TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

They were unsure about containing the fire, so I suggested pulling the building to prevent further loss of life. They made the decision to pull it, and we saw the building collapse.

There was no clash between the secretaries, despite what you may have heard. You're just stirring up trouble and asking irrelevant questions. We're here to discuss the World Cup. Elon and Marco are working well together and doing an excellent job. There is no conflict between them. I won't answer your question about who I support; it's off-topic. Of course, you're with NBC. That explains your line of questioning. That's enough. Let's keep the discussion focused on the World Cup. Are there any other relevant questions?

The speaker discusses the importance of setting ambitious goals and acknowledges the challenges ahead. They mention the success of the Notre Dame reconstruction project and how it serves as a reference for the ongoing pension reform, which is currently facing difficulties. The speaker believes that eventually, the benefits of the reform will be recognized, but acknowledges that it is currently a difficult and complex issue for President Emmanuel Macron. The hope is that the validation of the reform will bring closure to this challenging matter.

It's unbelievable! Macron hired a US crisis PR firm with TikTok connections. Suddenly, my "Becoming Brigitte" clips got strikes, and my account's at risk. I dare him to bring his court case public because I spoke the truth. Instead, he's trying to ban content creators on TikTok for speaking freely. This is about free speech. If we can't discuss corruption in our governments, we're in trouble. These people who want to shut down free speech are a threat to our freedoms because they think we should only trust the experts, but what happens when the experts are corrupt? Power at the top is going after journalists. We can't allow that to happen. What Macron is doing is psychopathic. I'm ready to do a second series on him because I won't tolerate this.

The speaker argues that Big Ben (the Elizabeth Tower) and the Palace of Westminster reconstruction after the 1834 fire are not adequately documented, and that the standard narrative is false. He states that parliamentary archives claim Big Ben was commissioned, funded, and built as part of the Palace of Westminster reconstruction under state contract, designed by an architect of Parliament, with all work government funded. Because this was government funded, he maintains there should be official drawings, blueprints, ledgers, specifications, inspection certificates, and related records in the parliamentary record, and that these records should be accessible to the public. He describes his process of requesting from the parliamentary archives the original materials related to the Great Clock of Westminster—specifically, the original blueprints, architectural drawings, structural or engineering drawings, ledgers, engineering calculations, specifications, and any communications between architect, builder, or officials, as well as any photographs and inspection certificates. He notes the aim was to determine whether construction records exist and, if so, where they are kept or why they are not available. He emphasizes that if such records exist, they would reveal how the clock was designed and constructed, including any underground tunnels or echo chambers discussed earlier. The parliamentary reply is that there are surprisingly few architectural drawings of the great clock in their collections and that they do not have the construction records requested; they could not prove that Big Ben or the Elizabeth Clock Tower was constructed in the eighteenth hundreds as claimed. He presses back, asking for clarification on whether the archives ever held the complete set of original drawings and whether records were ever transferred, lost, or never possessed, and whether there are any catalog references or accession numbers for remaining materials. A subsequent reply shifts the argument: the architectural drawings and related materials were never part of the parliamentary collections and were not produced by Parliament, implying Parliament did not create or hold the original blueprints. He asserts that the Palace of Westminster and Big Ben were government-funded, public projects, and that under the Public Records Act of 1838, all documents created by government departments must be preserved as public records. He contends that if construction began two years after the act, such records should exist and be preserved. He argues that saying the records were never produced by Parliament violates this act and contradicts themselves, since Parliament would have approved the project and paid for it with public money. The senior archivist reportedly agrees that public records exist in principle, stating that records about the construction of Big Ben will be held by the National Archives at Kew, i.e., government records. The presenter then states they have contacted the National Archives to prove the blueprints exist, or to show they do not, which would violate the Public Records Act if the records are nonexistent. He describes this as a legal ultimatum with two options: produce the original blueprints and related documents, or admit that they do not exist. He asserts that the National Archives has told them that records are being transferred and will not be available to the public until 2026, and that the inquiry cannot access the same materials until then. He concludes that this constitutes an official paper trail, showing that parliamentary archives admitted they do not possess the original blueprints, even though Big Ben and the Palace of Westminster were government-funded projects. He predicts the National Archives cannot confirm the existence of records and suggests that the transfer and inaccessibility until 2026 is a deflection. He hints at broader investigations into other ancient structures and teases future content, including a potential move to Chicago’s Field Museum.

Nous sortirons de la pandémie grâce à la vaccination, malgré quelques personnes hésitantes et extrémistes opposées à la science. En tant que leader, il faut choisir : tolérer ces opposants minoritaires ou se concentrer sur la majorité vaccinée pour retrouver nos activités préférées.

A member of the European Parliament from France reportedly believes the U.S. no longer represents the values of the Statue of Liberty and wants it returned to France. The question is posed whether President Trump will send the Statue of Liberty back. In response, it is asserted that the U.S. will absolutely not send the Statue of Liberty back. The unnamed French politician is advised to remember that the French are not speaking German because of the United States, and they should be grateful to the U.S.

I would like to reclaim my time and address the chairman. It seems that Hunter is afraid of what I have to say. It's unfortunate that I burst their bubble.

We are here to tell you that you picked this fight and now you've got it. We, along with millions of brave citizens, will fight you every step of the way. You, the small French minority, do not have the right to dictate what people want. Take it from us, the seven citizens gathered here today, and the millions around the world. We will bring you down and won't stop until we succeed.

This is an opera building. The speaker questions who would have their opera in this stone building and notes that the building itself costs $7,500,000 in 1861, with $10,000,000 worth of furniture, as stated on the back. They claim, “This is the best.” The structure is said to have been founded, with “founded” marked on the back, and the date 1671 appears. The speaker contends that in 1671 someone built a $7,500,000 building out of stone with $10,000,000 worth of furniture. They claim that by 1875, two hundred years later, it was turned into a theater, making it a $7,500,000 theater. Descriptions follow of the staircases and the claim that everything was made out of colored marble with Corinthian columns. There was a green room for ballet, and it was for the opera. The speaker then discusses Paris, stating that the city “has been reset many times over and over and over again,” and makes a parallel with the Eiffel Tower, implying it has undergone numerous resets as well. A claim is made that the Eiffel Tower is an atmospheric energy antenna, and that there used to be an orb.

I'm on the building where the sniper supposedly shot from. It's not steep. Secret Service should've been on the water tower behind me to prevent this. There were questions in Butler about why they didn't act. We'll investigate to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Speaker 0: Probably the best known builder, particularly of of of great buildings in the city. There's a great deal of question about whether or not the damage and and the ultimate destruction of the buildings was caused by the airplanes, by architectural defect, or possibly by bombs or or aftershocks. Do you have any thoughts on that? Speaker 1: Well, it was an architectural defect. You know, the World Trade Center was always known as a very, very strong building. Don't forget, that took a big bomb in the basement. Now the basement is the most vulnerable place because that's your foundation, and it withstood that. And I got to see that area about three or four days after it took place because one of my structural engineers actually took me for a tour because he did the building. And I said, I can't believe it. The building was standing solid, and half of the columns were blown out. I mean, so this was an unbelievably powerful building. If you know anything about structure, it was one of the first buildings that was built from the outside. The steel, the reason the World Trade Center had such narrow windows is that in between all the windows, you had the steel on the outside. So you had the steel on the outside of the building. That's why when I first looked and you had big heavy I beams. When I first looked at it, I couldn't believe it because there was a hole in the steel. And this is steel that was you remember the the width of the windows in the World Trade Center folks? I think you you know, if you're ever up there, they were quite narrow. And in between was this heavy steel. I said, how could a plane, even a plane, even a seven sixty seven or seven forty seven or whatever it might have been, how could it possibly go through this deal? I happen to think that they had not only a plane, but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously because I just can't imagine anything being able to go through that wall. Most buildings are built with the steelers on the inside around the elevator shaft. This one was built from the outside, which is the strongest structure you can have, and it was almost just like a like a can of soup. Speaker 2: You know, Donald, we were looking at pictures all morning long of that plane coming into Building Number 2. And when you see that approach the far side and then all of a sudden, within a matter of millisecond, the explosion pops out the other side. Speaker 1: Right. I just think that there was a plane with more than just fuel. I think, obviously, they were very big planes. They were going very rapidly because I was also watching where the plane seemed to be not only going fast, it seemed to be coming down into the building. So it was getting the speed from going downhill, so to speak. It just seemed to me that to do that kind of destruction is even more than a big plane because you're talking about taking out steel, the heaviest caliber steel that was used on a building. I mean, these buildings were rock solid, And, you know, it's just an amazing it's an amazing thing. Speaker 3: And it's not right to call up and then extrapolate and connect him to 09:11 when he came out on the day of 09:11 and the day after on Fox and on CNN and said, I believe there had to be bombs in those buildings. It was brought down by explosives. A plane doesn't do that. And then described the architecture of Tower 1 and Tower 2. If he was an insider, he wouldn't have said that. Speaker 4: A lot of people ask, how is it possible that, a Boeing plane would be able to destroy the or two planes would be able to destroy the Twin Towers because they were constructed to withstand like a 07/2007 Speaker 5: attack. It's tremendous power and tremendous heat, and people were willing to die. And when they're willing to die and when they're willing to become kamikazes of a sense, there's very little you can do about it. I mean, the the heat and the power actually, it was amazing that the the initial jolts didn't jar the building as much as people would have thought. But the the tremendous amounts of fuel that was dumped on the building and 1,600 degrees temperature, I guess that's probab

We are not in trouble because of a lack of energy or amateurs. We need to talk about things. These people are great, but they are inexperienced. Macron has been here for 6 years and didn't think about all this before. We are dependent now, whereas France used to be a leader in electricity. We had the strongest nuclear potential in the world and could export electricity. But now we are begging because we followed Germany's lead. This is not Europe, it's German Europe. The Franco-German relationship is a disaster for France. We need to break free from this imperialism.

We don't want to be like the European Union, we don't care about them. We are French and we stick to French laws.

France is mocking our country and religion, disrespecting what we hold sacred, like the Last Supper, and we remain silent. It's unacceptable to dismiss this as art. The European Union allocated €100 million to support France for the Olympics, and they are using that money to ridicule Jesus Christ. This is deeply troubling and should not be ignored.

I will not call on you if you yell, and you're wasting time because Dr. Fauci has to leave soon. I'm not engaging in a back-and-forth. It's not your turn. Don't look at me; it's your first question. You should call on people across the room. She has a valid question about the origin of COVID. I hear the question, but we're not proceeding as you wish. This is disrespectful. I'm done with this. Simon, I'm finished with you right now. Go ahead.

I came to meet Emmanuel Macron and talk about his lies. He lied about Covid, the war, and retirement. He has put the country in chaos. I got vaccinated because he said he was vaccinated, but now people, including lawmakers, are saying he isn't. I want to ask him if it's true. Mr. Macron, can you answer? He will probably say he will go through the process without empathy. I don't think he cares about the French people. There is a deputy in the National Assembly who says he isn't vaccinated, so we want to know the truth. Are you vaccinated or not? If you don't want to answer, the French people will judge.

A recent discussion highlighted some bizarre events in France, including Macron's support for a controversial new spire for Notre Dame. The conversation shifted to the idea that the identities of global leaders often conceal deeper issues, suggesting that these figures may be compromised and controlled through blackmail. The notion is that those in power are often manipulated by secrets that could ruin them, making them easier to control. This dynamic is seen as a significant aspect of political corruption, with the example of Macron and the absurdity of the proposed spire serving as a reflection of broader systemic issues. The humor in these situations is noted, but the underlying corruption is emphasized as a serious concern.

We will continue returning until everything is fully rebuilt. It's a challenging journey, but we are committed to rebuilding better than before.

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.

Most of you are Christians, I'm Muslim in Romania, a Christian country. We must defend our beliefs against disrespect like the Last Supper being mocked. If we don't stand up, our religion will fade. With borders open to non-Christians, we must assert our Christian identity. Men must defend what is important. Let's unite against such actions in the future. Thank you.

I assure you that if I had any doubts, you would ask for a replacement. It is my duty and responsibility to have confidence in this vaccine and get vaccinated. I say this solemnly, otherwise there will be delays in vaccination, and the French people will be less protected, prolonging the health crisis.

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.

Over eight hundred years ago, we built this cathedral and over the centuries, we made it bigger and better. Tonight, I solemnly declare that we will rebuild this cathedral, all together. It is undoubtedly a part of the French destiny. In the coming years, we will have a project, and I am committed to it. Tomorrow, a national subscription will be launched, and we will reach out to the greatest talents, both within and beyond our borders, who will contribute to the rebuilding. We will rebuild Notre-Dame because it is what the French people expect, because it is what our history deserves, and because it is our profound destiny.

Brigitte Macron proposed a controversial design for the new spire of Notre Dame Cathedral, featuring a large erect phallus with golden balls. This idea has sparked significant discussion and debate.