reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Israeli spies were detained after being caught recording the 9/11 attacks. They later admitted on television that it was their job to document the event. They were then questioned again, this time about their alleged membership in Masai. They explained that they come from a country that faces daily terror attacks and their purpose was to document the event.

Speaker 1: 'You know, I I have friends over there, but they stopped talking to me when I did not unconditionally support what they're doing.' 'Right. So I I can't really say with absolute certainty, but I suspect that things are not good.' 'I think mister Netanyahu knows that the the issue for the Israelis from the very beginning of this tragedy and I say tragedy because I think eventually it will come out that seven October was allowed to happen, that July was not a surprise. There's plenty of evidence on the street right now.' 'And if that comes out, I think mister Netanyahu and his friends are gonna be in very serious trouble at home.' Speaker 0: 'Well, that's gonna be jail.' Speaker 1: 'Used as an excuse to to sort of practice arson across the region.'

There were many involved in nine eleven—the Pentagon, the executive branch, and the CIA—with prior knowledge and investments. And then there was Israel. The dancing Israelis, who posed for pictures in front of the burning towers, told the FBI that Israel now has hope that the world will understand us. Over a 100 Israelis were arrested after 9/11; they were trained in military intelligence and explosives, posing as art students with fake IDs, infiltrating government buildings. The US response was to destabilize the Middle East and to start viewing the American people as domestic terrorists. This is known as a false flag. Netanyahu has made it clear he supports Hamas, and the evidence shows that they are also a creation of the intelligence agencies. Having helped to build up Hamas, Netanyahu has now vowed to destroy it.

In 1994, a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in London, causing minor injuries but no deaths. The bomb was designed to destroy evidence and was believed to be the work of a skilled individual. A senior MI5 officer, who had access to both evidence and intelligence, concluded that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, had orchestrated the attack themselves. The officer believed Mossad did this to pressure MI5 into increasing security around their embassy. Additionally, two innocent Palestinians involved in political campaigning were arrested, charged, and convicted for the attack, which effectively dismantled their network. This theory, although it may sound like a conspiracy, was the official position of MI5 at the time.

This is the Israeli company that went and grabbed the device or whatever it is allegedly. Watch the lavalier lapel mic. Do you see it explode? That is the explosion from Charlie Kirk's lavalier lapel mic. Remember when we told you that that was absolutely an exit wound? Yeah, it is. First, we had exploding pagers. Now we have exploding mics. That proves that all of the activity came from the mic that Charlie Kirk was wearing. Remember the palm gun guy in the brown shirt, that shadowy looking guy with the sunglasses? He pushes the detonator. This guy, brown shirt guy, he's the assassin.

In 1946, a terrorist bombing at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killed 91 people and injured 46. The attack was carried out by Israeli extremists, setting a deadly example for extremism in the region. The extremists disguised themselves as Arabs and detonated a bomb in the hotel, causing significant destruction. This event, along with other instances of Israeli aggression, raises questions about continued support for Israel by the UK and US. The legacy of Israeli terror has had far-reaching consequences, prompting scrutiny of the relationship between these countries and Israel.

In 1994, a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in London, suspected to be a false flag attack by Mossad. A senior Mi5 officer believed Mossad bombed their own embassy to increase security and disrupt a Palestinian support network. Two innocent Palestinians were framed for the attack, leading to their arrest and the collapse of the network. This incident had significant political implications.

The documentary presents a sweeping narrative that the modern era’s wars and security state are driven by deliberate, government-sponsored manipulation—false flag operations and orchestrated crises designed to terrify populations, justify expanded power, and secure global hegemony. It threads together historical examples, contemporary incidents, and testimonies to argue that the public has been misled by official narratives and that truth is being hidden behind “specters of fear.” False flag origins and early precedents - The program defines false flag operations as covert actions designed to appear as if carried out by other actors, with a long focus on the use of terror as a pretext for political ends. - Adolf Hitler’s regime is cited as a classic example: Reichstag fire in 1933, with a patsy framed for the blaze, enabling new laws that consolidated power. The film emphasizes the crisis as a vehicle to drift toward dictatorship and aggression. - The 1953 Iran coup is described as a CIA-MI6 operation (Operation Ajax) that overthrew Mohammad Mossaddegh after his nationalization of oil, with Western intelligence allegedly admitting to terror attacks and propaganda against Mossaddegh. The narrative stresses the role of MI6 and the CIA in orchestrating fear and regime change, and the long-term consequences of SAVAK and imperial influence. - Operation Gladio is presented as an umbrella for Western intelligence-led bombings in Europe (Italy, NATO states) designed to be blamed on leftists; Bologna’s 1980 bombing is highlighted as an instance where officials later spoke of Gladio’s civilian targeting. - The Gulf of Tonkin incident is recounted as a staged pretext to escalate U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, with declassified accounts and tapes cited to show manipulated intelligence and the subsequent Tonkin Resolution enabling mass casualties. Cold War and postwar covert operations - The film cites Northwoods, a proposed plan to hijack aircraft and blame others to justify war with Cuba; it notes that President Johnson pursued some operational concepts in that vein, linking them to defense planning in the era. - The USS Liberty incident is recounted with claims of an Israeli attack that was allowed to proceed despite clear identification of the ship, and subsequent suppression of details. The narrative includes interviews with figures who allege political orders to sink the ship and to blame it on Egypt. - The 1964 Tonkin incident, the 1967-1968 war moves, and covert operations across the globe are woven into a larger claim that Western powers have repeatedly manufactured or exploited external threats to justify expansion and intervention. 7/7 and London: a modern false flag argument - The film pivots to the July 7, 2005 London bombings, arguing MI6 involvement and suggesting that Al Qaeda links were contrived or manipulated. It points to Madrid’s 2004 bombings as a precursor, noting that officials later admitted Al Qaeda had limited or no connection in some cases. - It presents testimony about MI6 involvement with operatives associated with or acting as assets, including claims about a mastermind linked to MI6 and the protection of a suspect (Aswat) by British intelligence. - The documentary emphasizes anomalies in the official narrative: a single bus diverted to Tavistock Square, eyewitness inconsistencies about the bomber, and post-event claims about surveillance footage and MO incongruities. It asserts evidence of cover-ups, whistleblowers, and political calculations aimed at maintaining fear and martial-law-like measures. - It frames the London attacks as a tool to bolster Tony Blair’s political standing, allow the passage of restrictive laws, and justify overseas military campaigns, while alleging a broader pattern of Western governments staging terror to secure interests. 9/11 and the “inside job” thesis - The centerpiece is a claim that 9/11 was an inside job, with expert and lay testimonies questioning the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, Building 7, and the presence of alternative explanations (thermite, controlled demolition). - The film cites declassified and public materials (Northwoods-like concepts; cited White House memos about luring Saddam into a war through staged actions; investigations into the Pentagon frames) to argue that the government manipulated intelligence and public opinion to justify the Iraq War. - It features a roster of notable figures—former MI5/MI6 whistleblowers, CIA veterans, and academics—who challenge the official 9/11 account, including references to Operation Northwoods, the PNAC document, and analyses suggesting a “false flag” justification for imperial aims. - Charlie Sheen’s public remarks are highlighted as a turning point in mainstream attention to alternative theories, followed by media coverage of new 9/11 footage and debates about Building 7, the Pentagon frames, and thermite evidence. - The documentary cites physicists and engineers who question official explanations, citing molten metal, traces of thermite, and expert analyses of the WTC collapse as signs of demolition rather than collapse from fire alone. Surveillance, civil liberties, and the information war - A recurring claim is that the modern battle is largely informational: psychological warfare, public relations, and control of the narrative are seen as the dominant form of warfare, with public opinion manipulation described as the real battlefield. - Edward Bernays is invoked as the architect of modern propaganda, with quotes about shaping masses and an “invisible government” pulling the strings—an “unseen mechanism” that governs democratic societies. - The film argues that fear and threats are used to erode civil liberties: expanded surveillance, identity cards, free-speech restrictions, and the use of homeland-security rhetoric to suppress dissent, including zones for demonstrations and media suppression in multiple democracies. - It mentions whistleblowers from MI5/MI6 who claim funding of extremist groups and complicity in covert actions, and it frames journalists and activists as agents of influence or targets of state pressure when challenging official narratives. Iraq, oil, and empire - Pentagon and White House documents are cited to claim that post-9/11 strategy sought to counter regional threats and secure access to oil resources, with basing and long-term occupation framed as part of a broader plan for permanent military presence and regional control. - The film argues that the “war on terror” is a pretext for a broader imperial project: redrawing borders, destabilizing regions to facilitate resource control, and exploiting crises to profit defense contractors. - It contends that the “new world order” seeks to keep populations under surveillance and compliance, with public narratives constructed around fear of terrorism and the need for security measures that erode cherished liberties. Closing call - The speakers urge viewers to uncover motive (qui bono), question official stories, and resist the expansion of government power through fear and manipulation. - They advocate for independent inquiry, whistleblowing, and public accountability to stop what they call an ongoing cycle of manufactured crises used to justify a global empire and a police-state governance model. Note: The summary mirrors the documentary’s asserted claims, statements, and testimonies as presented, without endorsing their veracity.

there was an incident where there was a white van in New Jersey across from the World Trade Center, and five Israelis, probably Mossad, were giving the high five after the World Trade Center was hit. The investigation was taken away at the Justice Department from terrorism and put in national security completely sealed off. You know, if you could look at it benignly, it was the Israelis who stumbled across this. the parameters of people knew about this of nine eleven in advance are there, and they need to be investigated. Is it possible that these Mossad assets were in place in New Jersey in order to film the first hit? And there's actually a lot of, reports that they were there set up before the first plane hit. They They were set up before the first plane hit. So you can confirm that. That's true. Yeah. Yeah. They were set up there before.

"Israelis are not like anybody else. They killed a guy in a hotel room in Dubai, and then after they killed him, they were somehow able to lock the door from the inside of the hotel room. There's an underground" "My experience is universally negative. Universally negative. I've never had a positive encounter with Mossad." "The thing is, you know, the Israelis this was covered in the Washington Post, just a couple days after the twelve day war started." "And what the Israelis did is that they have a lot of Farsi speaking Jews in Israel. These are Iranians who are Jewish and who emigrated to Israel, and a lot of them work from Mossad and Shin Bet."

In 1994, the Israeli embassy in London was bombed. Two Palestinian students were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years in prison for conspiring to cause the explosion. An MI5 lead investigator, G91, assessed that Mossad bombed its own embassy to increase security around Israeli assets in London and to shatter a Palestinian political support network. A senior MI5 officer formally concluded Mossad carried out a controlled explosion. The bomb was sophisticated and destroyed forensics. The two Palestinians, Samar Alami and Jawed Botme, maintained their innocence and had alibis. They were linked to the bombing through a man named Rader Megrabi, suspected to be a Mossad agent, who disappeared after the bombing. The speaker and their ex-partner left MI5 and went into exile after deciding to report the crime. They faced arrests, as did family, friends, supporters, and journalists.

The speaker concludes that the Israeli Mossad was involved in John F. Kennedy's assassination because Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building nuclear weapons. The speaker claims that when they first presented this proposition, they were fiercely attacked by JFK assassination researchers who hadn't read their book. The speaker states that people misrepresented their argument as claiming that Israelis directly assassinated Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. The speaker clarifies that their actual suggestion was that pro-Israel elements in the CIA, connected to pro-Israel elements of organized crime and in the Mossad, were involved. Despite this clarification, the speaker says people preferred to attack them rather than pay attention to what they wrote.

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.

In 1994, a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in London, causing minor injuries but no deaths. The bomb appeared to be a sophisticated device that destroyed all forensic evidence. A senior MI5 officer, who had access to both evidence and intelligence, concluded that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, had orchestrated the attack. The officer believed Mossad did this to pressure MI5 into increasing security measures around the embassy. Additionally, two innocent Palestinians involved in political campaigning for the West Bank and Gaza were wrongfully arrested, charged, and convicted, causing their network to collapse.

The discussion centers on the 1994 London incident: a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in central London, a highly visible false flag scenario at the time. Earlier that year, there was a similar attack against a Jewish interests section in Buenos Aires, using a car bomb driven and parked outside that exploded, causing very minor injuries and no fatalities. The device was sophisticated and appeared to “eat” its forensic traces, a level of technical execution that even the IRA struggled to match. What followed was a claim by a senior MI5 officer who oversaw the investigation and had access to all evidence and intelligence (not all of which is admissible in court). In his formal assessment, he stated that Mossad, the Israeli external intelligence agency, had bombed their own embassy in a controlled explosion. He gave two reasons for this assessment. First, Israel was continually pressuring MI5 for increased security around its embassy and other interests in London, given London’s reputation at the time for providing safe haven to Arab dissidents from around the world; MI5 had argued there was no need to increase threat levels. By conducting a controlled explosion, the operation immediately achieved the desired result of heightened security and attention. Second, and crucial, two innocent Palestinians were arrested, charged, and convicted of conspiracy to cause the attack. They were active in a Palestinian support network in London and engaged in political campaigning for people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Their arrest and conviction effectively disrupted and crippled that network, which, according to the officer, has not recovered to this day. The implication drawn is that the operation served a political purpose by dismantling a network and providing a significant strategic advantage.

In 1994, a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in London. A senior MI5 officer believed Mossad bombed their own embassy to get increased security and frame two innocent Palestinians, who were then imprisoned. MI6 funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996, which killed innocent people. This illegal operation, lacking proper authorization, led to the speakers quitting MI5. False flag operations are standard for intelligence agencies. Alexander Litvinenko exposed KGB involvement in bombing Moscow apartments, blamed on Chechen rebels, as a pretext to invade Chechnya. Initial media reports blamed Al Qaeda for the Oklahoma City bombing. The media is controlled by spies and governments. The Iraq war was based on lies. The US administration tortured suspects to link Al Qaeda and 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. MI6 has an information operations section to manipulate the media. The speakers fled the country after whistleblowing. Their flat was raided, and they lived in exile. One speaker was imprisoned after a trial where he couldn't present his reasons or cross-examine accusers. The 9/11 attacks require a new independent inquiry. Three buildings fell, including WTC 7, which wasn't hit by a plane. The "war on terror" has eroded civil liberties. The UK has become a police state with laws allowing states of emergency and surveillance. The 7/7 London bombings also have anomalies. A counterterrorism exercise occurred at the same time and locations as the bombings. The official narrative about the bombers' train was false. The 9/11 Commission was set up to fail. The executive director defined the investigation's parameters. Nanothermite may have been used to bring down the towers. The speakers encourage people to educate themselves about 9/11 and false flag operations, question the media, and reclaim democracy.

I spoke with contacts at the Army War College and Headquarters Marine Corps, informing them that 9/11 was a controlled demolition. I showed them footage of the third building at the World Trade Center collapsing, indicating that all the buildings were wired for demolition. If Americans ever find out that Israel was behind this, they will retaliate without considering the consequences. The Zionists are playing a high-stakes game, as losing this battle would result in their downfall. The evidence is clear: three buildings collapsed, and the third was not hit by a plane. When I presented this information, everyone agreed that Israel was responsible for 9/11.

Israel was knee-deep in the JFK assassination. The Mossad is about having information on the United States. The payoff for the assassination was that Israel wanted a bomb. They asked Eisenhower, who told them no. Then they asked Kennedy, who also refused and demanded to inspect their nuclear program. When LBJ came in, some uranium went missing in Pennsylvania, which helped Israel start their nuclear program. The Mossad trained the four Arabs to take the planes over and run them in the building on 9/11, which led to the Patriot Act. All of this is connected to current events with Jeffrey Epstein and now Diddy. The JFK assassination goes back to the root cause which was that General Groves wanted to nuke China and Russia.

Mario opened by asking Professor (Speaker 1) for his initial reaction to the horrific shooting in Australia, noting Iran’s spokesperson condemned the attack. Professor 1 said the Iranians were swift to respond and suggested the western media’s speed benefits the Israeli regime; he noted early suggestions that one of the alleged culprits has a Salafi Wahhabi background, which he tied to allies of the United States and Israel, and said the Israeli regime has historically supported ISIS and Al Qaeda. He added that the immediate accusations against Iran by Israel and some Western outlets raise questions. Mario pressed Professor 1 on his tweets, asking whether he genuinely believes Mossad could be behind the Sydney attack or if he was critiquing others’ blaming Iran. Professor 1 replied that he wouldn’t put anything beyond Mossad and the Israeli regime, citing the Hannibal directive during October 7 and noting past high-profile conspiracies and investigations where insiders seemed to know more than the public. He referenced 9/11, claiming the attackers’ backgrounds and stock market movements suggested possible foreknowledge, and argued that a regime that carries out genocide could do anything. He asserted that the obsession with blaming Iran in various cases is a frequent pattern, and that the Australian media had started implying Iran’s involvement in the Sydney attack. Michael interrupted to challenge the framing, asking Professor 1 to distinguish between critiquing Israeli actions and endorsing unfounded claims about Iran. Professor 1 argued that for nearly fifty years accusations have often targeted Iran, while Israel’s actions — including genocidal traits and hospital bombings — have not faced equivalent condemnation, though he clarified he had not claimed Israel carried out every conspiracy. He asserted that ISIS and Al Qaeda were created by Western interests and Gulf regimes, and alleged U.S. and Israeli involvement in supporting extremist groups. He claimed Western policy and Saudi/Wahhabi influence underpin these groups, and argued Israeli and Western power shapes Middle East outcomes. Michael commented that the discussion should avoid knee-jerk conspiracism and noted the pattern of blaming Israel for many attacks, while acknowledging legitimate grievances against Israel’s conduct. He cited a May Washington, DC attack linked to Gaza motivations and argued this blowback results from Western support for extremist groups, including ISIS and Al Qaeda. He criticized using blanket attribution to Israel, stressing that this rhetoric crowds out rational critique of Israel and U.S. policy. He referenced Epstein as an example of alleged intelligence connections and warned activists to beware of being portrayed in compromising footage. The conversation shifted to Netanyahu’s statement blaming Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state for the attack. Professor 1 condemned Netanyahu’s framing, calling him anti-Semitic for conflating Judaism with Zionism and arguing that Palestinians are Semites; he claimed the Israeli regime’s influence in Washington is substantial and that accusations against Iran distract from Israel’s genocide. He argued that many Jews oppose the Israeli regime, and that Zionism cannot be equated with Judaism. He reiterated that the regime’s policies, including alleged use of Wahhabism and Western support for extremists, have fueled blowback. Mario asked for final reaction on Netanyahu’s claim and the broader role of Western policy. Michael acknowledged the complexity and described Western-Israeli influence as significant, while insisting on avoiding unfounded accusations about any single actor. Professor 1 condemned terrorism in all forms but argued that the main culprits are those carrying out genocide in Palestine, with the slave-vs-oppressor framing underscoring his view of the Palestinian situation. The discussion closed with a note that both guests view Western policy and Israeli actions as central to global blowback, while cautioning against simplistic attributions of attacks to Iran or Israel without solid evidence.

Americans, be aware. There is a potential war with Arabs and the Muslim world looming. However, it is important to note that the blame for any terrible event should not be solely placed on Muslims. The Israeli Mossad, known for their cunning and ruthlessness, could potentially carry out attacks on Americans, making it appear as if Arabs were responsible. This is referred to as a false flag, and it is not just a conspiracy theory. In fact, a US army report, released the day before 9/11, warned about Israel's capabilities. Feel free to criticize me, but these are the facts presented by the US army.

Clayton discusses with Kevin Ship, a former CIA officer and author of Twilight of the Shadow Government, how false flags allegedly unfold and why they persist in public discourse. Key points: - False flags are planned for months in advance. Kevin suggests that covert operations typically identify a single boogeyman to avoid implying a broader conspiracy, arguing that a lone perpetrator allows authorities to claim “we got him” and deny wider conspiracy. - The pattern cited includes one individual who previously showed no criminal tendencies, who then commits a violent act, followed by quick attribution to a designated boogeyman, with the implication that the operation is over and left without further inquiry. - Specific incidents discussed include the Bondi Beach attack in Australia, with references to Mossad’s involvement and claims that Iran is behind the attack to push for war with Iran. The exchange questions the Australian government’s role and the relevance of Mossad’s presence in investigating the incident. - The conversation links these operations to broader intelligence ecosystem dynamics, noting a close collaboration and “frenemies” relationship between the CIA and Mossad. They describe Mossad as having a pervasive role in Middle East intelligence and describe a history of interactions where Mossad and the CIA share high-level information and sometimes operate in tandem, though at times Mossad may target the CIA as well. - The discussion points to prior examples of disinformation, such as the 9/11 events, where perceptions of evidence (e.g., a passport found near the World Trade Center) are presented as straightforward proof, while being described as an example of ineffective or misused disinformation to shape public belief. - In addressing media influence, Kevin references the CIA’s media liaison office and programs designed to influence how news is presented in the United States. He contends that “Mockingbird”-like media consolidation and complicit outlets help propagate these narratives, especially to audiences that rely primarily on television news. - The conversation notes a perceived pattern of actors or individuals appearing at multiple, unrelated events (e.g., a person claiming responsibility or being present at various incidents) as part of the alleged orchestration of false flag narratives. - They discuss the effectiveness of false flags: despite growing scrutiny and critical reporting, they argue that false flags continue to influence public perception, aided by psychological studies within intelligence communities and the reliance of many viewers on mainstream media for information. - Kevin reiterates his belief that the shadow government—particularly the CIA’s control of elected government and media propaganda programs—remains powerful, with ongoing operations designed to manipulate thinking and push narratives that serve certain geopolitical aims. He emphasizes that false flags are a recurring tactic and predict more of them in the future. - The conversation closes with Kevin urging readers to consider his book Twilight of the Shadow Government and to engage with his perspective on the CIA’s influence over media, politics, and public belief.

The speaker states they did not trust Israelis, "not as far as I could throw them," and that the CIA doesn't allow Israelis into headquarters because they would bring gifts containing listening devices. According to the speaker, 100% of the gifts from Israelis had bugs in them, even at a safe house in Virginia. The speaker claims that 100% of their colleagues didn't trust Mossad. In contrast, the speaker trusted the British the most because their national interests are closely aligned.

Americans, beware of being drawn into a war with Arabs by the Israeli Mossad, who can stage attacks to blame Muslims. This is known as a false flag, as detailed in a US army report released the day before 9/11. The report warned about Israel's tactics.

Clayton (Speaker 0) asks how false flags materialize and how the shadow government carries out clandestine attacks, citing Bondi Beach in Australia and Brown University, and notes observations like Google searches in Israel before a shooting. He asks Kevin Ship, who spent seventeen years in the CIA, how long these operations are planned. Kevin Ship (Speaker 1) responds that false flag operations are planned for months. He argues that the CIA plans these operations by always choosing a boogeyman, ideally one person, so there can’t be a broader conspiracy discussed. The boogeyman is hit with chemicals or directed energy to derail the mind, then the agency proclaims “we got him” and that there is no conspiracy. He points to Charlie Kirk’s murder as an example, saying, “There is the boogeyman. He did it. We got him. No conspiracy, nothing to see here.” He notes the pattern of a single boogeyman with no prior indication of criminal tendency. Clayton notes that in Australia, months before the attack there were reports of paid actors making threats against Jewish institutions, with Mossad now assisting the investigation and Iran being blamed, suggesting the boogeyman is Iran to push toward war. He asks why Mossad would be involved in this Australian case. Kevin replies that the more arrogant the operators become, the more stupid the disinformation appears. He questions Mossad’s involvement in Australia and asks what Mossad has to do with the Australian government and people. He claims Mossad has no ethics and will do anything to expand Israel’s power, stating Mossad is “whatever it takes.” He describes a frenemies relationship between Mossad and CIA, as they are “joined at the hip” and share intelligence at a high level, though Mossad may sometimes target the CIA to steal information. Clayton shows an individual who claims to have been in Israel on October 7, then appears in Sydney with bloodied selfies, claiming survival of October 7, and asks if this mirrors other false flag patterns where the same people appear at different events. Kevin agrees, citing examples like the same person appearing at completely unrelated events, suggesting manipulation. Clayton asks if false flags still work and if more are coming. Kevin says that the CIA studies how to manipulate Americans through media and disinformation, referencing the “media liaison office” as a division within the CIA that propagandizes and influences U.S. news media. He cites the 9/11 passport claim as an example of disinformation that was repeated to shape public perception, noting that many people accept it despite implausibility. Clayton asks if the CIA studies how to manipulate media budgets and public thinking; Kevin confirms there is a program to control thinking and propagate propaganda with complicit news outlets. They discuss mainstream media’s role in pushing narratives like antisemitism and the role of Mockingbird media. Kevin reiterates that false flags are still effective and that more of them are expected, making their work harder to debunk.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit. I am convinced based on my own sources and my own reporting on this story, he wasn't one of ours. So he was an American, which leads basically three options, MI six, Saudi or Mossad? Yep. Which one would you choose? Well, I mean it's possible that that's the reason everything is getting buried, that there is some treasure trove and it's getting buried because How many people here believe that? Raise your hand. Okay. I'd say about half half the hands think that it's being buried because of an Israeli thing. It could be. I I really don't know. And I no evidence to suggest that. I'm neither.