35K YouTube Views and 1K comments in just 1 day | 145K Views on "X" and 250 Comments on the first day.

We were quite grateful to get a note from Bret Weinstein’s popular Dark Horse Podcast about his posting the interview with Senator Ron Johnson, which was an extraordinary dive into the 9/11 events. We wrote back to Bret and encouraged him to bring the hard, explosive evidence of the World Trade Center to his audience to back up his and the senators’ claims about controlled demolition. He was game. We scheduled it right away.

We were very honored to be asked onto the Dark Horse podcast. Bret has 521K YouTube subscribers and 1.1M followers on X. He’s a frequent guest on the Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson platforms, and he’s shown a keen awareness of the truth about 9/11 and isn’t afraid to talk about it.

Right out of the gate, Bret acknowledged that he had been following our work for quite a while and that “when somebody is accused of being a conspiracy theorist, my only question is, ‘are they any good at it?’ ” :)

Then he made me blush: “and I have to say, you set the standard….extremely diligent.…really appreciate the rigor that you bring to that puzzle.”

Well, I needed to shift gears and jump right into WTC 7 with both feet, so we introduced the sudden, straight-down, symmetrical, free fall of the building — after witnesses heard and saw explosions. Then we launched into the extreme heat — 3 to 4,000 degrees F — which, of course, was also unaccounted for in the official narrative.

Bret was a very active listener and an engaged student of each scientific piece of evidence we presented, and he shared his wisdom with us liberally. For instance, when hearing of the mysterious billions of “previously molten iron microspheres” of “unknown origin” distributed ubiquitously through out the WTC dust, and that the equally puzzling “red-gray chips” of nano-thermite actually produce those same iron microspheres when ignited, he drew the following inference:

“Let me just say logically speaking, what you’ve got is a material, these tiny spheres of formerly molten iron, a mechanism which demonstrably generates them.And that puts the burden of proof on somebody who says that what brought these towers down was fire. And in the case of the Twin Towers, some structural damage. It puts the onus on them to generate a competing explanation for those anomalous, readily observed phenomena. They don’t. The burden of proof logically falls on them.And the question then is not, for those of us who are suspicious here, The question is, well come up with anything that is as plausible. Let’s see you demonstrate it.

When we arrived at the explosive evidence of the Twin Towers, he saw each piece building upon the last and arriving at the proof of the fraud of NIST in the fabrication of their theory that the top section of the building above the point of plane impacts drove the rest of the building down to the ground and then destroyed itself. The building was quite obviously blown up.

It was quite disappointing to read some of the comments that chastised Weinstein for delving into these particular conspiracy theories. People really react emotionally and, obviously, without even watching the interview, make quite self-revealing comments on the YouTube video platform, despite supporting his other “conspiracy theories.” They, some of them, just couldn’t stomach this one. If only they’d take the time to watch. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.

Support the show