies, a claim the presenter deems unacceptable for a FOIA request. The presenter notes that the request remains unresolved, as FOIA demands resolution, and asserts that the federal archives reportedly hold zero construction documents for both buildings, implying the records do not exist or were never created. Throughout, the presenter frames the situation as part of a broader pattern of hidden or non-existent documentation, suggesting the buildings may have been built by a prior civilization, and concludes by emphasizing the need to obtain verifiable records rather than rely on published narratives. The narrative also includes standard sponsorship shout-outs and promotional content.

Speaker 0 discusses contacting hundreds of records departments and officials to obtain blueprints and documentation for the Field Museum in Chicago, which are supposedly from 1919 to 1921. He states the building is a 480,000 square foot palace with 75-foot interior columns, built in two years, and argues that blueprints, receipts, and other construction records should be on file in Chicago’s archives. He emphasizes that by the early 1900s Chicago had strict building codes requiring stamped architectural and structural plans, and that these plans, logs, permits, plumbing, electrical, HVAC schematics, and load calculations should be permanently archived. If the narrative is true, he says, these documents should still exist and be accessible today. The team’s outreach is described: they asked the Chicago History Museum for blueprints, engineering drawings, ledgers, and calculations, and/or evidence of construction and funding, including correspondence between architect and builder and construction costs, especially for marble procurement. The Chicago History Museum is described as preserving Chicago’s architectural history and holding archives from major firms like Graham, Anderson, Probstin White, the firm associated with the Field Museum. The museum reportedly replied that they have experienced staffing cuts and that their ability to answer architectural questions is limited, describing the collection as complicated, and stating they do not have original blueprints for the Field Museum. They reportedly only possess renovation drawings from the 1980s and can only assume they have copies of originals, with no additional information. Speaker 0 highlights a contradiction: a 1915 photograph labeled “construction of the Field Museum” published by the Chicago Daily News shows a structure with a roof, suggesting work predates the claimed 1919 start date. He notes that if the Field Museum began construction in 1919, there should be records; none are available. He questions whether there are occupancy or dedication certificates verifying completion, and repeats that the museum replied they do not believe such records exist, though there are pictures. He also references Soldier Field as having the same architectural design and links the two structures to the same builders, claiming that records are missing for both. The narrator thanks supporters and reiterates that they will continue to investigate and expose discrepancies, stating that they have now unlocked the ultimate key: the question to ask is, “Do you have the blueprints? Show them to us the receipt to the building. We wanna see it.” He claims multiple structures lack blueprints and asserts that this proves mainstream history false. He mentions continuing to pursue questions about contractor ledgers and correspondence, and notes that the Field Museum was contacted again but did not provide blueprints, acknowledging they do not have them. He concludes that the Field Museum is exposed and promises to push forward with further episodes.

The speaker argues that a hidden, “old world” civilization built thousands of monumental structures around the world, and that today’s timeline erases or suppresses this past. The narrative centers on Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India, where a number of grand buildings—palaces, train stations, a municipal corporation building, and other architectural icons—are claimed to be remnants of a prior civilization with advanced technology. The speaker asserts that these structures, built long before the known timeline and power tools, were attributed to a cover story in which modern-era builders and a younger designer are named as front men. Key examples cited include: - A palace-style central railway headquarters in Mumbai that, according to the speaker, was completed seven years before the invention of the power tool in 1888, contradicting the official timeline. - The idea that multiple grand buildings in Mumbai, such as the Royal Alfred Sailor’s Home (allegedly built by Frederick William Stevens, a British government employee), the Municipal Corporation Building (designed by Stevens and completed in 1893), and other palatial residences, were constructed by a highly advanced earlier civilization. The speaker emphasizes consistent reuse of “the same character” and “pin” tying Stevens to various buildings, including Raj Mahal and other structures. - The claim that a modern city like Mumbai contains evidence of old-world technology (e.g., precision domes, depictions of mythic sea creatures) and that interior spaces of these sites hold further undisclosed discoveries. - Assertions that the Gateway of India predates its stated foundation date, with a photograph from 1911 showing the structure before the claimed foundation, and that construction actually began in 1915, contradicting official records. The architect George Widdett is named as the designer of several Mumbai landmarks, including the Prince of Wales Museum (now CSMVS), supposedly linking a consistent “old world” design language across sites. The speaker expands the scope globally, linking these Mumbai findings to a worldwide pattern: - The old world is suggested to have left “palaces” and “stone universes” across continents, including references to griffin sculptures and other mythic imagery appearing on buildings, implying a shared old-world iconography. - A claim that the old world is being erased from history, with statues of British figures removed in the 1950s in India, and other steps described as deliberate erasure of the past. - The Gateway of India is contrasted with a supposed cardboard-model explanation for its 1911 photograph, and the assertion that this narrative is part of a broader cover story masking the true extent of ancient achievements. - The speaker highlights a broader historical thread: the Sumerian king’s list, Dilmun, and the idea of a land of immortality described in ancient texts. The Sumerian list is portrayed as a historical roadmap to a paradise-like Dilmun, cited as evidence of an advanced old world. Dilmun and related artifacts appear at the center of the argument: - The Dilmun site and its seals are presented as crucial evidence, with references to near 400 Dilmun seals discovered across Bahrain and the Gulf, showing intricate carvings and griffins; these artifacts, the speaker claims, are housed in Bahrain’s National Museum and in the British Museum. - The Dilmun burial mounds and alleged artifacts described as remnants of an advanced civilization, including a supposed “land of immortality” where people did not die or get sick, are presented as part of a broader narrative about the old world’s geography and technology. - The speaker discusses the 1954 excavations near Dubai, arguing that the discovery of Dilmun and related tablets preceded Dubai’s rapid modern growth, and suggests a correlation between the discovery and later monumental investment in Dubai. The speech asserts a political-cultural dynamic: - The British Museum, the Vatican archives, and other global repositories allegedly hoard 30,000 tablets from Iraq and approximately 53 miles of texts under Vatican City. The tablets, the speaker claims, are off-limits to the public, and the narrative is protected by those who control access, with the argument that public display would reveal a truth about humanity’s past. - A 1963 British Museum Act is cited to question the ability to remove artifacts; the speaker implies unlawfully acquired items (stolen or unjustly obtained) could be returned to their rightful owners, arguing that the tablets and artifacts should be accessible to the public. Throughout, the speaker calls for confronting what is presented as a globally coordinated effort to conceal the true history of the old world, urging viewers to question commonly accepted timelines and to seek the hidden science, texts, and sites that supposedly prove a prior advanced civilization operated across multiple regions. The overall claim is that the old world did not vanish but remains encoded in monuments, inscriptions, seals, and archives, and that much of this material is deliberately hidden from public view.

We are in contact with hundreds of records departments, officials and the rest, in search for a single blueprint to an old world building. The Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois is said to have been constructed from 1919 to 1921, a 480,000 square foot palace building with 75 foot interior columns, supposedly designed, engineered, and completed in two years. The presenter argues that after today, viewers will understand that this place is different from the mainstream narrative, and that blueprints, framing receipts, and construction details should be on display given Chicago’s early 1900s building codes requiring stamped architectural and structural plans and permanent archival storage. The team has reached out to the Chicago History Museum, which preserves Chicago’s architectural, civic, and engineering history and holds archives from major firms including Graham, Anderson, Probstin White—the firm tied to the Field Museum. The questions posed include blueprints, engineering drawings, ledgers, engineering calculations, documents proving the Field Museum narrative, logs of communication between architect and builder, construction costs, and marble sourcing. The request letters are dated with the aim to verify the building’s construction, procurement, and design records. The Chicago History Museum’s reply notes staffing reductions, limited ability to answer architectural questions, and that they hold renovation drawings from the 1980s; they can only assume they have copies of originals and cannot provide more information. They state they do not have originals for blueprints or engineering calculations, and that their collection is complicated. The team highlights that this implies the Field Museum and the broader mainstream history may lack the expected records for a building of this scale. The team continues by noting that the Chicago History Museum also claimed to have some pictures, but not the full set of originals. They point to a 1915 Chicago Daily News photo labeled “construction of the Field Museum,” which predates the stated 1919 start date by four years, suggesting a major contradiction. They ask for inspection, occupancy, or dedication certificates verifying completion; the museum again replies they do not believe they have these. The presenter emphasizes that the Field Museum is a massive, marble-built palace on the lakefront and notes related architecture like Soldier Field, implying a connected lineage and common building methods, yet lacking the anticipated archival records. They thank supporters and promote their channels and sponsors, while continuing to press for responses from both the Chicago History Museum and the Field Museum. They report that the Field Museum replied on 10/27/2025 asking for a description of the research project and institutional affiliation; the presenter identified as an independent researcher producing a long-form documentary on architectural and engineering history, requesting blueprints, ledgers, and public records. A follow-up on 11/11/2025 produced no reply. The archivist’s awareness of not having the original blueprints is declared evident, and the presenter proclaims that the Field Museum is now exposed. The episode ends with a pledge to continue exposing these buildings worldwide and to uncover more questions and truth.

The video episode documents an investigative push to verify the construction records for the Field Museum in Chicago. The host asserts that mainstream history claims the Field Museum was constructed from 1919 to 1921, a 480,000-square-foot building with 75-foot interior columns completed in 24 months, and that blueprints, engineering drawings, load calculations, plumbing, electrical, and HVAC schematics, logs, permits, and other archival materials should be permanently stored by Chicago’s building and archival institutions. The host stresses that, if true, these documents should exist and be readily accessible today, given Chicago’s early 20th-century building codes and permit requirements. The team explains their approach: reach out to archives, museums, and record offices to obtain blueprints, engineering drawings, ledgers, and construction-related correspondence that prove the Field Museum’s narrative. They pose multiple questions to these institutions, including whether there are original architectural blueprints or engineering drawings, ledgers showing material procurement, construction or contractor ledgers, engineering calculations or specifications from before or during construction, and any correspondence between the architect, builder, or diocese regarding design or funding, plus the cost of construction and any communications about it. The Chicago History Museum is the initial focus. They note the museum preserves Chicago’s architectural and engineering history and claims to hold drawings from major architectural firms connected to the Field Museum. The host reports the museum’s responses: they do not have original blueprints or engineering drawings; they only possess drawings related to a 1980s renovation and can only assume copies of the originals exist, with no more information available. The cataloging librarian indicates the collection is limited and that answering architectural questions is challenging. The host highlights the museum’s admission that they do not believe they have original blueprints, engineering calculations, or ledgers, and that the museum’s response includes some photographs, though not the original documents. The host then mentions a contradicting element: a 1915 Chicago Daily News photograph labeled “construction of the Field Museum,” which predates the alleged 1919 start of construction, suggesting an open-air or roofed structure existing before the claimed timeline. They question why there would be a 1915 image if construction supposedly began in 1919. Further inquiries to the Chicago History Museum inquire about occupancy or dedication certificates and other records; the museum again responds that they do not believe these exist. The host connects these gaps to a broader claim that the Field Museum and related structures may have been built earlier than stated or by a different, possibly undocumented, process, linking this to a broader narrative about historic construction across the world. The Field Museum’s own reply is summarized as a request to describe the research project in detail and to identify institutional affiliation; the Field Museum confirms they do not have the blueprints. The host asserts the archivist’s knowledge of this and declares the Field Museum exposed, while promising ongoing investigations and episodes. The message closes with thanks to supporters and a pledge to continue uncovering more details in future episodes.

Speaker 0 outlines a pattern they’ve found in the National Archives’ master list: the search term “lighthouse” appears 1,159 times, yet there are zero construction records or files proving how these lighthouses were built or funded by U.S. taxpayers. They argue that lighthouses were supposedly government-funded and built in the 18th–19th centuries, requiring surveys, material logs, engineering plans, and maintenance records, which should exist if these were real constructions. Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, they say, is officially dated to 1870, but the master list lists its construction date as nd (no date). They note the story of an original lighthouse (constructed in 1802, a 112-foot dark sandstone structure) that was demolished in 1871 and eroded in a storm, followed by the current 270-foot tower moved in 1999. They claim the unverified 1870 date and the missing original documentation undermine the official narrative. The White Shoal Lighthouse (the tallest on the Great Lakes) has no construction date in the master list, and no date is provided at all. They question the architect’s identity, noting the United States Lighthouse Board is cited instead of a named architect, and accuse the narrative of fabricating a board to pin lighthouses to the military, implying no real architectural attribution. Princess Bay Lighthouse (Staten Island, NY) also lacks paint records and a construction date in the master list, with no construction documentation or blueprints. Nash Island Lighthouse in Maine is discussed with speculation that houses built next to old-world structures may be the actual construction dates, given the lack of records for the lighthouses themselves. They question why a county with very few people (Emmett County, Michigan) would require a five-mile-offshore lighthouse in the 1850s, suggesting population data contradicts the claimed need for so many lighthouses. They discuss the Mount Desert granite lighthouse in Maine (20 miles offshore, built around 1830) and note that it originally had a bell tower, which was replaced by a steam whistle in 1889, along with the assertion that the house was built after the lighthouse. They observe repeated patterns of a granite first lighthouse being destroyed by storms or replaced, and they anticipate more examples as they continue to investigate. The Bodie Island Lighthouse in North Carolina is highlighted for its fresh paint and a new house, described as having an AI-like story that it is the third construction on the site, with earlier lighthouses abandoned or destroyed. They challenge the feasibility of powering these offshore lighthouses in the 18th–19th centuries with cables, noting that whale oil and kerosene were used for lighting, but suggesting a hidden mechanism. Overall, Speaker 0 argues the historical narrative is inconsistent, points to a recurring pattern across multiple lighthouses, and speculates that there may be a deeper, subterranean or “underneath the paint” connection among these structures. They close by proposing that these lighthouses might have been powered by free energy and could serve as evidence of a advanced preexisting civilization, while acknowledging skepticism about the mainstream account.

Speaker 0 argues that Big Ben, the Elizabeth Clock Tower, London, is older than the official narrative claims and was not built by “our civilization.” He states he and his team contacted the parliamentary archives, which allegedly said Big Ben was commissioned, funded, and built as part of the Palace of Westminster reconstruction after the 1834 fire, a government-funded project designed by a parliamentary architect under state contract. He emphasizes that because it was government funded, official drawings, blueprints, ledgers, specifications, inspection certificates, and related records should be in parliamentary records and accessible to the public. He sent an inquiry to the parliamentary archives asking for original materials related to the Great Clock of Westminster (Big Ben), specifically the original blueprints, engineering drawings, ledgers, calculations, specifications, communications between architect, builder, or officials, any dialogues, any construction photographs, and inspection certificates. He notes that this would reveal whether such records exist and, if not, would undermine the mainstream construction story. He claims that the parliamentary reply indicated surprisingly few architectural drawings exist in their collections and that they do not have construction records proving the eighteenth- or nineteenth-century construction as described. He presses further, asking whether the parliamentary archives ever held the complete set of original architectural, structural, or engineering drawings for the great Clock or the clock tower, whether those records were ever transferred, lost, or never held, and whether there are any catalog references or accession numbers for remaining materials. The response he received allegedly asserts that architectural drawings were never part of the parliamentary archives collections because they were not produced by Parliament, and that Big Ben was not built by Parliament. He argues this contradicts that the Palace of Westminster was a government project built after the 1834 fire, with Parliament approving or paying for the project, and that under the Public Records Act of 1838 all documents created by government departments must be preserved as public property. He maintains that if construction began two years after the act’s enactment, the records should exist, and their absence would imply a violation of law. He then poses two possible scenarios: either the original blueprints, ledgers, and engineering documents exist and prove the construction story, or they do not exist, which would contradict the Public Records Act of 1838 and the mainstream history. He states the National Archives at Kew should hold government records, including those about Big Ben, and that Parliament has admitted they do not possess the original blueprints. He reports that the senior archivist acknowledged alignment with the Public Records Act and said such records would be held by the National Archives at Kew. Subsequently, he says they contacted the National Archives to prove these blueprints exist under government custody. The plan is to force a formal admission that the records exist or do not exist, exposing the construction story as false and creating a legal paper trail. He notes that the National Archives indicated that they cannot confirm the existence of Big Ben construction records and that the collections are being transferred and not available to the public until 2026, creating a deflection. He concludes that this constitutes a potential historic revelation: the most famous clock may lack foundational construction evidence, and the inquiries open the door to reexamining other historically claimed pre-1800 structures. He ends by signaling future exploration, including plans to examine the Field Museum in Chicago, and thanks supporters and sponsors.

The video discusses the library of Ashurbanipal in Iraq, noting that it held an estimated 30,000 clay tablets discovered in the 1800s, and that the current state says the site no longer houses the tablets. The narrator asserts that the city was destroyed in the year negative six hundred twelve, and that the fire destroyed or baked many tablets. They claim the fire narrative has been exposed, and describe February fires as part of a broader pattern. The video emphasizes that the tablets found in Iraq in the 1800s were then taken to England, where the British Museum houses the majority of them, and that this represents a location that will unlock further knowledge. The narrator references a prior episode claiming the Vatican has 53 miles of texts and artifacts from the old world beneath Vatican City, described as off-limits to the public, hiding true history. They state that the 30,000 tablets from Iraq were moved to England and are not publicly accessible, described as “off limits to the public” in order to preserve a narrative rather than preserve the artifacts. They contend that “the true narrative is not being shown to us,” and describe this as part of a long-standing operation since the eighteenth hundreds, with the claim that many texts are kept in archives, available only to researchers or by special request for preservation reasons. The video asserts that thousands of tablets, including the Epic of Gilgamesh and possibly How to Live Forever, were shipped to England under the pretense of protecting them, and that “they are stealing the artifacts. They are not protecting them. Again, protecting the narrative.” The narrator asks who is allowing access and suggests the museum director has the authority to grant or deny access, naming Harwig Fischer as a previous director who resigned after missing items from the museum, including gold jewelry and precious gems. They note that Nicholas Cullinan became the director as of March 2024 and question whether he has the power to reveal the tablets, given oversight by the board of trustees, the prime minister, and an outside firm, and referencing the British Museum Act of 1963. Key legal point: the British Museum Act of 1963 defines how artifacts can be managed and prohibits removing items from the collection except in specific circumstances. The Act is interpreted by the narrator as allowing return of items that were unlawfully acquired or stolen, and as supporting the idea that these tablets should be accessible and not hidden. The narrator claims that 7,920,000 items from the Old World are not on display, and that the museum contains about 1,000 staff and over 8,000,000 objects, with only 1% on display, suggesting vast materials are hidden from public view. The video closes by reiterating the claim that 53 miles of books in the Vatican and 30,000 tablets in England are off-limits, and asks whether the public will ever be invited to see these artifacts to understand humanity’s past.

The speaker outlines a quest to verify the original construction blueprints for major historic buildings and reports a cascade of archival rejections from several institutions. - Field Museum (Chicago, Illinois): The speaker states they have documented that the Field Museum hasn’t emailed back regarding the original blueprints to their structure. These documents would supposedly prove the mainstream story about the building. A library/archival contact at the Field Museum is cited as saying the museum holds limited orphan materials that are not fully inventoried; they do not have the original blueprints or full planning records for the 1921 construction. - Chicago History Museum (CHM) and Art Institute of Chicago: The CHM reportedly only had renovation drawings from the 1980s, not the original construction drawings, and told the researchers they didn’t have anything. The Art Institute of Chicago’s access and reference archivist indicated that their collections do not include drawings of the Field Museum and advised checking with the Field Museum. The speaker points out that both CHM and the Art Institute have told them to contact the Field Museum, which has not yet replied. - Summary across institutions: The speaker asserts three documented sources confirm that the original construction documents do not exist in the CHM, Art Institute, or Field Museum, and that these documents would typically be held by CHM or Art Institute as primary historical repositories. The speaker emphasizes that the city of Chicago should have the original blueprints for the 1921 Field Museum. - Philadelphia City Hall (in a separate thread): The speaker discusses contacting the Linda Hall Library, described as the world’s largest research library dedicated to engineering, to locate the Philadelphia City Hall’s original blueprints. The Linda Hall Library reply dated 10/24/2025 states that they do not have internal documents such as blueprints, ledgers, or correspondence for the construction of Philadelphia City Hall, nor do they have a partnership with any institution that may have them. They affirm they do not have the blueprints or internal correspondence sought. - Additional context and implications: The speaker notes that ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) publications and WorldCat searches show no blueprints or internal construction records for Philadelphia City Hall, only secondary reporting about the building. They argue that if no original blueprints exist in these major archives, the documented construction of these buildings remains unverified. The speaker promises further updates and mentions upcoming inquiries to the New York Public Library as part of an ongoing global audit of mainstream historical narratives. - Thematic stance: The narrative centers on obtaining stamped drawings, signatures, dates, revisions, construction logs, and load calculations to verify authorship, funding, design, and construction timelines. The speaker frames the absence of primary documents as evidence that mainstream histories are unverified and subject to revision. - Channel branding and calls to action: The segment includes episode labeling (episode 156 of “my lunch break”) and promotional plugs for sponsors and patrons, as well as acknowledgments to supporters. Overall, the speaker presents a pattern of missing original construction documents across Field Museum, Chicago History Museum, Art Institute of Chicago, Linda Hall Library, and related institutions, framed as a broad verification effort challenging established architectural histories and pursuing the question: who has the original blueprints and who signed off on these structures?

Speaker 0 discusses Holy Name Cathedral at 730 North Wabash Avenue, Chicago. He states that the cathedral was “built before our timeline began” and claims the story that it replaced an earlier 1875 building destroyed in the Chicago Great Fire is false, describing the narrative as AI-generated and lacking originality. He asserts the cathedral was constructed in 16 months, with the cornerstone laid in July 1874 and dedication in November 1875, and he plans to email the Chicago History Museum to challenge this mainstream timeline, requesting original architectural blueprints or construction drawings. He argues the basement exists and posits that basements must be excavated before the cornerstone, implying construction began before 1874 and that the published timeline starting with the cornerstone omits an entire basement level. He questions how many floors lie underground and whether the cathedral connects to tunnels, noting Chicago’s “thousands of miles” of tunnels. He contends there are zero details in the narrative about construction logistics, such as how many horses were used, construction ledgers, purchase orders, or water consumption for horses, and he finds it improbable that dozens of horses pulled thousands of tons of stone in the described timeline and conditions. Speaker 1 states that ground was broken in July 1874 and that completion occurred in sixteen months, labeling it a quick construction. Speaker 0 counters by reiterating questions about horses, wagons, and missing documentation, noting the absence of any records about water for horses, foundation drawings, or other critical construction details. He repeats that the Chicago History Museum claims to have no original architectural plans for the Holy Name Cathedral. Speaker 0 notes that the museum provided photographs from 1902 and a 1916 ceremony, which he says do not prove construction details. He mentions the museum’s guidance on researching their collection and the museum’s librarians’ assertion that there are no architectural plans for the cathedral. He emphasizes that the cathedral’s basement and tunnels are not documented in existing records and states that, according to the museum, there are zero architectural plans, zero load-bearing calculations, and zero evidence supporting the sixteen-month construction claim. Despite the lack of documentation, the speaker reveals that the museum showed a file titled “map showing tunnels and connections from 1929.” He plans to obtain a digital image of the map, since the museum does not allow copies, and intends to view and eventually photograph the map to make it public. He commits to investigating whether tunnels connect to the Field Museum and other public buildings, and to asking those buildings about access to their tunnel networks. He invites viewers to subscribe for ongoing updates as they pursue the tunnels and related records.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a pattern of alleged hoaxes surrounding so-called ancient or “old world” buildings in the United States, arguing that documented records do not exist to support the histories commonly taught. - The conversation centers on the Hoffman Tower in Lyons, Illinois, described as a tower that supposedly belongs to a park and was built in 1908 by a named construction company. The speakers claim there should be construction documents proving this, but they contacted the Village of Lyons and were told there are no blueprints or receipts for the building or the later staircase destruction in the 1990s. The village reportedly has “nothing on the building, period. Case closed. Nothing at all.” This is presented as evidence that the Wikipedia account is false and that no historical records exist to back up the claimed construction. - They assert a broader claim that “the history that we’ve all been told” since childhood is a lie, and they repeatedly state that multiple buildings in the area were not built as described. They reference years of researching and receiving the same response from officials: no documents, ledgers, or load-bearing calculations exist for these structures. - The discussion then moves to Lamont, Illinois, noting that a school in Lamont replaced an earlier one and again lacks supporting documents in the speakers’ view. They posit that the story about the 1836 school and subsequent building is likely AI-generated history and argue that the replacement school shows modern architectural features incongruent with the eighteenth- or nineteenth-century period. - They discuss a nearby historic Limestone Village Hall in Lamont, pointing to a stark contrast between a 1900s photo and the renovated present-day building, including the removal of the bell tower and bells. They claim bells were removed and melted into coins and cannons, referencing the Liberty Bell as an example of “cracked from overuse,” though they say historians are uncertain when the initial bell split occurred. They show sadness or outrage at what they view as erasing historic features during restoration. - The Altgeld Hall Chimes Tower at the University of Illinois is brought up, with a 2023 exploration referenced. They claim a restoration involved removing the bells and that this building’s historical state was captured in Episode 36 of their channel, but that the current project completely changes the building’s appearance. They describe 2024 renovations starting with a 3,000-pound bell and show before-and-after photos to illustrate perceived destruction of the “old world” building. - The speakers conclude by returning to Lamont, noting a nearby palace-style church (Bethany Lutheran Church, built in 1895) and contrasting it with the local housing, implying the church represents an architectural anomaly. They insist such “palace” constructions and “old world” features did not take place as claimed, arguing that the narrative of buildings being erected rapidly in a single year (multiple times referenced) is false. - They reference a recurring question about the authenticity of the architects and suggest that the supposed architect TJ McCarthy, who allegedly built these structures in a single year with self-taught expertise, might not be a real person. They propose that these towns contain interconnected tunnels or connections to other old world buildings, and question whether the architects were real individuals, given the lack of verifiable records. - Throughout, Speaker 1 emphasizes a view that “these stories … lied,” pointing to England’s Big Ben as another case where records are missing, and contends that many historic buildings worldwide from the 17th and 18th centuries were found without proper documentation.

One of the most significant discoveries in the history of the world was finding the library of Ashurbanipal. The British Museum in London houses the majority of these tablets, but they are not available for public viewing, as they are preserving the narrative. We have exposed this and proved that this is the case 100%. We have located two places that hold basically everything that we need to know and are being blocked off from all of us, they are off limits to the public. They are stealing the artifacts and protecting the narrative, so that they get to keep all the old world technology, the old world text, the old world information, and all of it is off limits to all of us. The museum is also home to 1,000 staff and over 8,000,000 objects, where just 1% of these items from The Old World are on display to the public.

Speaker 0 argues that the Cathedral of All Saints, Big Ben, the Field Museum, Philadelphia City Hall, the New York Public Library, and Emmanuel Church in LaGrange, Illinois all lack their original blueprints, making it impossible to verify that these structures were constructed as claimed. He asserts that their narratives are uniform across countries and time, claiming they were built in a short period, followed by a mysterious fire, and replaced by untrained individuals who never build again. He says these buildings, though publicly funded, have blueprints that “staff can see,” and that no blueprints have ever been provided to him or his team despite repeated requests. He states that in the last 10 episodes they have escalated the research to a live audit, exposing the narratives and pressuring institutions to reveal blueprints and ledgers. Speaker 0 describes using FOIA requests as a new weapon, pressuring governments to respond legally, and notes that responses so far have been poor. He references a formal request to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for the blueprints and supporting documents for Federal Hall in New York City (the US Custom House), built under the US Treasury Department and completed in 1842. He quotes NARA’s reply: a search of the cartographic branch’s architecture master list found no responsive records, with three drawings from 1905 for the US Custom House in New York City, dated 63 years after the building’s completion, and no other references to the US Custom House in NYC. He emphasizes that those 1905 drawings are not construction records and questions their relevance. Speaker 0 expands his critique to the US Capitol Building, noting that the master list shows only 1935 documents (10 pages of sketches) for a project begun in the 1790s, which he says are nontechnical and not construction records. He claims these sketches demonstrate that “the master list” is an internal receipt, effectively empty of authentic construction documentation for the Capitol. He concludes that the federal architectural records for the Capitol are absent for the original construction period and suggests that similar gaps likely exist for other capitol buildings in the U.S. He asserts seven verified instances where credible records are missing and that this undermines mainstream history, calling for eight if the Capitol is confirmed. Speaker 0 then recaps findings regarding the New York Public Library, stating that the library claimed only staff could view blueprints and that originals were fragile, later claiming they are not available to the public because they are not processed or conserved yet. He describes this as contradictory and accuses the library of lying about access and availability. He notes that the New York Public Library has not provided the researcher with any documentation and suggests other institutions are cooperating, while the New York Public Library is not. Throughout, Speaker 0 reiterates the intent to reveal the truth, asking for viewers’ reactions and inviting further discussion, while signaling plans to continue pursuing master list verification and FOIA responses. He also mentions that this is episode 159 of “my lunch break.”