TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts that Nine-Eleven began as commercial insurance fraud and that in 1988 the Twin Towers were condemned because they did not want to pay to dismantle them, with controlled demolitions forbidden. He says Dick Cheney, as secretary of defense, responded, “praise the lord,” expecting a terrorism event to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan. He claims Nine-Eleven was planned and executed by “the Zionists,” clarified as not the Jews, describing a “red mafia”—Russians, Israelis, and Americans—controlling Benjamin Netanyahu but not Donald Trump, who he says is biding his time. He contends the NSA is not about safety but keeping money moving, and that the program was canceled because it would reveal Americans complicit in Nine-Eleven. He alleges the intelligence community wastes money on bad actions, focusing only on war and terrorism, and that they start wars and fund terrorists. Speaker 1 recounts a group of Zionists negotiating with the Nazis to allow German Jews to immigrate and transfer assets to Palestine, citing the 1933 Transfer Agreement. He notes that German Jewish settlement in Palestine was Nazi policy for a time and references Der Angriff publishing photos of Jewish life in Palestine with a Nazi series; a medal by Gerbils commemorating this, showing a swastika and Star of David. He states Hitler demanded Zionists reject the call for a boycott of the Reich, which the Zionists conceded. Speaker 2 says some allies have been funding ISIS and Al Qaeda, asks who, implying Saudis and others, and notes that people know this but do not say it publicly. Speaker 3 explains that CIA, Mossad, and intelligence agencies are unnamed but suggests Mossad is under the prime minister’s office and would be called the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, joking that initials would be ISIS. Speaker 7 makes a snide remark about Julian Maxwell’s father being an Israeli super spy, and Speaker 5 references “antiseptic, Jenny.” Speaker 8 discusses building a relationship with some unspecified actors and acknowledges a trust deficit; he recalls the U.S. support of fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets, arming mujahideen with Stinger missiles, and leaving them after the Soviet withdrawal, admitting the U.S. helped create the next problems. He notes a pattern of moving in and out of Pakistan, emphasizing that the current fight involves people funded two decades earlier. Speaker 3 adds details about Brzezinski’s 1980s effort to arm the mujahideen while concealing U.S. involvement, speaking warmly of the fighters and their cause. Speaker 4/Speaker 10 discuss a 2017 plan to push against Russia, portraying the fight as against Putin rather than the Russian people, with commitments to inform the American public of Afghan bravery and to support the effort against Putin; Speaker 10 expresses confidence in winning and receiving support. Speaker 11 shifts to the U.S., asking about the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan; Speaker 12 responds that bin Laden was trained by the ISI and CIA along with Al Qaeda two decades earlier, stating that these groups were assets of the Pakistan Army and the ISI. Overall, the transcript presents a series of unverified conspiracy claims about 9/11, Zionist influence, NSA motives, Nazi-Zionist interactions, international funding of extremist groups, and U.S. covert actions in Afghanistan/Pakistan, interwoven with insinuations about intelligence agencies and state actors.

The deep state's open support for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS) is shocking, especially given their role in the Syrian conflict. Despite claiming to oppose Al Qaeda, the U.S. has provided support to groups aligned with them in Syria, raising questions about the rationale behind such actions. There are concerns about backing the wrong factions, with evidence suggesting that U.S. weapons may have ended up with ISIS. Former officials have indicated that the Obama administration ignored warnings about ISIS's rise, and even John Kerry acknowledged the situation's escalation. Historical parallels are drawn to past U.S. support for Mujahideen in Afghanistan, highlighting the long-term consequences of such interventions. The narrative emphasizes the complexity and contradictions in U.S. foreign policy regarding jihadist groups.

We're sending millions in cash to Afghanistan, even weekly shipments of $40-80 million, to folks like the Haqqani network. This is on top of the $697 million annually, funding madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and terrorist training camps. Programs like the Women's Scholarship Endowment aren't helping women; they're funding terrorism through USAID. We're essentially paying welfare to Taliban martyrs' families, while American families who lost loved ones get nothing. Some argue this prevents them from joining ISIS, but it's a lie to justify funding our enemies. The US government has been backing these groups since the late '70s, using them against other countries and even against us. It's a setup for America's collapse.

The speaker argues that when a politician claims support, they are really loyal to a vast international banking dynasty—a Masonic cult with no loyalty to the people whatsoever. This system will offer them gold or lead, and to thrive within it, they must play by its rules. It is not a nation, but the fatherland of a global corporate mafia who rule from behind the veil, the deep state. Their primary jobs are to keep you divided by playing into the left and right paradigm while ensuring that the foreign conquest continues. War is something that they will always agree upon. In other words, you are being used to facilitate and fund their global conquest of other countries. Wars are cleverly marketed and justified by their bought and paid for politicians and their complicit media machine. They fund small terrorist proxy forces which are then attributed to their target nations. Therefore, we have no choice but to invade and install one of our own puppet leaders. And thus now the nation and its riches belong to them. Meanwhile, you’re all distracted, screaming at your own countrymen because they have a different opinion to you so they can ultimately weaken your society and conquer you too. You see divided, are weak, but together, you are strong. The solution is to pull your heads out of your asses, put aside your differences, and realize that you’re all being played, and identify the real threat, the puppet masters who keep you divided.

Speaker 0 raises the question of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, referencing a past discussion with former Tel Aviv CIA chief of station Susan Miller and noting a reminder about Iran-Contra. They ask why the CIA would be intimately involved with drug trafficking, and mention Candace Owens discussing it in relation to the Charlie Kirk assassination. Speaker 1 answers that trafficking in drugs allows the CIA to get closer to the targets they want to reach. They point to a popular Netflix series, Narcos, which follows the hunt for Pablo Escobar, the Cali cartel, and other major cartels. They claim that, in the show, and in real life, every time the Drug Enforcement Administration gets close to its primary target, the CIA station chief steps in and ruins the investigation. They state that this happens because the CIA doesn’t care about drugs. Speaker 1 continues that the CIA cares about terrorism and communism, implying there are always some other bigger ideological concerns. Therefore, the CIA is “perfectly happy” to allow cocaine to flood into the United States in the 1980s during the Iran-Contra period, just as it was “perfectly happy” to allow Afghanistan to provide 93% of the world’s heroin once the United States began its occupation of Afghanistan.

ISIS fighters were airlifted by Western Coalition helicopters from Syria to Afghanistan, not reported by Western media. The US allegedly left behind ISIS fighters in Afghanistan to create chaos and hinder development in the region, potentially to benefit China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan. The speaker suggests that ISIS is a US construct, specifically orchestrated by the CIA.

John Bolton suggests regime change in Iran, but the U.S. has a history of interference there. In the 1940s and 50s, Britain and the Soviets deposed the Shah, and later the U.S. overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh, who was seen as communist and hostile to American interests, despite being secular. The U.S. then reinstalled the Shah, an unpopular autocrat, making America unpopular in Iran. This led to the 1970s revolution, bringing Ayatollah Khomeini to power and creating an anti-American regime. Intervention made Iran an enemy. Regime change can lead to unforeseen consequences like civil war and refugee crises. The West should not interfere; Iran's problems today stem from past U.S. involvement.

Over the course of 20 years in Afghanistan, the United States armed and equipped the Afghan National Security Forces with congressional approval. However, as the Taliban advanced, many of these forces chose not to fight and instead surrendered their weapons. The specific reports about weapons left behind cannot be verified, but it is important to clarify that the United States did not simply abandon a pile of weapons in Afghanistan. This notion is historically inaccurate.

I was shocked to learn that President Obama had programs to overthrow the Syrian regime. The CIA's Timber Sycamore program armed Al Qaeda to start another regime change war in the Middle East. The DOD's train and equip program spent over half a billion dollars training "moderate rebels" who were actually aligned with Al Qaeda. Regime change wars in Syria, like in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, risk the rise of Islamist extremists like Al Qaeda. We now have an Islamist extremist in charge of Syria who celebrated the 9/11 attack and is persecuting religious minorities like Christians. Every American deserves to know if our government supported our enemy, Al Qaeda.

We allied with Al Qaeda and ISIS, using them against the Syrian government. Terrorists from 100 countries joined them, engaging in organized rape and creating slave markets. They were allowed to kill husbands, own wives and children, and rape widows and young children. This led to a horrific campaign of violence and exploitation in Syria.

In the 1980s, the United States supported the freedom fighters in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden. We funded them because we believed they hated the Russians more than us. However, once they defeated the Russians, they turned against us. This has been a recurring problem in our foreign policy, regardless of political party. We have seen these weapons come back to threaten Israel, and the support for Syrian rebels has also posed a threat. The War Caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, which was the official position of our State Department. It is clear that this strategy did not work out well.

What's happening in The Middle East, in particular with Gaza right now, we have some more responsibility for both sides in a way because we provide help and funding for both Arab nations and Israel. And so we definitely have a moral responsibility, and especially now today, the weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons, and American funds is essentially are being used for this. But there's a political liability, which I think is something that we fail to look at because too often there's so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn't be involved in. Hamas, if you look at the history, you'll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. And he said, well, that was better then and served his purpose, but we didn't want Hamas to do this. Then we have election, then Hamas becomes dominant, so we have to kill him.

I teamed up with Sarah Adams and Scott Bannon to interview Ahmad Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance resisting the Taliban. After the Taliban took control, they began issuing legitimate passports to terrorists, including Hamza bin Laden, who is marrying into various terrorist networks. These groups now share a common goal of attacking the Western world. They're funneling terrorists through South America into the U.S., and there's no way to track how many have entered. I believe this situation is by design, with the government allowing a porous border for political gain, prioritizing votes over safety. They may not fully grasp the consequences of their actions, but unrest seems to be a tactic they’ve used before.

We have a history of involvement in Pakistan, particularly during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. To counter this, we funded the mujahideen, collaborating with the Pakistani military and ISI. This effort, supported by President Reagan and Congress, ultimately contributed to the Soviet Union's retreat and collapse. However, after achieving this goal, we distanced ourselves from Pakistan, leaving them to manage the consequences of our actions, such as leftover weapons and mines. We imposed sanctions and ceased military cooperation, leading to a significant gap in our relationship with Pakistan, which we are now trying to address.

Speaker 0 argues that the United States bears responsibility for the conflict in The Middle East, particularly Gaza, because we provide help and funding for both Arab nations and Israel. He states that American weapons are being used to kill many Palestinians and that American funds are essentially supporting this, creating a moral responsibility. He also highlights a political liability, noting that there is blowback from interventions in areas where the U.S. should not be involved. Regarding Hamas, he claims that history shows Hamas was encouraged and started by Israel to counter Yasser Arafat, and while that served a purpose at the time, the U.S. did not want Hamas to emerge. He describes a sequence in which, after asserting that the U.S. has a good system and aims to impose democracy globally, the U.S. pushes for free elections, which leads Palestinians to elect Hamas. He asserts that the U.S. helped establish Hamas indirectly and directly through Israel, and after Hamas becomes dominant, the U.S. then feels compelled to kill Hamas, describing it as illogical. In the 1980s, he notes that the U.S. was allied with Osama bin Laden while contending with the Soviets. He says that our CAA (likely CIA) believed it was beneficial to radicalize the Muslim world to compete with the Soviets, financing Madrasa schools to radicalize Muslims. He argues that this policy produced significant blowback. He concludes that there are many reasons to oppose a certain resolution, stating that it is not in the interest of the United States and not in the interest of Israel either.

Speaker: The way ISIS got there, as I remember from covering the Syrian war, includes reporting from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOAR), which is based in the UK. SOAR reported that anti-ISIS Western coalition helicopters were airlifting foreign ISIS fighters—not the Syrian ISIS fighters—but out of Deir al-Zor in Syria. And, of course, Western media didn’t report this at all. It was a shock because at the time, nobody could understand where they were taking them or whether they were shuttle them back into the Iraqi theater. Two different sources told me that the US coalition was airlifting foreign ISIS fighters into Afghanistan, which at the time I didn’t understand at all. But in light of what’s happened, the US needed to leave behind a dirty fighting force that would blow up mosques, blow up schools, infrastructure to continue chaos once US forces left to impede the development of pipelines and roadways that would allow China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan to connect with Afghanistan, to keep the country chaos. Basically, the story of ISIS itself—when we talk about it being potentially a US construct—ISIS K is really absolutely a US CIA specific construct.

Iran wants to take over Saudi Arabia by burning down the Saudi embassy. They claim the US created ISIS by supporting Mujahideen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. A high-level asset allegedly became president in 2008 to destroy the US from within. The president defunded the military and allegedly funded ISIS through covert operations. An ISIS commander in Pakistan confessed to receiving funds routed through the US to recruit fighters for Syria. The US government has been criticized for indirectly funding terrorist organizations. President Obama requested funds to train Iraqi soldiers and Syrian rebels to fight ISIS.

The discussion revolves around the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, and how it identifies itself in English. After inquiries, it was clarified that they refer to themselves as the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS). The conversation then shifts to the historical context of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, highlighting that the fighters being faced today were once supported by the U.S. during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union. This strategy, backed by President Reagan and Congress, involved recruiting Mujahideen with the help of the Pakistani military, which ultimately contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. The dialogue also touches on the controversial claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama played roles in the creation of ISIS, while emphasizing the importance of American influence in these geopolitical matters.

The speaker explains that the US funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan 20 years ago to fight against the Soviet Union. They imported fighters from Saudi Arabia and other places to defeat the Soviets, which eventually led to their retreat and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, after the Soviets left, the US distanced itself from Pakistan and the Mujahideen, leaving behind a mess. The speaker acknowledges that the US helped create the problem they are now fighting, as the people they supported against the Soviets are the same ones they are fighting today.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOAR) reported that Western coalition helicopters were airlifting foreign ISIS fighters out of Deir Zor in Syria. Two sources told the speaker that the US coalition was airlifting foreign ISIS fighters into Afghanistan. The speaker didn't understand this at the time. The speaker believes the US needed to leave behind a dirty fighting force to blow up mosques, schools, and infrastructure to continue chaos after US forces left. This would impede the development of pipelines and roadways, preventing China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan from connecting with Afghanistan. The speaker believes ISIS is potentially a US construct, and ISIS K is a US CIA construct.

ISIS and Taliban are enemies fighting each other. The speaker questioned why the US should intervene, suggesting they should let them fight as both are enemies. The generals disagreed and ended up fighting both groups, which the speaker found to be crazy.

"This discussion will teach you everything you need to know about US foreign policy over the last seven decades and how we got to where we are today, how we got to a war in Ukraine, an ongoing war in Gaza, The US bombing Iran, a war in Lebanon, and in the last two decades, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and just death and destruction across The Middle East." "They were allied with The US against Iran. That includes Al Qaeda." "The defense planning guidance for 1994" ended up being known as the Wolfowitz doctrine: "America will not allow for any power or combination of regional powers anywhere in the world to challenge our military dominance over the planet, and we'll go to war with them first to prevent that from happening." "The purpose of NATO is to keep America in, Germany down, and the Soviets out." Rand Corporation’s "Extending Russia" study warned about "calibration of the amount of weapons that we're pouring in," and CIA officers said "the calibration is off." "Minsk one and Minsk two"; "the Americans in Kyiv refused to implement the thing." "Al Qaeda, nine eleven, the probably America's worst enemy now in our generation, was allied with The US." "Bases in Saudi from which to bomb and blockade Iraq." "Saddam Hussein… ally to The US against Iran." "Iran, even after the revolution, was not an ally of Israel, but Israel was supplying weapons to Iran after the revolution, and that was through The US."

We send $40-87 million weekly to Afghanistan, some of which goes to Taliban martyrs' families as welfare. US families of fallen soldiers get nothing. Some justify this by saying it prevents Taliban members from joining ISIS, but the Taliban members are already dead. It's enraging that we fund our enemies while ignoring where the money goes.