reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

The speaker questions the claim that a CNN reporter easily interviewed Osama bin Laden, while the U.S. intelligence community with vast resources has failed to locate him for years. He suggests this is because the CIA created, recruited, and trained bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and now uses him as a boogeyman to bring about world government after Saddam Hussein was neutralized. He believes any future attacks blamed on bin Laden are a social engineering project to manipulate public opinion and establish a one-world socialist totalitarian government. The speaker finds it unbelievable that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols could recruit bin Laden to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. He asserts the CIA, NSA, and FBI are not trying to find bin Laden because he is their creation serving their purposes. The speaker suggests a terrible event will occur to regain public sympathy and blames the CIA, FBI, and NSA for being unable to locate bin Laden while CNN can.

In the discussion, Kevin Ship, a former CIA officer, describes how false flags allegedly unfold within a shadow government framework. He explains that operations are planned for months and that agencies always select a boogeyman—one person whose involvement makes it difficult to argue a larger conspiracy. If a single individual is framed as the perpetrator, he argues, investigators and the public cannot easily investigate conspiracies involving multiple actors. He cites examples like Tyler Robinson and references Charlie Kirk’s murder as cases where a lone “boogeyman” is presented despite conflicting evidence about the perpetrator’s capabilities or prior behavior. He suggests that after the act, the agency proclaims that “we got him” and downplays any broader conspiracy. The conversation turns to recent events in Australia around Bondi Beach, noting months of reports about paid actors making threats against Jewish institutions and the involvement of Mossad in the investigation, with Netanyahu publicly linking Iran as a suspect. Ship argues this demonstrates a laziness and arrogance in some operations and questions what Mossad’s role has to do with the Australian public or government, asserting that Mossad operates with no ethical boundaries and expands Israel’s power. He claims the CIA and Mossad are closely allied—“brothers and sisters”—sharing intelligence and functioning as “sister organizations,” with the CIA often involved in Mossad’s actions and Mossad sometimes targeting the CIA to steal information. The speakers discuss the appearance of individuals in multiple, unrelated events, sometimes posting self-incriminating or sensational content (e.g., a person claiming to have survived October 7 appearing in Sydney and at other events) as supporting evidence of staged incidents. They reference a pattern of same individuals appearing at different tragedies to push narratives. The conversation also touches on broader tensions between Western agencies and the media, with Ship noting a CIA program called the Media Liaison Office that propagandizes and influences U.S. news outlets, describing the “Mockingbird” media landscape as complicit in disseminating disinformation. Ship references 9/11 as a historical example, arguing that the official narrative relied on misleading artifacts (such as a passport found near the World Trade Center) and claiming that the 9/11 investigation was never legitimate. He notes that the CIA’s disinformation strategies are designed to fool the American public who mostly rely on televised news and lack critical thinking skills. He asserts that the media repeatedly broadcasts narratives that align with official accounts, including reports that anti-Semitism is rising in connection with attacks, framing the event as an assault on Israeli Jews tied to Iran. The speakers conclude that false flags remain effective tools, with Ship predicting more such events to influence public opinion and policy toward Iran, and they emphasize the need for critical thinking and independent media to counter these campaigns. They discuss the ongoing collaboration between intelligence agencies and mainstream media in shaping public perception, and they affirm that false flags are a persistent feature of the alleged shadow government operations.

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.

I have spoken with military contacts and made it clear that 9/11 was an inside job. Showing them footage of the World Trade Center's third building collapsing convinced them. If Americans realize Israel's involvement, Israel will be wiped out. The Zionists see it as a do-or-die situation. The controlled demolition of the third building proves all were wired for demolition. When shown the evidence, people agree that 9/11 was orchestrated by Israel.

We have manuals and SOPs on how to use individuals to stir up rivalries between tribes in places like Afghanistan. Special operations can manipulate someone with radical ideologies to incite violence between villages. This tactic is not uncommon and has been successful worldwide. Utilizing individuals as "village idiots" to create chaos is a known strategy in our government. Former members agree with this approach.

If people aren't bothered by crazy ideas like the earth being flat, they just laugh it off. But if you question what happened with building 7, it's a different story. People freak out and think you should lose your job. Why? It's my country, and I want to understand. Do buildings really collapse? I don't know, maybe they do. But why can't I ask questions about it? Anything you're not allowed to question is something you should question more.

The speaker questions the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks, focusing on the collapse of Building 7. They argue that the building's uniform collapse indicates controlled demolition rather than fire damage. Comparing it to a stack of cast iron stoves, they suggest that the intact structure below should have slowed the collapse. The speaker believes there is more to the story than just planes and fire.

If people aren't offended by crazy ideas like the earth being flat, they just laugh it off. But if you question what happened with building 7, they freak out and think you should lose your job. Why? It's my country, and I want to understand. Do buildings really collapse? I don't know, but why can't I ask questions about it? Anything you're not allowed to question is something you should question more.

The Building 7 conspiracy theories are intriguing. There have been discussions about how to manipulate these beliefs to increase distrust in the government. Some individuals view Al Qaeda as revolutionaries and heroes opposing the government.

Jake Gilbertson, known as “Jake GTV,” is introduced as a content creator, author, health coach, and the creator of Jake GTV News, an AI-driven satirical news channel. The host describes Jake’s platform as covering topics they say mainstream media avoids, including Zionism, censorship, the Maui fires, corruption, cult activity, and hidden influence networks. The conversation centers on narratives Jake says people have been afraid to discuss, and on how social media and “the great awakening” have changed public openness. Jake and the hosts discuss a war they frame as occurring between the U.S. and a “foreign country” they describe as a domestic terrorist. They say seeing people at “Little Palestine” in Patterson, New Jersey prompted calls to speak up. Eric says it took early “first round” figures to break taboos, describing a social “group psychology” that makes certain topics scary to discuss. Jake connects increased speaking to social media and claims that events such as 9/11 and the pandemic led many people to question authorities. A major theme is “control” by powerful institutions. Jake links Big Pharma, media, and finance to coordinated influence. He claims large pharmaceutical companies and investors behind them (including BlackRock under Larry Fink) exert control over the economy. He also claims media concentration, stating that six companies own 90% of media. He connects this to entertainment and alleges that music and Hollywood involve gatekeeping and systems that push “degeneracy,” including sexual “degeneracy” and violence. Jake describes early personal beliefs, saying he became aware of “secret groups” and industry manipulation in adolescence, including Illuminati and “New World Order” ideas. He claims university environments taught him that “white people are the problem,” and that he noticed what he described as anti-human messaging. He says he viewed climate change “virtue signaling” as part of an “anti-human” agenda and connected it to efforts to reduce population through vaccines, citing claims about Bill Gates proposing reducing global population via vaccines. He also attributes changes in society to control of farms and agriculture, alleging that major companies fill grocery stores with corn, soy, and wheat products and use pesticides. He explains how he entered media production: editing videos in middle school, making a lip-sync video that reached 1.4 million views, then beginning vlogs and skits. He became involved in music production, worked with artists, and invested in studio gear. During music industry involvement, he claims he noticed mainstream artists using symbols and acting in ways he interpreted as evidence of “MKUltra,” saying he looked into MKUltra after observing performers’ behavior. Jake references claims that MKUltra fragments personalities using LSD and describes alleged gatekeepers behind it. The hosts shift to gatekeeping and entertainment contracts. Jake claims major artists’ contracts include their names and that labels may enforce control through exploitation, blackmail, and forced degeneration. He references a “27 Club” and interprets artists’ deaths and behavioral changes as tied to contract escape attempts, citing Miley Cyrus’s transition from “Hannah Montana” as an example of trying to break free. Jake also discusses blackmail narratives involving intelligence and law enforcement figures. He claims CIA-related files (MKUltra and JFK) were brought up and then blocked from release. He compares music executive Puff Daddy’s tactics to intelligence agency methods and says some cases point to Israel. He also claims weapons were sent “pre-1948” and then connects timelines to Israel’s creation in 1948 and the creation of CIA and Mossad shortly thereafter. A later segment focuses on religious authority and the Palestinian festival. Jake says he interviewed rabbis in the Palestine movement who support “free Palestine” and are anti-Zionist while still believing in Judaism, and he says he asked questions about their history of being kicked out of many countries. He reports that one rabbi responded by saying his grandparents were in the Holocaust. Jake describes the rabbi as evasive when asked specific questions about Talmud passages (including claims about circumvention of “a goy” and statements about Jesus). He says the rabbis he encountered were recording and circling him, that he later received a request for the interview footage, and that he believes they “danced around” his questions. Jake expands on comparisons between policies he opposes and “blame” tactics he says others use. He makes claims about 9/11, alleging insurance, insider knowledge, demolition terminology, and Israeli involvement via arrests and sightings. He also references additional assassination and attack incidents, describing alleged “decoys” and unusual survivals/witness roles, and argues that “coincidences” consistently involve a small portion of the population he targets. He then moves into health topics. Jake says autism rates are rising, citing a claim that “one in twelve and a half boys in California now have autism” based on state health data. He links the topic to vaccine schedules and discusses aluminum and formaldehyde in vaccines, arguing for case-by-case necessity evaluation. He also claims polio was already being eradicated before vaccines and that certain substances used earlier were causing symptoms similar to polio. He discusses HIV AZT and claims it was harmful, then argues that Anthony Fauci and COVID vaccine policies were pushed despite earlier controversies, citing a book by RFK Junior. He also talks about autism-related diet and gut-health themes, including claims about raw milk and criticism of formula ingredients and agricultural practices. In the final portion, Jake argues that compliance and control mechanisms operate through systems he links to finance and “ESG” scoring. He claims ICE uses a spyware platform called Graphite, rebranded as “Immigration OS,” that maps and scores populations to target people labeled as “domestic terrorists,” and he describes this as an extension of surveillance tools used elsewhere. The discussion ends with thanks to Jake for attending “Palestine Day” in Patterson and a closing call emphasizing “free Palestine” and “free America from the Zionist occupied government.”

The Joint Chiefs of Staff were willing to destroy airliners, as reported by the Baltimore Sun. They believed that if a terrorist group, like the one responsible for the World Trade Center attack, were to strike again, they would know who to hold accountable. Additionally, they viewed figures like Bin Laden, who had ties to the CIA in the past, as convenient scapegoats for creating an external threat.

Speaker 0 summarizes claims from a Sean Ryan podcast by Sarah Adams, who allegedly said that questioning Building 7 or discussing its collapse means you’re helping Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda supposedly finds Building 7 conspiracy topics fascinating and has discussed ruses to blame the government, and Sarah Adams is described as a Mossad asset. The discussion outlines three plotting components: (1) a large aviation plot with suicide bombers aiming to kill about 4,000; (2) a Washington, DC ground assault to cripple the federal government’s response; (3) ISIS-led urban attacks on churches, supermarkets, and hospitals with five-to-ten person teams, at multiple locations, possibly impersonating law enforcement. There’s a claim Israel would carry out a false flag attack at hospitals dressed as police. A prior intelligence source calls the woman a fraud, alleging NRF Pakistanis fabricate intel. Everything’s said in this video is allegedly. I’m a parody account.

Americans are being misled into a war with the Muslim world, blaming them for attacks actually carried out by the Israeli Mossad. This was warned in a US army report the day before 9/11, revealing Israel's capabilities. It's a false flag operation, not a conspiracy theory. Wake up to the truth.

"Al Qaeda found the Building 7 conspiracy stuff fascinating. And they have actually had discussions about how could we could do ruses and bring in the Building 7 to make them blame their government more. So they're actually looking at our conspiracies and targeting those people for the homeland attack." "You had mentioned before that they are coordinating terrorist, sleeper sales in America, and they wanna do a October 7 style attack." "One's a large aviation plot again, and that they're just gonna do suicide bombers on planes and drop them down, and that's for mass casualty. The goal is to kill 4,000 people." "Get a phone call from a previous intelligence officer this morning, and she starts explaining how this chick is a complete fraud." "Everything's said in this video is just allegedly. I'm just a parody account over here, guys."

The discussion centers on how the CIA allegedly carries out “false flag” operations and how they are meant to be understood by the public. Speaker 0 brings up the idea that Google searches in Israel occurred before a shooting, specifically searching for the name of the shooter, and asks whether these operations are becoming sloppy. Speaker 0 also asks how false flags “unfold” and how long beforehand they are prepared before being carried out. Speaker 1 says these operations are planned “for months.” They reference the events of 9-11 and argue that “a legitimate criminal investigation was never done there,” disagreeing with the 9-11 report. Speaker 1 describes a CIA planning pattern: operations are said to choose a “boogeyman,” always one person, so that it is framed as not a conspiracy. They claim that if the target can be selected, then authorities can later point to that single individual as the explanation—“There is the boogeyman… We got the boogeyman… No conspiracy, nothing to see here.” Speaker 1 also claims that these chosen individuals are often portrayed as having had “no indication previously” of criminal tendencies, and that, in their view, evidence in later cases supposedly does not align with the official narrative, but is still dismissed because the individual is presented as the “boogeyman.” Speaker 0 then argues there is “very little daylight” between the CIA and Mossad, stating that when “Mossad” is mentioned, it “really” means CIA and MI6. Speaker 1 agrees, claiming the CIA considers Mossad its “chief intelligence asset in the Middle East,” and that they are “woven in” together with “sister organizations” that share intelligence at “massive high-level scale” with high-level clearances. Speaker 1 also describes a “frenemies” element, saying Mossad sometimes targets the CIA to steal information, and concludes they are “joined at the hip.” Speaker 0 asks whether these narratives still work, suggesting mainstream media coverage—citing CNN and Axios—links anti-Semitism to attacks, and they wonder if the “false flagship has sailed.” Speaker 1 responds that the agency conducts psychological studies and understands that the average American is exhausted and mostly receives information from news programs, implying the public is more likely to accept repeated claims without critical thinking. Speaker 1 gives an example from 9-11, saying the Bush administration claimed a paper passport could be recovered despite the plane being incinerated, calling it “stupid… disinformation.” Speaker 0 adds that they believe “nanothermite” and “lava” were involved in the controlled demolition of the towers, contrasting that with paper passports. Speaker 1 says the passport claim was repeated enough for many Americans to accept it and argues that people need critical thinking rather than passive consumption of televised narratives.

The episode argues that conspiracy theories about 9/11 may flourish precisely because of deliberate actions by the US government: suppressing video evidence of the attacks, routing rubble overseas without inspection, branding critics as crazy or criminal, lying about the attacks, preventing an actual investigation, avoiding public trials, and using the raid that killed Osama bin Laden to justify unrelated wars. It claims these patterns mirror what happened after 9/11 and suggests that focused attention on directed-energy weapons distracts from the government’s central role in facilitating the attacks. Building 7 is a central focus. The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., and Building 7, a 47-story steel-frame building about a football field away, also collapsed the same day. It housed the NYC Office of Emergency Management, the US Secret Service New York field office, a secret CIA office, and a DoD office; its records were destroyed. The 9/11 Commission’s 577-page report offered no explanation for Building 7’s collapse, prompting questions for a Senate investigation. Witnesses suggested that a plane could not have caused such a collapse, and theories of controlled demolition emerged, reinforced by studies and testimony about symmetrical, global collapse. Independent investigations, including Leroy Hulsey’s 2020 University of Alaska study, questioned NIST’s claim that thermal expansion of steel caused the failure and argued that office fires could not have produced the observed collapse. Critics noted that the building’s rapid, all-at-once fall differed from typical progressive collapses. The unedited video evidence indicated a two-stage collapse, which raised further queries about the official narrative. Debris was removed and shipped overseas quickly; a New York Times piece noted that some steel columns were sent to mills in Asia without examination, hindering analysis of the building’s collapse. NIST attributed the collapse to progressive failure after a single girder failed due to thermal expansion, while supporters of alternative theories pointed to discrepancies in video, eyewitness accounts of explosions, and the fact that some testing did not reproduce such collapses under comparable fires. Witnesses claimed hearing explosions inside Building 7, and efforts to interview one witness were noted alongside the later death of the witness. Attention is drawn to the broader debris-handling and investigative gaps: FEMA and NIST provided different explanations for Building 7’s fire and collapse, yet neither fully reconciled with the video evidence. The film notes that a BBC report appeared to claim the building’s collapse before it happened, suggesting foreknowledge or misreporting. A key disputed issue is the presence of thermitic material found in four dust samples from the towers, reported in 2009 in Open Chemical Physics Journal, implying energetic compounds, though NIST argued that thermite would require prolonged contact and would be difficult to conceal. Foreknowledge by foreign intelligence is emphasized. The transcript asserts that allied nations, particularly Israel, had information about the plot and that signals intelligence was shared with allies but not fully with the US. It cites the interception and handling of al-Qaeda communications, NSA reluctance to share raw data, and the role of foreign assets in the US before 9/11. It highlights the reporting of five Israelis seen celebrating the attacks, FBI documents suggesting deception rather than foreknowledge, and allegations that Israeli art students were connected to hijackers, living near Them and near key sites. It argues that foreign intelligence may have known more than the US and did not fully disclose it. The episode concludes with a call for a new, independent commission to answer specific questions: who decided to ship debris overseas and why; the CIA’s involvement with Building 7; the NSA’s signals intelligence and its sharing with foreign governments; what foreign governments knew and did not share; and several other questions the 9/11 Commission allegedly did not address. It frames the 9/11 attacks as transformative for American freedoms and warrants public accountability, promising further exploration of who profited from 9/11 in the next episode.

The speaker questions the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks, focusing on the collapse of Building 7. They argue that the building's collapse was not due to fire but rather controlled demolition, citing evidence such as the presence of explosive material in dust samples and reports of unusual elevator renovations prior to the attacks. The speaker also mentions suppressed testimonies from firefighters about explosions in the building. They express feeling threatened while advocating for a new investigation.

If you go on TV and say the earth is flat, people laugh but it's not a threat. However, if you question what happened with building 7, people freak out and you could lose your job. Why? It's my country, it's an attack on my country. Can I ask if buildings collapse? Maybe they do, I don't know. But why can't I ask questions? We should be asking more questions about things we're not allowed to question.

Speaker 0 asserts that 9/11 is the biggest lie of our lifetime and that he was on-site, believing it may have been a false flag. He states it is obvious to him that Building 7 was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down, a uniform collapse requiring all load-bearing columns to fail simultaneously; he contrasts this with the Twin Towers, which he says collapse top-down in a progressive collapse. He notes that the trade centers were designed to withstand jet impacts and, referencing his experience in heavy construction, describes the outer columns as a “fishnet” and the inner core columns as thick steel beams capable of withstanding four to five times the loads. He claims engineers routinely over-design buildings. He mentions that dust samples contained what is called thermitic material, described as an explosive incendiary, and cites documented reports. He alleges extensive elevator renovations in the two to three years prior to 9/11, that many workers had access to the cores of the buildings, and that on the day of the attack the elevator company would not assist in elevator operations and subsequently went out of business. He references sworn firefighter testimonies a couple of years after 9/11 about explosions in the buildings and asserts these were suppressed, as Building 7 was ignored in the 9/11 Commission Report. Regarding Al Qaeda, he contends that Al Qaeda’s role is something he does not think exists, suggesting it is made up. He recalls the FBI’s 2006 statement that there was no concrete evidence linking Osama bin Laden with 9/11 and notes that Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA in Afghanistan, helping fight the Russians, and that the CIA helped orchestrate 9/11, calling it “their plan.”

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.

Sarah Adams claims that if you question Building 7 or discuss a conspiracy, you’re 'actually helping out. You're working for Al Qaeda.' She says 'Al Qaeda found the Building 7 conspiracy stuff fascinating' and that 'they're actually looking at our conspiracies and targeting those people for the homeland attack.' The discussion outlines three plotting elements: a large aviation plot to kill 4,000; an assault on Washington DC to cripple the federal government's response; and ISIS-led urban assaults on churches, supermarkets, hospitals at multiple locations, with possible targeting of law enforcement or impersonating them. A claim that Israel would carry out a false flag attack at hospitals dressed as police is raised. A caller labels Sarah a fraud, cites NRF in Pakistan fabricating reports, and says she feeds fake intel to intelligence agencies, asking for proof. 'Everything’s said in this video is just allegedly. I'm just a parody account.'

Speaker 0: Alleging not simply a cover up by the US government, but by the entire American media. It's totally implausible. Like, we would report that if that were true. Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. Speaker 3: That's seen Building 7 collapse, the Sallon Brothers building? No. I wanna show you that right now. Speaker 4: Now here, we're gonna show you a videotape of the collapse itself. Describe that feeling. Now we go to videotape the collapse of this building. It's amazing. Amazing. Speaker 3: I t's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately store destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down. No plane hit that building. Speaker 6: Well, it starts with Building 7. Yes. Where you look at that and it just yeah. I mean, this this is really weird. You know, it it does come down just like a, you know, building demolition type of project. When you start putting together at what temperature steel melts. They had molten steel in the twin towers, and I'm not sure we had a number seven. Speaker 0: I never questioned anything about nine eleven, and I actively attacked people who did. I'm ashamed of that, but that's a fact. Speaker 6: And, of course, the Overton window is is is is about this is what you can discuss without threat or without, you know, risk. And but you gotta go beyond that. Speaker 0: What began to make me wonder, I have no idea what happened in 09/11, but it's very clear that there's a lot of lying around it, was the collapse of Building 7. Speaker 0: because I was part of the cover up, and I feel guilty about it. That's why. And I'm trying to atone for my previous sense. That's the real reason. Speaker 0: I did it on tape more than once because my feeling was, well, you know, like, that's divisive or whatever. I was a child and an idiot.

The discussion centers on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane. A video clip shows the building's collapse, described as reminiscent of a controlled demolition. One speaker recalls news reports announcing the building's collapse before it happened. Another speaker, with a background in fire protection and insurance, states that a 47-story building doesn't typically collapse due to fire. One speaker admits to previously attacking 9/11 conspiracy theorists but now questions the official narrative, particularly regarding Building 7. An Alaskan structural engineering professor's four-year study allegedly debunks the NIST analysis of the collapse. Molten steel was reportedly present in the Twin Towers. The symmetrical nature of Building 7's collapse is questioned, with one speaker suggesting it resembles a controlled demolition. One speaker suggests they broadened the Overton window on the topic because they were part of the cover-up and feel guilty.