reSee.it - 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 speaker questions the official explanation that a plane caused a building to explode. They point out that the building exploded after the alleged plane impact and express doubt about the accuracy of the information. They wonder how the other side of the building could have exploded as well.

A 40-story building has been destroyed, and there are rumors of an impending attack by Osama bin Laden. However, the speaker questions the credibility of these claims, pointing out that the intelligence community has been unable to locate bin Laden for years. They suggest that the CIA created bin Laden and continue to fund and use him as a scapegoat for their own agenda. The speaker criticizes the belief that a CNN reporter and his camera crew were able to interview bin Laden while the intelligence agencies have failed to find him. They argue that the public is being manipulated to support a one-world socialist government. The speaker also mentions the murder of Bill Cooper, who was critical of the government. They urge skepticism towards any future events blamed on bin Laden.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether the other is maintaining that there were no planes that hit the World Trade Center. Speaker 1 clarifies that this is not the claim they are making; rather, there is no significant wreckage from a large Boeing crash at any of the four events. This framing emphasizes a distinction between the presence of aircraft impact and the apparent absence of substantial debris. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 saw the videotape that others saw, prompting a response that encourages a frame-by-frame analysis of the South Tower. Speaker 1 asserts that what you will see is a “fake, a cartoon display,” arguing that an aluminum airplane cannot pass through a building like the South Tower as if it were thin air. In other words, Speaker 1 contends that the footage demonstrates a simulated or cartoon-like depiction rather than a real-time account of an aircraft penetrating the structure. Following this, Speaker 0 probes whether Speaker 1 is suggesting that the news media was involved in this fabrication, indicating a belief that media sources contributed to the apparent display. Speaker 1 affirms the suggestion by stating “Yes,” and notes that there was only one so-called real-time film, adding that “we don’t really understand how they did that.” This introduces a claim of media involvement and a mystery surrounding the production of the visible footage, implying manipulation or concealment of the true events. The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 mentioning that there are “video ex” (likely beginning to refer to video evidence or explanations) but the thought is cut off, leaving an incomplete reference to further material or evidence that would support the previous claims about the nature of the footage and the method by which it was produced.

The speaker believes it's impossible for a plane alone to penetrate the World Trade Center towers, suggesting bombs exploded simultaneously with the plane impact. The speaker claims the building's unique construction, with steel on the outside, should have made it impenetrable. Another speaker describes seeing the plane impact Building Number 2 and an explosion erupting from the other side almost instantly. The first speaker reiterates the belief that the planes contained more than just fuel and were traveling at high speed, seemingly descending into the building to gain additional momentum. The speaker emphasizes the buildings' robust construction with heavy-caliber steel, asserting the destruction was caused by more than just the planes. The speaker concludes that the country has fundamentally changed.

Speaker 0 asserts that 9/11 was a MacLeod operation and emphasizes that the third World Trade Center building (WTC 7) went down as evidence; he argues that if one building was wired for demolition, all of them were. He states that after showing this to contacts at the Army War College and the headquarters Marine Corps, it became clear to him that 9/11 was a controlled demolition scenario. He claims that 09/11 led directly to sixty thousand Americans dead and wounded, and suggests hundreds of thousands more in other countries were killed, wounded, or made homeless. He warns that if Americans ever understand that Israel did this, they will “scrub them off the earth” and will not care about the cost, implying that Zionists are conducting an all-or-nothing strategy because losing this would end them. He contends that it will be a “bloody brutal war” and that the Zionists are “gone” if Americans realize what happened. He reiterates that three buildings went down, with the third not being hit by a plane, and that it was wired for controlled demolition, implying all of them were. He describes presenting a picture and asking others to simply look at it without argument, and states that, without exception, they concluded that they did it on 9/11. Speaker 1 recalls that at the time of the event, he did not know who did it, but based on his experience in the Marine Corps and in demolition, it was definitely a controlled blast, a controlled drop, and that this could not be denied.

The speaker believes it's impossible for a plane alone to penetrate the World Trade Center towers, suggesting bombs exploded simultaneously with the plane impact. The speaker claims the building's unique construction, with steel on the outside, should have made it impenetrable. Another speaker describes seeing the plane impact Building Number 2 and an explosion erupting from the other side almost instantly. The first speaker reiterates the belief that the planes contained more than just fuel and were traveling at high speeds, seemingly descending into the building to gain additional momentum. The speaker emphasizes the buildings' robust steel construction and concludes that the destruction was caused by more than just the planes themselves. The speaker believes the event has fundamentally changed the country.

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.

The speaker discusses various conspiracy theories surrounding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the events leading up to 9/11. They claim that the bombing was meant to create a false impression that Arabs wanted to bring down the World Trade Center. They also mention the involvement of Israeli citizens in the prosecution of the bombing and the 9/11 attacks. The speaker questions the identities of the hijackers and suggests that the FBI and Mossad were involved in a deception. They also mention the lease of the World Trade Center to Larry Silverstein and his connections to Israeli politicians. The speaker concludes by stating that the nation has been deceived and enslaved.

Speaker 0 asks if the government was involved in the 9/11 attack and if there is a conspiracy. Speaker 1 disagrees, but believes it's the first time fire has melted steel. They mention the collapse of World Trade Center 7 and suggest it couldn't have fallen without explosives. Speaker 0 asks who is responsible, and Speaker 1 admits they don't know but insists it was an implosion. They suggest looking at films and consulting physics experts to understand. Speaker 1 says it's unthinkable, but if someone could prove it, it would be significant.

A person questions how a plane, even a large one like a 767 or 747, could have caused the destruction of the World Trade Center. They suggest that bombs may have been involved due to the difficulty of a plane penetrating the building. The speaker also mentions that most buildings have steel on the inside, but the World Trade Center was built with steel on the outside, making it stronger. Another person agrees, mentioning the explosion that occurred on the other side of the building. The first person believes that the planes used in the attacks were not only carrying fuel but also something else. They note the speed and trajectory of the planes, suggesting that the destruction caused was more than what a plane alone could do. The speaker concludes by stating that the events of 9/11 have forever changed the country.

Speaker 0 describes hearing a series of explosions that sounded like bullet shots, followed by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The speaker states that people began running as the "bombs were gone" and describes watching a few explosions before fleeing as the building came down. Speaker 1 claims that the only way a building can accelerate during a collapse is through pre-engineered, precisely timed, and precisely placed explosives, which they identify as controlled demolition.

In Washington, people were discussing pushing toward a war against Iraq, with the attacks on 9-11 becoming a key trigger. Speaker 0 said that, after 9-11, Israel and the United States began preparing for war against Iraq immediately, and argued that 9-11 was used for that purpose. Speaker 0 stated unequivocally that “they used 9-11 for that purpose” and described this as “appalling” and “disgusting,” while also saying they were not claiming they staged 9-11 for that purpose. Speaker 1 said that well before 9-11 there were growing calls within Washington to engage in regime change in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, describing this as a neocon aspiration in Washington and also in Israel. Speaker 1 said 9-11 was then seized on to pursue those aims. Speaker 0 focused on why 9-11 has been debated for 25 years, describing the debate as revolving around foreknowledge and whether those responsible knew in advance and allowed it or staged it. Speaker 0 said they cannot answer those questions, but claimed the larger question was “conclusively answered”: that there was foreknowledge of 9-11. Speaker 0 asserted that the CIA knew the hijackers were in the United States, knew they were terrorists, and knew they were in place to commit acts of terror against the United States. Speaker 0 added a specific detail: people reportedly bet in public financial markets by shorting the airlines involved in 9-11 and the banks in the buildings taken down, making large profits. Speaker 0 said it has been known that these bets occurred, but that what “blew my mind” was that the U.S. government allegedly found the identities of those people who made the trades and withheld them. Speaker 0 said that to this day the identities have never been revealed, despite the trades being publicly traded, and claimed that whoever made the trades knew 9-11 was coming while the government protected those identities for 24 years.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, despite no official confirmation. Speaker 1 defends their statement, citing media reports and corrections made by CP. Speaker 0 argues that it was irresponsible to make such a statement without proper evidence. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning that CTV reported the incident as terror-related, based on information from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 avoids answering the question and ends the conversation.

Speaker 0 asks who blew up Nord Stream, to which Speaker 1 jokingly replies that "we" did, implicating Speaker 0. Speaker 0 denies involvement and questions if there is evidence that NATO or the CIA did it. Speaker 1 avoids providing details but suggests looking for someone with an interest in such cases. Speaker 0 expresses confusion over the magnitude of the incident and suggests that if Speaker 1 had evidence, they should present it to win a propaganda victory. Speaker 1 claims it is difficult to defeat the United States in propaganda because they control global media, making it costly to get involved. They believe shining a spotlight on their sources of information won't yield results.

The speaker discusses a theory that a horrible event was falsely attributed to Muslims, when in fact it was carried out by a cunning and ruthless Israeli individual. They claim that this theory is not their own, but rather based on a US army report published the day before 9/11. The report allegedly warned about Israel's capabilities. The speaker invites criticism but emphasizes that this information comes from an official source.

The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer. - Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person. - Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility. - Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum. - Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate. - The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder. - Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.

Biden is in New York. The discussion revolves around an act committed by someone. The speaker questions if Biden is responsible, to which the other speaker mentions Osama bin Laden. The first speaker clarifies that bin Laden didn't personally carry out the 9/11 attacks, but took credit for them. They emphasize that the attacks originated from JFK Airport in New York and were not planned or trained for in Iraq or Afghanistan. The conversation abruptly ends.

Speaker 1 claims a legitimate investigation into 9/11 never occurred and questions how the perpetrators were identified so quickly. Speaker 1 alleges the Bush administration ignored intelligence, suggesting they wanted the attacks to happen, citing Condoleezza Rice's memo from August 6, which stated Bin Laden planned to use steel planes to attack buildings. Speaker 1 states that every war starts with a false flag operation. Speaker 1 references a BBC report that allegedly broadcast the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 before it actually happened, claiming the reporter spoke of the collapse 27 minutes before it occurred.

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

Speaker 0 argues that for years the radical left have compared Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers, and that this rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism seen in the country today and must stop right now. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 describe the unfolding World Trade Center attacks. They say they cannot confirm that a plane hit one of the two towers, but live pictures are showing events. They report seeing another plane and state, “We just saw another one apparently go” and “into the 2nd Tower,” suggesting the second plane’s impact and calling it deliberate. They note, “Now given what has been going on around the world, some of the key suspects come to mind, Osama bin Laden. Who knows who knows what?” Speaker 3 and Speaker 4 respond to the crisis, with one expressing concern about the attackers and implying a confrontation with the culprits. Speaker 4 adds, “But he said, you can you can come and debate me. He invited that debate. He certainly didn't invite the violence,” and comments on the global nature of the problem, identifying “the people on the extremes, the Islamists, the radical Islamists, and their union with the ultra progressives.” They state that these groups “often speak about human rights. They speak about free speech, but they use violence to try to take down their enemies.” Speaker 5 reiterates a personal, contextual stance with the line, “I'm Israeli. And I …” (implying a personal perspective on the conflict). The dialogue collectively frames the incident as a large-scale terrorist attack and discusses the broader ideological landscape, contrasting claims of human rights and free speech with the use of violence by extreme groups.

Speaker 1 questions the official narrative of 9/11, suggesting a conspiracy. Speaker 0 disagrees, citing intelligence failures. Speaker 1 mentions a BBC report on Building 7's collapse before it happened. Speaker 0 dismisses the claim. The discussion shifts to Israel and Iran. Speaker 1 insists on the truth of the BBC report. The conversation ends abruptly. Translation: Speaker 1 questions the official story of 9/11, implying a conspiracy, while Speaker 0 disagrees, citing intelligence failures. Speaker 1 mentions a BBC report on the collapse of Building 7 before it occurred, but Speaker 0 dismisses the claim. The conversation then moves on to discussing Israel and Iran, with Speaker 1 standing by the accuracy of the BBC report.

Speaker 0 expresses shock and disbelief at something they just witnessed. Speaker 1 argues that what they saw was not a plane, but Speaker 0 disagrees. They discuss the explosion and the confusion surrounding it. Speaker 1 mentions people jumping off the building, and Speaker 0 reacts with disbelief. Speaker 1 mentions filming the incident and witnessing the second building explode. Speaker 0 reacts with shock, mentioning that the prime minister is gone.

Speaker 0 claims Netanyahu was responsible for 9/11, which helped him get into Iraq and Afghanistan. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks who bought the World Trade Center two months before the attack, accusing Speaker 1, Brian, of being paid off and a Mossad agent for not answering. Speaker 1 denies Israel was behind 9/11 and denies being Mossad. Speaker 0 calls Brian a fed and refuses to speak to him. Speaker 2 asks Brian why he won't answer the simple question and accuses him of dodging. Speaker 2 suggests Brian is inflating the situation and acting like a toddler. Speaker 0 calls Brian a shill for not answering. Speaker 0 gives Brian three seconds to answer who bought the building or be considered a paid-off shill. Speaker 1 refuses to answer.

Speaker 0 is in shock and informs Lloyd about the World Trade Center. They are on the roof of a garage after voting and witness the second tower exploding. Speaker 0 clarifies that it was not a plane but a bomb that caused the explosion.