TruthArchive.ai - 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.

Are you a conspiracy theorist? That label has been used against me to silence tough questions about powerful interests. I pointed out early on that the COVID vaccine didn't prevent transmission or infection, contrary to government claims. I was labeled a conspiracy theorist for saying red dye causes cancer, which the FDA has now banned. I also mentioned that fluoride lowers IQ, and a recent JAMA review confirmed a direct correlation between fluoride exposure and IQ loss. Is there any claim you can say was truly a conspiracy theory, or do you stand by your position?

I'm a "no planer," meaning I don't believe planes were used in the 9/11 attacks. People believe what they saw on TV, but there was no plane wreckage at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Remotely controlling a plane that size to hit the towers dead center is nearly impossible. Flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville, but there was minimal wreckage, unlike a typical plane crash. The plane supposedly went underground at 580 mph, yet a hijacker's bandana and a passport were found at the site. Also, cell phone calls from the planes at high altitudes wouldn't have been possible with the technology at the time. Experienced pilots couldn't replicate the attacks in a simulator at high speeds, and exceeding a plane's maximum operating speed like that would be extremely difficult and dangerous.

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, you should take it seriously. Blame the government for the issues we're facing. Those upset about free speech now are just mad they can't control the narrative anymore. For years, they've spread misinformation and now they're worried about others doing the same. It's not about the danger of misinformation; it's about losing control. They were wrong about everything and forced compliance, and now they resent others having the same freedom. It's absurd to pretend their concerns are about safety when it's really about power.

A BYU professor suggests prepositioned explosives caused the Twin Towers' collapse on 9/11, not hijackers. He argues for controlled demolition based on building 7's collapse. The media's avoidance of discussing this topic raises questions about censorship and the need for open inquiry.

Speaker 1 discusses the collapse of building 7 and requests a video clip to be shown. Speaker 0 mentions that the collapse is not shown and suggests there might be a code preventing it. Speaker 0 also mentions that questioning the collapse of building 7 is seen as weird and can lead to job loss. Speaker 2 explains that building 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, despite not being hit by an aircraft. The building had been damaged by debris and fire, but most of the fires were extinguished by 5:20 PM. Speaker 2 questions the official explanation that the collapse was primarily due to fire and asks for opinions on what it looks like.

The speaker questions the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks, pointing out inconsistencies in the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. They suggest controlled demolition due to the uniform collapse of Building 7 and the presence of explosive materials in the dust. The speaker also mentions suppressed testimonies of firefighters reporting explosions. They express feeling threatened while advocating for a new investigation. The speaker raises concerns about the lack of proper investigation into the events of 9/11.

The interviewer confronts Larry Silverstein about conspiracy theories surrounding his comments on the collapse of Building 7 on 9/11. Silverstein's response only fuels more speculation. The interviewer questions Silverstein's claim that firefighters made the decision to "pull" the building, pointing out that the firefighters were already outside the building by then. The interviewer also mentions that the fire chief denies speaking to Silverstein on that day. Silverstein deflects the questions and suggests looking at the thousands of pages of testimony. The interviewer brings up testimony about bombs in the building before its collapse, but is interrupted and eventually asked to leave. The interviewer concludes by urging reporters to ask more questions.

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.

They claimed it was a plane, but the building exploded randomly. It's not a plane; that side just blew up after the first explosion. They don't know what they're saying. How could a plane have caused that? It happened too quickly. The building was fine before, then suddenly it exploded. How did that happen?

In schools, they pressure us to learn about Islam and other cultures, but I want to learn about my own culture and beliefs. I'm proud to be English. They don't teach us about the Bill of Rights or our own history. In school, they were teaching us about Islam, about Prophet Mohammed, and all their ideologies. They barely mention Christianity. They don't tell you the negative aspects. When I tried to question it, I would get in trouble and even suspended from school for being "racist." I was just questioning an ideology that, in my opinion, isn't right. They're trying to take away my free speech at school and silence me for discussing the wrongs of Islam. They only say Islam is a peaceful religion, but their book says otherwise.

The speakers discuss the difficulty of considering alternative explanations to a prevailing narrative about a terrorist attack. They suggest that, in any ultimate scenario or alternative explanation, people are reluctant to contemplate other possibilities, and this reluctance blocks further inquiry. The conversation shifts to the idea that if the mainstream account isn’t correct—if it weren’t the crazy Islamic terrorists who had this plot that brought down the buildings—then what did happen? Speaker 0 notes that they would want to talk to experts such as structural engineers, architects, and firefighters, who “know what they're talking about.” However, these professionals do not believe the narrative at all. They reportedly lay out convincing evidence for why the narrative should not be believed, proposing explosives as an alternative explanation. The claimed evidence cited includes “explosions,” specifically “thermite, military grade, nanoparticle thermite,” and various forms of evidence such as “unexploded fragments of it” and references to “thermite and iron globules.” The discussion then turns to the question of who would have placed explosives in the buildings. Speaker 0 highlights that “nobody literally, virtually no one wants to go down that path.” The suggested question—“who would have placed explosives in those buildings?”—is described as unthinkable. The speakers acknowledge that the unthinkability functions as a defense that prevents people from asking the questions that they consider “so pressing.” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 restating the idea that the question of explosives remains a controversial or avoided line of inquiry.

People have been finding ways to prove that the Earth is flat, which may not seem serious. However, believing in something that isn't true can lead to real problems and bring society to scary places. It's important to ensure people have access to freedom of speech, expression, and information.

The first participant asks the second to identify who did each major event. For MLK Jr., the second participant says, “That was a CI operation because they considered him a dangerous communist. And but the FBI was bugging the, in churches where he was giving some of his speeches in churches. They were bugging the podiums and following him around. He was a top target, for elimination.” For JFK, the second participant states, “I think that was a CI hit. They they may have employed some mafia connections to carry it out because that was their mafia assassination program.” Concerning LBJ, the first participant notes, “LBJ was very involved in all that in Dallas. So,” and the second participant adds, “he an evil man.” The first participant affirms, “He was an evil man.” Turning to Pearl Harbor, the second participant claims, “They knew the attack was coming was coming. They knew where it was gonna happen in Pearl Harbor and when. And they they told no one, and they let it happen on purpose. That that's from the commander of the Pacific Fleet. I would say that's a pretty pretty credible witness.” He continues, “So, yeah, that that was a false admitted that. They admitted they had the and they heard it was gonna happen. And, you how know, else were you gonna get Americans to be on the side of this war that had nothing to do with us?” This leads to the discussion of 9/11. The second participant says, “My opinion. As a criminal investigator, as a former CI officer, nine eleven was not the act of a bunch of poorly flight trained terrorists that executed an unbelievably meticulous, piloting of those aircraft, even even pilots. There's there's pilots for nine eleven truth now, and they say, we could not have done that. Not possible.” He adds, “And then we go to the passport issue, and we go to the Tower 7, which was a controlled demolition.” The second participant further asserts, “You talk to any structural engineer, and and and I I have. And the fact I think George w Bush blacked out. I think it was 40 pages of the 09/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. So what wait a minute. This report was supposed to be for the American people on what happened, and you blacked all these pages out? What in the world?” He continues, “I do not think that it was a bunch of un poorly trained or untrained terrorists that did it. I think there was another source behind it. I think it was intentional, and I'm going just from a a criminal invest investigative perspective just looking at the evidence, what evidence we have, that that was an intentional act, And it would fall right into the MO that you and I are talking about.” He concludes that the event was “Horrible” and emphasizes that “the shadow government deep state or especially the CIA. It does not matter. Their pawns on their chessboard, they don't care that three thousand people were horribly killed that day, but it achieved the aim of gutting the US constitution, bringing in the horrific Patriot Act Mhmm. Giving the CIA unthinkable authority for secret prison prisons and torture beyond waterboarding and and secret renditions and all of that, the FBI, the ability to to, spy on Americans came out of the Patriot Act. So it was the perfect national security state, energizer that the Patriot Act was, and 70 of the congressmen and senators that read the Patriot Act didn't even read it. They just signed off on it without even reading the bill.”

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.

We saw a building collapse after a shockwave ripped through it, and Larry Silverstein mentioned in a TV show that Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. He stated that the decision to "pull it" was made due to safety concerns. The speaker contacted the History Channel about the show but was told it was not available to the public. The cause of Building 7's collapse remains uncertain, whether it was intentional or a result of the earlier attacks.

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.

The speaker emphasizes that there are moments in which asking questions is essential. They describe these as times when questions are not just optional but necessary, framing it as a pivotal moment in the present. The speaker asserts that we are currently in one of those crucial moments when inquiry must occur, suggesting that the act of questioning holds significant weight and consequence at this juncture. In detailing who should be questioned, the speaker mentions a particular individual named Graham. The point raised is that when someone like Graham appears and raises an abundance of questions, those questions should be suppressed. The phrasing used is explicit: such questions “have to be shut up” and “they have to be shut down.” This expresses a stance that vigorous inquiry from Graham or anyone perceived similarly must be halted rather than entertained or explored. The rationale offered for this suppression centers on the potential broader impact of open questioning. The speaker argues that if people begin to ask too many questions, the entire structure they describe as a “house of cards” narrative—one that has been “carefully put in place for the last hundred years to control us”—will suddenly collapse. In other words, the act of widespread, persistent questioning is portrayed as capable of destabilizing a long-standing explanatory framework or narrative that the speaker believes has been used to exercise control over people. Finally, the consequence of such a collapse is described in stark terms: after the house of cards narrative falls, “we’ll see an alternate reality.” This phrase suggests that the exposure of the supposed manipulative or controlling narrative would reveal or give rise to a reality that differs from the one currently presented or accepted. The speaker ties the act of questioning directly to a transformative and potentially unsettling shift in how reality is perceived, implying that unrestrained inquiry would lead to a fundamental reconfiguration of understood norms and truths. In summary, the speaker argues that there are moments when crucial questions must be asked, singles out Graham as a figure whose questions should be silenced, explains that such suppression is justified to prevent the collapse of a long-standing controlling narrative, and warns that the collapse would bring about an alternate reality.

Speaker 1 discusses his involvement in 9/11-related inquiries after receiving concerns from families. He emphasizes the role of whistleblowers who fear disclosure of anonymity, noting that while his office is good at protecting identities, not every congressional office is. He credits investigative reporters for bringing information forward and explains that his involvement began when nine/eleven families approached him with a heavily redacted FBI report on Saudi involvement, asking for it to be unredacted. He mentions that Richard Blumenthal is the chairman of PSI in the last Congress and that the inquiry extended to topics like the PGA Tour’s deal with Live Golf and Saudi Arabia, but that those are private matters not to be intruded upon. He says, however, that due to the redacted FBI document about Saudi involvement, he started gathering information and is currently in a position to review it, with an invitation to the audience to share information, though with the expectation that information will be debunked by his staff. He notes his own background from Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and that he initially accepted the prevailing narrative about 9/11 but began receiving information from sources that challenged it, leading him to pursue a more open investigation. He stresses that his staff’s primary goal is to obtain information and debunk it, to poke holes in the claims, and that he does not want to avoid discussing the topic. He acknowledges there are many legitimate questions that he is willing to ask, starting with World Trade Center 7, a building he had not heard of before. He asks why it is so difficult to discuss these topics and why legitimate questions seem to be quashed, suggesting there is something unexplained that has not been disclosed. He mentions public reception, including hostile comments online, and notes that many Americans had never heard of World Trade Center 7. Speaker 1 describes the scene surrounding WTC7, including a BBC reporter on air describing its collapse while the building still appears to be standing behind her. He points to a video that appears to show a single perspective of the event and references a later interview with a controlled demolition expert who asserted it was controlled demolition, though this assertion predates the event. He emphasizes that the building collapsed on September 11, and there are unanswered questions. He recounts Graham McQueen’s investigation before his death, who compiled approximately 150 documented recordings from first responders and reporters on the morning of 9/11 who said they heard explosions. He states that the 9/11 Commission and NIST did not discuss these explosions. He mentions Barry Jennings, who was in Building 7, who had to evacuate, but could not gather because the stairwell between the 6th and 8th floors had been blown out.

During the COVID pandemic, I noticed something strange. People were discouraged from asking questions and were expected to blindly follow what was said on TV. If you questioned it, you were labeled a white supremacist Trumper, even if you didn't vote for Trump. It was weird because questioning authority is supposed to be valued. Even comedians would shame those who wanted to be informed about experimental medical treatments. They would say, "Don't do your own research." But isn't that just reading? It's like waking up in a Bill Hicks bit. People internalized the propaganda from big pharma to the point where they would shame others for reading. It's hypocritical. You would never shame someone for seeking information on any other subject.

Speaker 0 argues that there are crucial moments in which questions must be asked. They state that when someone like a Graham comes along and asks too many questions, those questioning individuals have to be shut up. They emphasize that they must be shut down. The speaker contends that if people begin asking too many questions, the entire “house of cards” narrative that has been carefully put in place for the last hundred years to control us will come collapsing on our heads. This collapse, according to the speaker, would lead to an alternate reality.

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.