Colonel Kurtz Uncensored: UFO Photos Released, Mystery Drones Spark Panic In NJ

Summary

Timcast IRL: Colonel Kurtz Uncensored - UFO Photos Released, Mystery Drones Spark Panic In NJ Release Date: December 15, 2024

Overview In this episode of Timcast IRL, hosted by Tim Pool, the discussion delves into a range of controversial topics, including recent UFO sightings over New Jersey, advanced drone technologies, speculative theories on anti-gravity and warp drives, and extensive debates surrounding the 9/11 events. The conversation also touches on media rumors involving the Daily Wire and includes interactions with callers who bring up geopolitical issues and personal anecdotes.

---

1. UFOs and Mystery Drones Over New Jersey

[02:34 – 03:20]

The episode kicks off with Phil and Ian discussing recent sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) over New Jersey. Phil skepticism suggests these are advanced drones rather than extraterrestrial visitors.

Notable Quotes:

• Phil [01:23]: "Aliens is way better. Look at this one. We got pictures. This proves it."
• Tim [02:15]: "So it'd be Quint. Quint Rotor."

The hosts analyze the structural features of the sightings, debating whether these objects are multi-rotor drones or something more alien in nature.

---

2. Advanced Theories on Anti-Gravity and Warp Drives

[03:20 – 08:25]

The conversation transitions to theoretical physics, exploring concepts like anti-gravity and warp drives. The hosts discuss the feasibility of manipulating space-time to achieve faster-than-light travel, referencing scientific theories and the challenges involved.

Notable Quotes:

• Derek [02:59]: "I do believe that aliens probably exist. [...] there's a high standard of proof for this kind of stuff."
• Tim [07:59]: "I don't think that there's a theory for how to do that warp drive."

They debate the practicality of these technologies, emphasizing the need for groundbreaking advancements in physics to make such concepts viable.

---

3. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Debates

[08:25 – 58:07]

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to an intense discussion between Phil and Ian regarding the events of September 11, 2001. They scrutinize the official narrative, questioning the structural integrity of the World Trade Center buildings and suggesting alternative explanations such as controlled demolitions and government conspiracies.

Notable Quotes:

• Phil [24:46]: "There's no passport that fell off a plane. That's retarded. They're using it to justify their official cover up of what really happened."
• Ian [35:39]: "I think there was bombs planted in the Pentagon too [...] the same question applies to Building 7."

The hosts reference various pieces of evidence and theories, including the presence of nanothermite and the phrase "pull it" used by Larry Silverstein, interpreting it as an indication of controlled demolition. The debate intensifies with both sides presenting their viewpoints, often clashing over interpretations of the evidence.

Interaction Highlights:

• Phil [49:16]: "I don't need any evidence because you don't have any evidence of bombs."
• Ian [53:18]: "If you have the evidence, I'm on board, man."

The argument showcases a deep divide between the hosts, with Phil advocating for corporate negligence as a plausible cause for the building collapses, while Ian insists on the presence of explosives and questions the official explanations.

---

4. Media Rumors and the Daily Wire

[16:11 – 22:40]

Phil and Ian shift focus to media-related rumors, particularly involving the Daily Wire and personalities like Brett Cooper. They discuss alleged internal conflicts, contract negotiations, and the challenges of maintaining financial stability within media organizations.

Notable Quotes:

• Phil [16:11]: "This episode is brought to you by Amazon...."
• Phil [21:00]: "But people talk shit because they hate."

The discussion highlights the perceived lack of transparency and the impact of rumors on media companies' reputations.

---

5. Caller Interactions and Geopolitical Discussions

[27:29 – 73:05]

Throughout the episode, callers contribute to the conversation by posing questions and sharing personal stories. Topics include U.S. involvement in Syria, gender changes for benefits, and ongoing conspiracy theories related to 9/11.

Notable Quotes:

• Caller 1 [27:29]: "Do you think it's realistic that the next administration is going to reduce the U.S. presence in the Middle East at all?"
• Phil [28:40]: "I think Trump is going to reduce presence in the Middle East."

Another caller discusses instances of individuals legally changing their gender for personal benefits, sparking a debate on gender discrimination and societal responses.

Notable Quotes:

• Phil [61:46]: "No, they're cheering for it. The left is saying we. They think, like, we've. We've..."
• Caller 2 [61:25]: "A man legally changed his gender so that he could get his kids back."

The interaction underscores the show's engagement with diverse and often contentious viewpoints.

---

6. Closing Discussions and Final Thoughts

[73:05 – 75:02]

As the episode nears its end, Phil and Ian reflect on the nature of conspiracy theories and the challenges of discerning truth in a media-saturated environment. They emphasize the importance of evidence-based conclusions while acknowledging the influence of personal biases.

Notable Quotes:

• Phil [74:07]: "There's no passport that fell off a plane. That's retarded."
• Phil [75:01]: "What you do, Ian, is you draw a conclusion and then try and find your way there."

The hosts wrap up by addressing the emotional and psychological aspects of maintaining certain worldviews, particularly among younger audiences.

---

Conclusion This episode of Timcast IRL provides a platform for discussing unconventional theories and challenging mainstream narratives. Through heated debates and caller interactions, Tim Pool and his guests explore the complexities of UFO sightings, advanced physics concepts, and deep-seated questions about historical events like 9/11. The episode underscores the show's commitment to "uncensored discussions and sharp insights into today’s most controversial issues."

---

Notable Quotes Summary:

• Phil [24:46]: "There's no passport that fell off a plane. That's retarded."
• Ian [35:39]: "I think there was bombs planted in the Pentagon too..."
• Phil [49:16]: "I don't need any evidence because you don't have any evidence of bombs."
• Ian [53:18]: "If you have the evidence, I'm on board, man."

These quotes exemplify the contentious and passionate nature of the discussions, highlighting the differing perspectives between the hosts.

Transcript

[Tim]

This episode is brought to you by Lifelock.

[Ian]

The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info.

[Tim]

In places that could expose you to identity theft.

[Ian]

That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points every second. If your identity is stolen, their US.

[Tim]

Based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed.

[Ian]

Or your money back. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with Lifelock.

[Tim]

Save up to 40% your first year.

[Ian]

Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply welcome to.

[Phil]

Our special weekend show Sunday uncensored. Every week we produce four uncensored episodes of the Tim Cast IRL podcast [e-mail] and we're going to bring you the most important for our weekend show. If you want to check out more segments just like this, become a [e-mail] now. Enjoy the show. I did not eat anything today. I skated for like almost three hours. So I'm trying to eat these built bars.

[Ian]

Yeah.

[Phil]

Cuz I'm. I'm going to wake up feeling like.

[Ian]

I ate four of those last night. I had. I think I headache this morning.

[Phil]

I think I had 7 or 800 calories so far today.

[Ian]

You're good.

[Phil]

Very bad. Yeah. Phil's give. Phil's giving me a scared look. No, I'm going to. I'll eat this built bar. I'll have a protein shake afterwards, but. So let's just kick this thing off and talk about drones over New Jersey.

[Tim]

Aliens.

[Phil]

Aliens is way better. Look at this one. We got pictures. This proves it. Look at that. Aliens. Aliens. Look at this one. That one might be Ian.

[Ian]

That's cool.

[Phil]

Aliens. Yeah. See it's like. It's like a jack.

[Ian]

Yeah.

[Phil]

Crucif form.

[Ian]

Quint copter. I got chew.

[Tim]

Right.

[Phil]

That does just look like a.

[Tim]

A quad ro.

[Phil]

Like a. A penta rotor.

[Ian]

Yeah.

[Phil]

Pent rotor. A sept rotor. It would be sept. Right.

[Ian]

Except would be seven. That looks like five.

[Phil]

Are you sure?

[Ian]

Yeah. Sept is seven. Quint.

[Phil]

Or.

[Ian]

Or penta. Penta Rotor. Hex.

[Phil]

Hex. Rotor.

[Ian]

Hex is 6, penta is 5. Pentagram. You got what's also.

[Phil]

Sept. Is 7. Scepter.

[Ian]

Oct is of course quint.

[Tim]

I see 10 points though.

[Phil]

Yeah. Rotor. Yeah. So it'd be Quint. Quint. Rotor.

[Ian]

Quintacopter. Quintcopter. Sounds terrible though.

[Phil]

September is seven. Duh. How did I like September? October.

[Tim]

That doesn't even look like a copter though. Like the copter does. Where's a rotor?

[Phil]

The rotors are right here of each of the tips.

[Ian]

There'd be a rotor. These all look like drones to me.

[Phil]

Right? You get it, Phil?

[Ian]

I do, yeah.

[Phil]

Whatever. This, it's a TIE fighter. That looks cool. So gyroscopes inside. That's a boomerang. Some Australian guy through. They should chill the out.

[Ian]

I wonder if that's like stealth.

[Phil]

This just looks like another Quint copter. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, all like, it's, it's kind of obvious. All of this is just experimental tech, you know what I mean?

[Ian]

Yeah. That looks like it's got rotors on it too, on the, on the wings.

[Derek]

The thing is, like, I, I do believe that aliens probably exist. And I don't think it's strange to think that they might have done some kind of, you know, exploratory investigation of our planet. Just like me. We have people who investigate ants. You know, we've got zoologist interest in all kinds of animals. So I don't know, it's not crazy. But this, this is, this ain't it right for.

[Ian]

I don't think so. I mean, I don't see any evidence that this is alien, like off world, other species. I'm always cynical about alien.

[Derek]

There has to be a high standard of proof for this kind of stuff.

[Tim]

I mean, look, man, things are far away. And like, if you ever look at the, the, the illustrations of how fast light travels when it comes to like just in solar scale, like solar system scales, like, it takes like four minutes for light to get from the sun to the Earth.

[Ian]

Seven. Seven minutes.

[Tim]

Maybe that could be seven. Maybe, maybe it's eight. I'm not, I'm not exactly.

[Phil]

Oh, it's four.

[Ian]

What was that?

[Tim]

I said four.

[Phil]

I think you're right.

[Tim]

I mean, but the point is it takes minutes. It's so far. And you can see that, like it looks, it doesn't look like super small in the sky either. Like, the distances we're talking about are crazy.

[Brian]

Eight minutes.

[Tim]

Eight minutes.

[Ian]

Eight minutes.

[Tim]

So eight minutes, that's.

[Ian]

That's 93 million miles. Yeah.

[Tim]

That is not like it's. Light is fast, like to us, but when it comes to, you know, a cosmic scale, it's not that fast.

[Ian]

Yeah, they call light years, which is how long it takes light to travel. How far light travels in one year. And that's how they measure spatial, like cosmic distances. How many, how many years does it take? Light, which takes what, eight minutes to get from the sun to.

[Tim]

And everything. And if years to get. And the nearest star, Proxima centauri, is like 11 light years away. Oh, brutal.

[Ian]

So Alpha Centauri is what Alpha Centauri they think might have habitable planets. Is that right? Or they think it might. I mean, I think it's the closest like potentially habitable system for, for Earthen's Alice Centauri. How far?

[Phil]

That's a galaxy, right?

[Ian]

So yeah, it's a star.

[Tim]

So star system Proxima Centauri is four point galaxy.

[Ian]

It's a star system.

[Tim]

Proxima Centauri is 4.25 light years away. The nearest star is four years at the speed of light. That's at the speed of light. Not close to the speed of light, but at the speed of light.

[Phil]

But nobody's actually talking about traveling space the speed of light. We're talking about folding space time.

[Tim]

Yes, if that's possible.

[Ian]

Warp drive is feasibly possible, according to Nat. I mean, I think NASA's working on a warp drive where they, they compress space in front of the craft and expand it behind and that just move, it doesn't actually propel the craft. It just.

[Phil]

You're moving between space time.

[Tim]

Yeah, you would need to understand, you would need to be able to manipulate space without the mass of a star, like without actually having that mass. So if there, if there is a particle that's a graviton, which guys. But I don't know if that, if it's actually true. If there is a graviton and if you can like figure out a way to manipulate it, maybe. But I mean as of right now, I don't even think that there's a theory for how to do that warp drive.

[Ian]

I interviewed this guy named Salvatore Paez. He's like a Navy scientist. I think he was working on, he might have been working on anti gravity. I, the interview was so wild.

[Tim]

But anti gravity is different than, than warp drive or manipulating like anti gravity would, it would, would be the expanding space part, I guess.

[Ian]

Yeah. They're similar in the cavitation of space. So like with anti gravity, you would, you would create a vacuous cavitation in the direction that you want the thing to be pulled. And similar with a warp drive, there would be a cavity.

[Tim]

I've been listening to a couple of YouTube videos about time and about what time is. And, and there are people that don't even think that gravity or that that time and space are actually relative. They think that relativity is wrong. They think that it's, it's, it's a, an emergent phenomenon that they're, that they, they, they have, that there are coincidental elements to them, but that they're not actually connected.

[Ian]

Space and time.

[Tim]

Yeah. Which I don't know if it's true, but the idea is that like time is just a measure of distance through space really essentially. And if you like. And that's part of why the faster you go, the slower time moves and the slower you go, the faster time moves. But I don't know that there's any kind of actual theory as to how you would bend, how you would shape space in a way that's practical. Like to compress time in front of a ship and expand or compress space in front of a ship and expand space behind it. Like, I don't think that there's a.

[Ian]

Theory for a warp drive theoretical space order.

[Derek]

They'd have to be really, I guess, really advanced.

[Tim]

Yeah. And so I mean, look, I mean not saying that it's not possible, but you know, we need, we need completely and totally new physics to. For this stuff to. To be something that can be theorized beyond just the concept. Never mind like not, you know, actual practically how would you do it be, you know, not just, oh, wouldn't it be cool if you could do this?

[Ian]

You know from space.com it says the story is warp drives maybe may actually be possible someday. New studies suggest. This is from May of 2024. I haven't even read the study yet, but that was what came up when I red warp drive. And I think they're the Alcubierre. Miguel Alcubierre. I've heard a lot about the Alcubierre warp drive groundbreaking paper.

[Phil]

Oh. The basics are.

[Ian]

He published the idea in classical and quantum gravity. And it may not require exotic negative energy teams model but a traditional novel. This is just a surface level study. The proposed engine could not achieve faster than light travel, though it could come close. Okay, so we're still talking sub. Sub lights.

[Tim]

Yeah.

[Ian]

So it's still four years, but I guess four years isn't that long. To get to another star.

[Tim]

No, to get to the closest star.

[Ian]

Yeah.

[Tim]

If you're talking about, you know, you're talking about the Milky Way. Our galaxy only right. Is like 200,000 light years across from one side to the other. So now granted, you're not like going from one side of the galaxy to the other is like. I mean that's just a huge massive distance, you know, and you're not going to do it in any kind of anything remotely close to what we understand as a lifetime.

[Ian]

Yeah. There's what wormholes, they think you can travel through again.

[Tim]

That takes that. That requires Bending space to a point where you can travel through the hole and also have your ship come out the other side. Which, I mean a wormhole is in theory is a black hole that bends space so much that it creates a rift in time. But you come out the other side.

[Ian]

Yeah, like you're twisting open in the other spot.

[Tim]

Well, I mean it bend like. So when you go into a worm, when you go into a black hole. Right. You cross the event horizon. What's happening is it's, it's just, it's, it's a mass that is so dense that it's essentially for all practical, for all practical purposes, it has become a singularity, which means that there is no, like, there's no longer a field. The way that we understand it, all of the mass is an infinitely, infinitely small point. So there isn't like, it's not like the black hole's a hole. And then like you, there's like this big ball in there. It's literally bent space and crushed all of the mass into something so small. It's just a, it's a single point. It's not, not like a planet or like a, you know, like neutron star sense of something. Yeah, I mean it's, it's, it becomes infinitely small. So it's like, it's just, it's like the head, all of it on the head of a pin.

[Derek]

And if you were to go into it, you'd get crushed into nothing.

[Tim]

And so there's no coming out of that kind of situation.

[Ian]

There's a. Oh, you got contacts. Serge might have some contacts if you want.

[Tim]

This episode is brought to you by Amazon. The holidays are here and you know what that means. It's time to get your friends and family the gifts they deserve. Take the stress out of shopping with Amazon's great deals and low prices on a huge range of items from toys to tech and much more. Whoever you're gifting for Amazon has great prices on everything you need this holiday season. Shop last minute deals now.

[Ian]

Oh, there's these black holes called char. They're charged black holes.

[Derek]

It'll get better time.

[Phil]

Sorry.

[Tim]

Some black.

[Ian]

We're talking about, we're talking about my eye. Some black holes are charged with electrical charge and I don't know exactly why. I don't know if anyone really understands why some black holes are charged black holes since the. It's electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass. But I've got this fantasy that we're going to be able to travel through black holes and they'll super accelerate the craft and then wherever you like, you'll aim at a star and then you'll go through a black hole, a charged black hole which will super accelerate your craft. And then when you get close to the star, it'll slow you down and you'll just come to a, like a halt in front of the whatever first star you hit. So if you, if you aim wrong, you're going to go flying through God knows where, through galaxies. I don't know why I keep thinking that. I think that might be, that might be possible because you can't sit inside.

[Phil]

Of a black hole.

[Ian]

It's like a piece of motion. It like twists everything so fast. Like you're talking the singularity.

[Tim]

It destroys everything.

[Ian]

Anything that's inside of there is going to be. But, but that pressure could be used.

[Tim]

To accelerate the accretion disk on a, on a black, black or on a black hole. Like all of the matter that going around the black hole that's orbiting it as it gets sucked in or before it gets sucked in. Like that stuff is approaching the speed of light and it's so hot that nothing that we know survives it. Like it's, it's millions of degrees. So like the, like, the idea of like riding on the accretion disk night.

[Ian]

You'D have to go through it so fast, kind of like when you run your hand over fire, if you do it really quick, it doesn't burn you. Like if we could somehow get through it at a fast enough speed that we could just use it to propel the rest of the way, which is like great, great distances.

[Tim]

I mean even getting to that speed is still, you know, a big, big ask, you know.

[Ian]

Yeah, we'd have to experiment with like shining light through it and see if we could get the light to super accelerate.

[Tim]

Light bends, the light doesn't speed up, light doesn't go faster than. I mean light's the fastest thing in the universe. There was a while that they thought.

[Ian]

They were eclipsing the speed of light by using gravity to bend the light. And it was going a little bit faster than the speed of light. But I think that that was thinking about that. That was like 10 years ago.

[Tim]

Like you ever see the pictures of like the, the black hole in, in like Gargantua and interstellar and stuff. The reason that it like it has the flat part and then it looks like it has that warp thing over the top, that's actually just the back. Get the light around the accretion just getting bent over the top My God, I love this stuff because space because it just. It bet like if you look at like you know there it was super cool looking and stuff but like the predictions like the models that they have in computers it says that the black hole will bend space so much that the accretion disk will be flat. Just like the way that everything spins around the sun. It'll be the same thing but because of the bending of space you'll see the accretion disk behind it bending up over the top of it.

[Phil]

This might be surprising to many of our members but Phil knows more about this than Ian.

[Ian]

I'm an eternal student.

[Tim]

I just. I just listen to a lot of YouTube videos.

[Ian]

But I think we might be in a black hole.

[Tim]

You ever hear that theory My girlfriend?

[Phil]

Yeah. That we're on the surface of it.

[Tim]

Yeah.

[Ian]

That's why everything looks black when you look out there.

[Phil]

No, that's not why but it's part of could explain a holographic projection on the outside of a black hole. Who knows?

[Ian]

Yeah. And like.

[Phil]

Or none of it matters and shut up.

[Ian]

Well this is why drugs are great.

[Phil]

Don't ask questions.

[Tim]

No they're not.

[Ian]

This is why psychedelics. I used to be like lots members.

[Phil]

Only I have whatever I don't.

[Ian]

I used to. I used to find it not. I used to find it interesting to think about space but then I smoked weed and I really. I started to feel it. I started to be able to. Cuz it's not logical man. Black holes aren't logical.

[Phil]

It doesn't make sense.

[Ian]

Like how that. How that in the universe happens doesn't.

[Phil]

Always make sense logically because is the members only section I could give a fuck. Who is this user?

[Tim]

I'm going to.

[Phil]

This is Goop 1095 says Tim. I demand you and your crew discuss this. Sure. According to Milo James Lindsay had. Well I'll just read it. Fucked Christina Buttons, who's a porn star with feces in her vagine. Also Brett Cooper was fired from Daily Wire. The person who replaces her is also her best friend, bridesmaid and producer. Daily Wire is also facing financial trouble due to failed media strategy. I know a lot about the media industry guys. I know a lot of people in the media industry and let me just tell you all of these rumors about who screwed over who and who doesn't have any money. James Lindsay did not have. I'm kidding. I have no idea what that was about. I think that's just bullshit nonsense. But as for the Daily Wire stuff, it's just really Weird how people make shit up. I don't understand.

[Tim]

Yeah, I mean, like.

[Phil]

Like this, okay, Brett Cooper. There's a rumor going around, and they're like, oh, man, everyone's fighting. And I'm like, contract renegotiations happened. They are amicably splitting, I think, with. Let me tell you guys a secret. Let me tell you guys a secret. Do you know contracts don't mean. Contracts mean. Let me tell you a secret. Back in the day, if you got signed to a talent agency and you had an agent represented, you would sell you out. So I had. I had a guy approach me. He actually repped Geraldo. And this is 10. 10. This is 12 years ago. And he was like, I'm gonna represent you. And it was from one of the big agencies was Paradigm. And I said, sure. And he gave me this massive contract to throw in the garbage. I think, have a nice day. Didn't want to do it. The issue with contracts in the, you know, 20 years ago was that if I. If I was a talent on, say, abc, and they said, tim, we want you to say, you love the President. Come on, this is important. This is for America. And I said, I'm not going to say it. And then you're off the air and you're done, and I say, fuck you. Fine. I quit. No one will ever hire you. You go to NBC, they're going to say, no, no, no, no. You're under contract, abc. We hire you, we get sued. You know why contracts mean bullshit, right? Now, if you take any contract with any company, I mean, look at what happened with Stephen Crowd on the Daily Wire. What do contracts matter? If. If Phil. If he had a contract with a. And they were fighting over terms, and it was really bad for Phil, Phil could go on Twitter and say, fuck yourself. And they could say, I'll sue you. And then Phil could laugh and say, have fun. Back in the day, you didn't have a medium for communicating to the public and causing PR issues. So if you got into an issue with a contract you were under for a talent agency or TV network, you were fucked. Sit down, shut up. Work it out. The lawyers deal with it, and try and see if your career can survive. Now, like I was under contract did Fusion, and I'm like, bro, they don't want to go to war with someone with this many followers. So I. That's why I don't believe the. If Brett Cooper was having a really bad time, she'd literally be like, let me tell you how the contract negotiation is going to go because let me tell you about a contract negotiation I had, and I'll keep it vague to respect all parties involved, eyes on the phone with, with, with a client. And I said, guys, we negotiated terms on this deal at this rate for this amount of time. And when, when you sent in your invoice, I'm noticing the rate is a little bit higher. And they said, well, I mean, you got to understand. No, no, no, no, no. You've got to understand this is not what we agreed on. And if you want to play contractual language bullshit with me, I'm going to hang up the phone and you will regret it. No, no, no, no, no. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Dude. If someone, if a powerful, influential person in media had a problem, they'd pull a Steven Crowder, not saying it disrespectfully of Crowder. If Brett Cooper, if it was really this acrimonious, nightmarish thing, she would pull a Candace Owens. Candace Owens publicly criticized them and she called for, she wanted to debate Ben and very critical. The fact that she and Jeremy are like, it's all good. You know, the contract, these things don't happen. Says to me what likely happened is her contract was, was, was coming for renegotiation. She probably said, I want to get paid a lot more money. The show's massive. And they said, we're not going to pay you that much money. She probably said, I want to spend time with my family. I want to focus less on the show. And they said, we want a show that is run that h. Like here, here's the big deal. I can't speak to any internal stuff because I don't know what the. They got going on over there when you, if, if, if I sold an ad package. So we recently had an ad package that was three months long. What happens then? If in the middle of contract negotiations, you've already sold the ad package and the host says, I don't want to do that many shows, you go, well, we already sold it. I've already told the advertiser they're going to get 12 reads over the next three months. And you're talking about demanding more money after the ads already sold and we don't have it. And you're saying if you don't, you're going to leave or you want to work less. And they say, well, I'm just not interested in doing it. All that happens. Okay, so let's, let's, let's try this three month deal. Contract negotiations are halfway through. 12 AD reads are guaranteed at $100,000. The talent then says my contract is up. I know it's. It's an. It's unfortunate, the timing of this, because I know we sold ads already, but I'm not willing to work five days a week. I want to do four, and I want twice the rate. I. As the. As the. As the business owner then say, okay, well, we don't make that much money. We're only making $100,000 with these 12 ads. So if we pay you what you're asking, we just are giving you our money. We're losing money. The show's not making money. And if you don't work those days, we can't. No one's gonna have those ad reads. We need a host who's gonna be here for the allotted time to read those ads. Okay, well, I don't want it. I told you my terms. I have a family. I am spending. I'm gonna spend time with my family, and I'd rather not do this if it means I can't spend time with them or get paid more. Well, I guess we're at an impasse. Thank you so much for everything you've done. Handshake. Let me know what we can do to support you in your. In your future endeavors. And maybe, you know, you launch a new channel. We'll see. We can do. To help you out because we want you to succeed. And then we're going to find someone else who knows the show can come in to fill these ad slots and do this in a way that makes money for everybody. And I'm sorry it didn't work out. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money. Again, I have no insider. I don't. I don't know, but I would. I would put $1,000 down. That's what happened.

[Tim]

I mean, I don't know or something like that. I don't know what. What, you know, goes on at the Daily Wire any better than anyone else. That doesn't work there. But, like, I do think that the. You know, didn't she recently get married? Wasn't in the past year.

[Phil]

Yeah.

[Ian]

Yes.

[Tim]

I mean, it's.

[Phil]

And the rumors on Pendragon are interesting. That's what that's quartering was saying, right? Something about it. But like, dude. So let me. Guys, let me tell you guys a story. Fuck the haters. Ignore the noise. I'll let you guys in on a secret. It's not really a secret, but we're selling the DIY skatepark property. I'm done. Fuck these people. The DIY skateboard in Martinsburg. Oh, okay. We're selling it.

[Ian]

Yep.

[Phil]

We put it up. We've already got interest. And so we decided, fuck it. We'll just sell it. And I don't know, that means for these skateboarders, they can go. They can go fuck themselves. Not the skaters. We, like, shout out to Mike and the crew. They're cool dudes, the people who actually skate there. Super cool with us. We've paid to do repairs. Here's the original plan. When we moved here, I was looking at a series of properties in Martinsburg because we wanted to build a $300,000 concrete park built by Spawn Ranch. The problem is, if we bought one of these properties, we built a skate park there, lawsuits sued into oblivion. So we were looking at the DIY property because the city already allows skateboarding there, which means, what are you going to do about it? It's kind of got legal precedent that skateboarding is allowed and construction is allowed. They let people build. Let's. Let's go to battle. They would not. If I bought that land and had Spawn come in and build a $300,000 park, the city would say, okay, I guess we've been going through bullshit with the building, the Queen street building. It's been two years, and people have said, tim, you couldn't even open a fucking coffee shop in two years. I'm like, you're right, because the city is miserable. Sorry, guys. It's just true. So last two weeks ago, one of these guys, it's basically one guy threatened me several times at a Cracker Barrel.

[Tim]

Really?

[Phil]

Yeah. Yeah, Allison. I went to Cracker Barrel, and he was there in front of me, and he coughed on me, threatened me, said he was gonna drop me. Said a bunch of other shit. Basically threatened me three times. One was like, you will die Esque. Like, it was to the level of like, he was gonna. I would be dead. But the. It was. It's like. He didn't say, I'm going to kill you. He said, you know, I can't remember exactly what he said, but he was filming half of it. The first one, he said, he's like, I'm gonna put you on the floor.

[Tim]

Filming.

[Phil]

Yeah, yeah. It's nuts. And so I'm sitting here being like. It was funny because his girlfriend was there, and I was. And I was talking to her, and he was trying to talk to Allison. And I said to the swim, he was like, you bought my part from you.

[Tim]

Oh, God.

[Phil]

And I was like. With his girlfriend standing there looking at me. I said, how long do you think it takes to buy a property like that? He goes 30 to 60 days. And then I looked at his girlfriend and said, so do you think it's interesting at all that two weeks after the event was supposed to happen, we owned the property? And then she had this look on her face like, oh. And I said, yeah, because the plan was we wanted to build a park in the city that everybody can use a privately owned public space, which would give us limited liability and create a skate park that we could control and keep out bad elements and have a fun place to film and do stuff. But I was like, homie over here has been vandalizing it. And then I asked them several times, who the fuck's been vandalizing the property? We can't build anything because they keep showing with fucking sledgehammers. They've been, they've been spray painting slurs and other fucking bullshit all over the park. And so I talked to these companies, I said, what if we just build the park anyway? And they were like, they, this happens, man. I'm telling you, they're going to show up at 2am with sledgehammers and you're going to spend 20 grand and we're going to cancel the project so it can't fucking be done. So after. So I was like, well, then we'll just keep the property and we'll leave it as is. Fuck them. But then after he came and threatened me several times, I said, fuck it, we're selling, we're done.

[Tim]

Don't blame you.

[Phil]

So anyway, he posts on his Instagram bankruptcy sale. Listen, shit talkers and haters are gonna lie their asses off. It's a million dollar property that I own 100% outright. It's commercial property in a bustling and growing area that they just, they're building massive condos and this is what they do. The people who hate will talk shit and make shit up. And it's fake and it's stupid. We are not bankrupt. That property is worth a million dollars and it's sitting there in hard equity that I own and I can sell for any amount that I want. I could sell it for a dollar, I make a dollar, I sell it for a million dollars. I make a million dollars. Well, not really. We bought it for eight something. So my point is they're going to talk shit. They're going to lie about you because they hate you. So when they're coming out and saying the Daily Wire this and Daily Wire that, I'm like, shut up. Man, like you can't have. I'm sorry. It's just literally not possible to have Ben Shapiro's show and be broke. I'm sorry. I know the general podcast number is for the top podcasts and I'm estimated. Dude probably makes 20 million bucks a month. That is not a broke company. But people talk shit because they hate. They're haters. They lie, they cheat. They're fucking haters. Fuck the haters. Anyway, yes. Let's grab callers. Let's get Syrian Penguin on the line. What is up?

[Caller 1]

Good evening. First time, long time.

[Phil]

Howdy. Yeah.

[Caller 1]

So, well, question for the cast from probably your one and only fundamentalist Wahhabi Christian Syrian Discord member. I don't know if you've ever had the Syrian member before, but there we go. So credit where credit is due. The Biden White House came out and said that their in regards to the Syrian situation, they're going to take their time with any decision regarding the new leadership in Syria and base their decisions on the facts and their actions instead of just verbal announcements. Trump, on his part, announced that the US shouldn't be involved in Syria at all. However, in light of Trump's support for Israel and who, you know, they have their own issues with Turkey and then interest in the stability of Syria and preventing the spread of extremist militias, do you think it's realistic that the next administration is going to reduce the U.S. presence in the Middle east at all? Or they're just going to be following with whatever aligns with Israeli interest? And thanks a lot.

[Phil]

I think, I think Trump is going to reduce presence in the Middle east. For sure. 100% support for Israel is going to be interesting because that will drag the US into certain conflicts. But compared to where we've been, I think it'll be less. I mean, like talking about having bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, you know, this massive presence, I think Trump will lend support to Israel. It'll be massive support, probably, I argue, even more support than they get now. But think about it this way. If the US Curtails much of its operations in the Middle east and then utilizes 30% of those resources to support Israel, Israel is getting a massive boost, but our presence is dropping dramatically.

[Tim]

I, I think that Trump probably will kind of reduce our, our footprint globally. But I do wonder if we'll have, if there will be another, another big terrorist attack in the US because of it. I mean, we, Bill Clinton did a lot of pulling back of the US Of US Forces from international bases and stuff like that. They got out of Afghanistan. CIA stopped doing anything in Afghanistan and there was no funding. We stopped supporting Saddam Hussein. And I'm pretty sure that after the first Iraq war, there was no, there was no U.S. presence in, you know, there was no U.S presence in Iran, there was no US presence in, in Iraq. So that's Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq. That's a wide area to have like no US Influence there. The most you had was like Kuwait and I think some in Saudi Arabia. So I don't, I don't know that this is going to happen. And I'm not advocating to build bases in these countries, but if the countries are run by, you know, Islamic extremists, which is what it seems like, because the guy that's taking over in Syria, the guy that, that's leading the, whatever the new government in Syria ends up being called, he was an Al Qaeda member and all of the things that go along with that. I mean, if that's the case, then it seems likely to me that that would be another hotbed of terrorist activity for.

[Ian]

Dude, what it looks like what happened was CIA and whoever else was involved funded the Islamist extremists to take over Syria. So now we have a new boogeyman to fight. So we have just caused.

[Tim]

Because they were fighting, they thought they were fighting Russia. They were like, oh, we're going to fight Russia and we're going to fight Iran. So we'll fund the terrorists that are fighting Assad because Assad and Hezbollah were, were backed by Russia and Iran.

[Ian]

Yeah, so it's like a, the second step of a three part phase of get the Russian support out, get a new villain in. And then third step is we'll go in and the new villain. Such old school behavior.

[Tim]

But even so, so is there a. So is, is there a better plan and is staying completely out going to produce positive results for the U.S. well, because power vacuums only invite, you know, strong men.

[Ian]

I was a huge proponent of increasing trade with Russia. The United States and Russia having awesome diplomatic relationships and trade partnerships and like just the empowerment of both countries. Because I don't think there has to be one winner and one loser when it comes to the United States and Russia. So I don't, I don't, I feel.

[Tim]

Like the Middle east is a different topic than Russia though. It's, it's related, but I don't feel like it's the same topic.

[Ian]

Like, what is the purpose over there right now? What's the geopolitical purpose of the liberal economic order in the Middle East? Is it just to Expand Israel's sphere of influence.

[Tim]

No, what is it? The, the intent of having U.S. influence over there is to prevent some kind of terrorist attack here. Now whether or not that's a good plan or whether or not it's effective I'm not making a comment on. But that's what you're going to be told by people like State Department.

[Ian]

That's what they tell you like. But 911 was pretty obviously perpetrated by people within.

[Tim]

It was.

[Ian]

No, it was, it was those buildings.

[Tim]

Perpetrated by Saudis and a guy from Egypt.

[Ian]

The guy who's. Whose passport fell out of the flaming plane. Mohamed? I don't think so.

[Phil]

So, so the issue here is, but this is, what's fascinating is it's, it's what is your level of ordered thinking. So for first order thinkers they're going to say government said it, so it's true. The next degree of ordered thinkers are going to say what A passport fell of a plane. That's bullshit. This had to be someone in the know. Higher order thinkers are going to say the fact that a passport was found on the ground is obvious bullshit but gives me no information as to anything else related to what happened on 9 11.

[Ian]

Yeah, I look at the buildings falling in near freefall. That's all I need. So, okay, so there are explosives planted on the support piece.

[Phil]

You see, that's what I'm talking about. I'm calling you a low ordered thinker. Why would you made that up?

[Ian]

No, I didn't. I watch architects and engineers around the world, 1400 of them talk about the near freefall of the.

[Phil]

You watched a video that you decided was correct.

[Ian]

You think the building's pancaked.

[Phil]

Let's pull it up. I'm not asserting anything.

[Ian]

So do you think the buildings fell in your freefall?

[Phil]

I don't believe that it is correct to say they near freefall is near.

[Ian]

Freefall speed indicating the sports are blown out.

[Phil]

Potentially, yes, 100%.

[Ian]

This is what all the engineers around Earth will tell you. As a building falls in near freefall it indicates the supports were removed and it was a demolition.

[Phil]

There's, there's a. So how did they get the bombs in?

[Ian]

That's the question. I don't know. But there was an elevator crew in there for a year before the attack.

[Phil]

This is the problem with all that.

[Ian]

I don't know. No one really knows how, how, why there was nanothermite in the dust around the devastation. Why was that there? According to the same architects and engineers that did the research on the cleanup.

[Tim]

Do you think Osama bin Laden was lying?

[Ian]

About what?

[Tim]

About why he. Why he.

[Phil]

I'm not even saying.

[Ian]

Yeah, I don't know.

[Phil]

I'm saying that it's remarkable how the government. Here's obvious logic. The government's never going to tell you how our security was breached. Period. Fact is our security was breached. If you want to say a rogue element of the government allowed 911 to happen or orchestrated it that would still be. The security of the United States was breached by a domestic internal force seeking to damage it. We don't know anything about what happened. And the idea that the government would ever release true information is. Bro, I got a bunch of bridges to sell you. I sell every single one at New York's got this got to sell if you're going to believe the official narrative because the government is not going to come and say hey everybody one of the greatest security lapses in the history of this country just happened and we're going to tell you exactly how it did. Yeah, that's never going to happen. Especially with the Pentagon being struck by whatever the fuck it was struck by. My problem is it is obvious to anybody with a brain that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane. That makes no fucking sense. But of course they're not going to tell you what it was actually hit by. Maybe it was hit by a smaller plane carrying explosives. Who knows? Certainly wasn't it.

[Ian]

I think there was bombs planted in the Pentagon too and they were ready for that building over Pennsylvania to hit it. The structure the plane went down in Pennsylvania structural blow it structured structural damage.

[Phil]

To the Pentagon that you can see does not indicate a bomb. It indicates something smashed into it. That's why at least change 911 they said a cruise missile made more sense because you get kinetic impact and you get an explosion. That being said the easy answer is we don't know. The official story is bullshit. You are stupid if you think a plane hit it. But that doesn't mean that like my problem is when people jump to conclusion that Bush did it.

[Ian]

I don't think Bush was involved was an inside job. I think bombs were planted watching Cheney's company immediately get get contracts Halliburton get contracts in Iraq in Afghanistan like he was the go to guy was the vice president of the United States to set up defense contracts in the country we invaded right after we are we got attacked on American invasion of Iraq.

[Phil]

Was being planned well before 911 happened.

[Ian]

Which is fucking psychotic.

[Phil]

Which indicates that why so there's two scenarios. 1911 was prepared as a justification for an invasion they were already planning on engaging in, or it was unrelated and they exploited the crisis to justify the moral panic.

[Ian]

Yeah, and I think the first is more likely, if you look at geopolitical strategy, that it was used as a false flag and that my assumption is not being involved in the Middle east doesn't necessarily. I don't think that 911 was the terrorist attack we were told it was. That's the point of bringing this up. I don't think that it was that we weren't involved in the Middle east and that's why we got attacked. I think it was like, yo, we need to invade the Middle East. Let's get the American public behind a war.

[Phil]

We need to jump to our next caller though. So Syrian Penguin. Appreciate you calling in. You want to shout anything out?

[Caller 1]

Thanks a lot. I'm just going to shout out myself, I guess being the only Syrian here. I still have family and friends in Syria. So if you guys have any questions about the situation. I've seen Phil tweeting a lot, some stuff about the situation with the Christians in Syria. And most of that is a lot of misleading, out of context video. And like, I'd be happy to go through all of that, but that would take forever.

[Tim]

I just want to say the point, the point of that video that I put up wasn't that it that I was saying that Christians were being attacked. My point was it's like, here's the new boss, the same as the old boss. It's that the people that are there are not particularly better than Assad.

[Caller 1]

So I don't necessarily disagree. And that's why I love Patrick David's mantra where it's like 51 optimism, 49% paranoia and only survive.

[Phil]

Right. Well, right on. Thanks for calling in, brother.

[Caller 1]

Thanks a lot.

[Phil]

All right, next up, we're going to grab. What is this Canman sense that they.

[Tim]

Say it don't know.

[Ian]

Okay, so just to answer that question, who found the nano thermite? It was in the 2009 peer reviewed. Steven Johnson, Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. Stephen Jones, Neils, Harriet. Yeah, so is the Bentham Open Chem.

[Phil]

All right, we're going to jump to the next caller because. Sorry, buddy, but we'll come back, we'll try again. Professor Brian How.

[Brian]

All right.

[Phil]

Hey, guys.

[Tim]

Hey, sir. Hello.

[Ian]

What's happening, bro? I will mute what he might be getting. Secondary direction.

[Phil]

I'll say this. One of the issues I take with like architects and engineers for 911 is that it's fascinating to me that when it comes to the vaccines, everyone's going to choose. These are the studies that are correct. Those studies are wrong. When it comes to 9, 11, this one guy's study is correct. Those studies are wrong. All that's happening is people are selecting based on their biases what they want to have occurred based on a plethora of information they can't figure out.

[Ian]

Only biases are physics. And I would like to not.

[Phil]

It's not true.

[Ian]

It is. That is the near free fall. It's the why did those things fall? Near free fall. So that's the biggest thing.

[Phil]

So there's. There's two explanations and you reject one.

[Ian]

What was the rejection pancake. They know that would indicate not a near free fall.

[Phil]

That's not correct. It's exponential.

[Ian]

A near free fall is when nothing, the entire thing comes down at yes.

[Phil]

And you read some guy you are claiming is correct and you are not actually someone who's done any of the tests.

[Ian]

I've watched hundreds of engineers talk about it and I watched it in real time over and over and over.

[Phil]

Here's my point exactly as I said, there was no pancaking when it comes to the vaccines. We say those studies are bullshit. Those studies are correct. You are saying I watched a video. That's true.

[Ian]

Watched hundreds of videos of the thing. And I've listened to hundreds of different engineers talk about it and architects about.

[Phil]

And I watch hundreds of videos on the vaccine killing people. People are going to choose what studies are true and which are false.

[Ian]

I haven't seen any compelling evidence of a pancaking. I've, I've looked for it. I've looked for lots of like, what the fuck happened? I've been, I worked there, man.

[Phil]

This is a deeply important hold on. And I see you're falling into logical fallacies because your argument is broken. I literally, what is working, smelled that shit.

[Ian]

It means a lot to me to figure out what really happened because I was there.

[Phil]

So it's immaterial to the argument that I made that people are choosing based on their bias what they want to be true.

[Ian]

I don't want any of it to be true. You have chosen to know what the.

[Phil]

Truth is and made determinations based on.

[Ian]

It's physics. Yeah, I've assumed physics is.

[Phil]

No, you said the government was involved.

[Ian]

I don't know that the government was involved.

[Phil]

People in the know were involved.

[Ian]

You said somebody was in there. Yeah, right.

[Phil]

That's, that's, that's, that's somebody Line those.

[Ian]

Those supports with explosives. I don't know who.

[Phil]

Yeah, you.

[Ian]

How would it have fallen in your free fall?

[Phil]

Just because you don't know, just you can assert that it was a bomb.

[Tim]

Yeah, it was a lot of bombs.

[Phil]

This is, this is. This is like low order.

[Ian]

Also like evident. Like eyewitnesses talking about pop, pop, pop.

[Phil]

Pop, pop, pop, pop the building.

[Ian]

And then the whole thing comes down.

[Tim]

They didn't have like open windows. And so as the thing was collapsing, it was blowing out windows because the air pressure.

[Ian]

That's what you think?

[Tim]

Yes.

[Ian]

You think that the air pressure of the pancake caused the windows to shoot sideways. Well, you just put on record that that's what you think.

[Phil]

Okay, that's what I think. If a pancaking did occur, quite literally that would happen. The.

[Ian]

Okay, now show me the pancaking. If you, if you think that that's. Show me.

[Phil]

I mean, you wouldn't know how to recognize it. Pancake.

[Ian]

I know what it looks like. It goes.

[Phil]

Oh, you don't.

[Ian]

And then it causes the pressure, causes the collapse. It would even go.

[Phil]

I've never seen. It wouldn't go before on buildings.

[Ian]

I mean, I know what it looks.

[Phil]

Like when a piece of pancake. You've ever seen in your life.

[Ian]

No, it was a near free fall.

[Phil]

Name a building that's pancaked. I don't know exactly. My point is not that you are right or wrong in the sense that 911 was or was not this, that or otherwise. My point is the COVID vaccine comes out and the people who are anti establishment choose to believe a certain set of studies. And the people who are pro establishment choose to believe a certain set of studies. And discerning what is true is particularly difficult.

[Ian]

There's a pancake.

[Phil]

There's a bunch of 911 truthers who have determined government was involved, someone in the know was involved in bombs were planted because they watched a selective set of information despite the fact you've never seen a building pancake.

[Ian]

I just watched a building pancake.

[Phil]

You have asserted.

[Ian]

I'm watching it, Tim.

[Phil]

Pull it up. Asserted. Let's just pull them up.

[Ian]

Rather than talk about what you think, pull up the evidence.

[Phil]

How about we just get this caller back? All right, I do colors. No, let's try this caller. We've got crafty Dwarf. Maybe you're here.

[Tim]

Crafty. Come on, don't let us down.

[Ian]

You got this Dwarf?

[Tim]

Oh, no, no.

[Ian]

Your audio is warped. So maybe turn. Turn off the. Turn off the sound. Turn off like us. If you have us on in the background.

[Phil]

Their microphone's having a problem.

[Ian]

Then your microphone's busted.

[Phil]

Just like a frappy laptop mic. It's not going to get much better.

[Tim]

That's a little bit better. That's a little bit better.

[Ian]

Oh, I can hear Phil coming through your speaker, man.

[Phil]

You gotta turn the speakers off.

[Tim]

Hello?

[Ian]

Okay.

[Phil]

I don't know if I'll be able.

[Ian]

To hear you in that case.

[Tim]

Well, ask your question and then turn.

[Phil]

It up and turn your mic off.

[Tim]

Yeah.

[Phil]

Basically, I've been seeing this stuff from Piers Morgan going on in the last couple of days where Piers Morgan evidently interviewed Taylor Lorenz and a couple other people about the. The assassination matter. And I was wondering what you guys thought about that because I thought his response and her response live on air was rather hilarious because she was laughing about the matter and he called her out on it and she just kept laughing.

[Ian]

Yeah, we did have like a 30 minute segment on it last night. It was crazy.

[Tim]

It's crazy. Go ahead and turn that down.

[Ian]

So, yeah, just maybe put some headphones on or something.

[Tim]

Yeah, we talked about the, the insanity that is Taylor Lorenz's response to the, to the. All of this. We, I think we've talked about it a couple times.

[Phil]

She keeps saying the people support it, ignoring the fact that most of the people don't. But she's a communist and a cult, so she will. She's. She. It's funny because she writes about, like the Internet, but she doesn't realize she's wrapped around this fringe group of people who keep screaming in her face to support her.

[Ian]

Yeah.

[Phil]

So she's saying insane things, but she thinks it's popular because her insane cohort of cultists keep saying reinforcing her.

[Ian]

Yeah, I thought it was refreshing to see it, though, to see Pierce pin her to the wall on that one.

[Tim]

So, yeah, it's. She's insane. And she's a garbage person, too. So I think that's the. The overall general opinion we have.

[Phil]

Yep. All right. You could definitely get that.

[Tim]

I mean, she definitely seems to be.

[Phil]

Turning into the next Law cow. It's going to be fun.

[Tim]

And it's coming from a freaking journalist this time. She's definitely turning into the next law. That is true.

[Ian]

Oh, yeah.

[Phil]

Well, thanks, guys. And let me get me and my crappy mic out of here.

[Tim]

All right, well, thanks for calling in, man. I appreciate it.

[Phil]

So someone asked about how the BBC reported that the building. Let me, let me find what the question was. How did the BBC report building 7 went down 20 minutes before it actually did. There's another thing that I love about the news media. On the day of these events, a whole there's probably especially an event like 9 11, I'd imagine there are 50,000 falsehoods stated by the news. You latch onto the ones that seem to stand out. This could be easily explained in a lot of ways. The first being they were intending to blow the building and had told the media to report it before they actually did on accident. That's the one that everyone wants to believe. Maybe it's true. It's also possible that 10,000 reporters are full of shit. The fake news lies all the time and they make things up. And so maybe they got word from the police department, this building's coming down, we can't do shit. And so it got reported that they're evacuating the building. Or as Larry Silverstein said, when the firefighters realized they couldn't defeat the fire, they decided to pull it. And that's what they did. Pull it means dropping a building. This guy is not a construction worker, so I'm not sure if he would know what pull it actually meant. So people are choosing to believe he meant pull as in demolition, which is jargon. I don't believe Larry Silverstein is. I don't believe it's likely or fair to assume he would know the jargon. So pull it or pull out would refer to pulling out of a building.

[Ian]

But he said pull it.

[Phil]

Right?

[Ian]

He knew it was happening. They demolished.

[Phil]

This is why I can't stand this.

[Ian]

What did he mean when he said.

[Phil]

Pull it, pull out?

[Ian]

He didn't say pull out. He said I told him to pull it. So they pulled it.

[Phil]

They decided to pull it and that's what we, that's what we ultimately ended up doing. The argument is that a chunk of Tower 2 fell on top of Building 7, crushing the top of it from the center. Combined with gas tanks exploding all over the building and extended fire that was burning since 9am till 5pm causing the building to collapse. I'm not saying that's true. The building crimps down and falls down in a very strange way, indicating it was a shit building. But I got a better conspiracy for you, ian. In the 1970s when they were building the World Trade center, buildings in this country are built by the lowest bidder. So New York City decides we're going to build two large skyscrapers, each 110 or however many floors, and we're going to put it out to bid company A. What's your bid? $100 million. Company B, what's your bid? $90 million. Company C, what's your bid? $70 million. Company and company B go, what? $70 million? You can't build those things for $70 million. And they say, we're better than you and we'll get it done. City says, okay, port Authority. Bang. $70 million to build these two skyscrapers. The guy goes back to his office and he says, we got the contract for the World Trade Center. Big news. We're going to make a shitload of money. $70 million. His partner goes, are you fucking nuts? We can't build 210 skyscrapers for $70 million. He goes, don't worry, I worked it out. The center support columns will pull those. That's going to save us 13 million right off the top. Come on. A plane's never going to fucking hit this building. What do we have to worry about? So they cut corners to put money in their pockets. And then 30, 40 years later, a plane hits it, it falls down and everyone goes, there's no way a plane knocked that down. It is infinitely more logical to believe that the corporate interests and the government structure of a war of contracts to the lowest bidder means the corporation cut corners to put money in their pocket and intentionally offered a low bid because they wanted to win. And the buildings were just built like fucking shit.

[Ian]

Do you have any evidence, do you have evidence of that?

[Phil]

I don't need any evidence because you don't have any evidence of bombs.

[Ian]

It has nothing to do with me. Are you saying. Okay, I'm reading about designed. It was designed by Minoru Yamasaki and his firm, Emery, Roth and Sons. The engineering work was done by Worthington Skilling, Helen Jackson and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey constructed the complex which included the Twin Towers, one World Trade center, two World Trade center, as well as five other buildings. If you have evidence that they. That they skimped, that's big time.

[Phil]

I don't need evidence.

[Ian]

Well, if you're going to propose the.

[Phil]

Well, if you're going to propose they were bombs, what's your evidence that the.

[Ian]

Guy on the site was like, I heard bombs go up. And also the controlled demolition.

[Phil]

What? Controlled demolition?

[Ian]

The near freefall speed of powers 1, 2 and 7. Ian, the guy saying, pull it.

[Phil]

You are spinning in circles.

[Ian]

And I'm explaining the answer. That's the evidence. Larry Silverstein, Pull it. So they pulled it. That's a demolition talk.

[Derek]

So many people, though, keep this a secret. In the modern media age, if there was this Vast conspiracy in our government. I understand. Like we're talking about Lee Harvey Oswald. I think bombs, I mean now like it seems like that would have leaked.

[Phil]

And you do know the Manhattan Project argument is wrong. What a lot of these 911 truthers like to say is the Manhattan project. They kept 300,000 people wrong. I got the life fucking magazines. The people who worked in the Manhattan Project were speculating as to what they were building. It was compartmentalized. They knew something was being built. The Russians were trying to figure it out. The Nazis were trying to figure it out. There was speculation that it was going to be a death laser beam. There was speculation it was going to be a nuclear bomb. Everybody working on the project knew it was a massive military project that was creating some kind of powerful weapon. But nobody knew what it was because it was compartmentalized. So the idea that they could plant bombs in the World Trade Centers, that they could then detonate three buildings and bomb the Pentagon and not a single person could talk about the strange operation that involved 17,000 people over the course of three months to layer nanothermite projectiles in the elevator shafts. It's like, dude, I'm not saying I know what happens. And I definitely don't believe the official story. That's retarded. The Saudis probably had some involvement. That's fine. But my point is you can't assert they were bombs. That's made up. I can also at the same regard, if you're going to say bombs were planted, I can then easily say the corporations cut costs on the central support columns is a much more plausible explanation than bombs were planted. See, here's the thing. You can't explain when and how the bombs were planted and how no one noticed. I don't need to explain in my argument. Mine is the simple solution. Corporations cut corners all the time. And when they were building it, they skimped on central supports to save money to put in their pockets. They were skimming off the top to enrich themselves. That's probably not even shocking to anybody. Then when the plane actually hit it, why did it collapse the way it did? Looking at it near. Looking at near free fall speeds. Because the company that built it removed central support columns to save millions of dollars.

[Ian]

Building 7 fall, near free fall.

[Phil]

Same reason, didn't get hit by a plane.

[Ian]

Same reason, didn't get hit by a plane. You just set a plane.

[Phil]

The top of building two fell on it.

[Ian]

Are you sure about that?

[Phil]

Yes. Fragments of the building as it collapsed.

[Ian]

Crushes of a building, touched the Top of another building and the entire thing came down in near free fall.

[Phil]

Ian, don't do it.

[Ian]

No, no, I'm asking. You're just. Is this literally you think that's more.

[Phil]

Likely and you're losing the argument?

[Ian]

I'm gonna warn you already won the argument, Tim.

[Phil]

You've lost.

[Tim]

Oh God.

[Phil]

Not a single person said a tiny piece touched the roof.

[Ian]

You said part of the roof of building two landed on the roof of building seven, which was how many blocks away?

[Phil]

One. You do realize the debris from the World Trade center went miles.

[Ian]

Yeah, sure. It exploded, fucking went flying.

[Phil]

I'm going to pause you way far away real quick, Ian. I said a building fell on another building. And then you reframed it and said a piece of the building touched the roof.

[Ian]

Yeah.

[Phil]

That indicates you've lost the argument.

[Ian]

You're saying part of the roof of Building 2 fell on Building 7?

[Phil]

Fragments of the World Trade Center's collapse hit Building 7. And I am not asserting I know why Building 7 collapsed.

[Ian]

Okay?

[Phil]

I am only asserting that it is a simpler solution that the companies that constructed them pulled important materials to make money than it is for you to imply bombs.

[Ian]

If you have evidence of that, I'm on board, man.

[Phil]

Read evidence.

[Ian]

No, no, you're making a proportion.

[Phil]

And so are you.

[Ian]

Yes, right.

[Phil]

And I have evidence. Assumptions.

[Ian]

I have documented evidence of nano thermite. And a free fall from one indicates. From a scientific journal that it was printed in and that indicates that it was a demolition.

[Phil]

No, it doesn't.

[Ian]

Near freefall speed of a building. When you have nanothermite, which is a military grade incendiary on the all in the dust indicates that the beams were melted and the thing was demolished.

[Phil]

I don't fall in near free fall when they're not being demolished. I think you have the capacity to understand your own biases.

[Ian]

Dude, I've been open minded about this for 20 years, man.

[Phil]

You are not open minded at all. If you are, you are the most close minded person.

[Ian]

You're like maybe a guy didn't pay the bills.

[Phil]

That's called open minded.

[Ian]

Oh yeah, okay, well show me some evidence then, bro.

[Phil]

You said I just offered you the.

[Ian]

Scientific journal with that. This is printed in where the nanothermite was discovered. Pull it up.

[Phil]

No, all the bottom. He was a professor at Brigham Young University.

[Ian]

Jones, that's his name.

[Phil]

Brigham Young University said he found evidence of nanothermite. And you know how he did it? Do you know how he found the nanothermite?

[Ian]

People have been collecting the dust and sending it in since you know how.

[Phil]

He initially released his report indicating nano thermite.

[Ian]

Don't tell me.

[Phil]

He looked at pictures. Aerial photos. Molten steel indicating that there was a material that would have melted the steel to which he believed was going to be thermite. Now, nanothermite is a phrase being used by the conspiracy theorists to justify how someone could have planted thermite based explosives without being detected. Occam's razor suggests in the absence of evidence, the. The solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct. A corporation pulling on central supports to save money is infinitely more simple than your conspiracy of a network of people planting bombs over the period of weeks to.

[Ian]

I don't think so.

[Phil]

To.

[Ian]

I mean, if you've got evidence of it, then yeah. But if you don't have evidence of it, it's a silly assumption.

[Phil]

What assumption?

[Ian]

That they skimped on the. There were no column, no central columns in the buildings and that's why they fell down.

[Phil]

New corporations skim.

[Ian]

I. Sometimes.

[Phil]

It's a fact. They do.

[Ian]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the guys that built the building 50 years earlier.

[Phil]

Does the contract go to the lowest bidder? I don't know. Fact, yes.

[Ian]

It's not always. Sometimes it goes to your buddy. This was.

[Phil]

Oh, even worse.

[Ian]

Authority.

[Phil]

There you go.

[Ian]

I know.

[Phil]

I got his buddy the deal and they didn't know how to build it. Well, there you go.

[Ian]

Authority built.

[Phil]

That's a great theory, Ian. The construction company that got the job didn't actually know how to build these buildings and built it wrong.

[Ian]

I didn't say that. I said sometimes you pay more to give it to a premium builder.

[Phil]

See, the problem I have so infinitely, like the Covington kids is the people who come out and say outright, I know. And they have no idea what they're talking about.

[Ian]

Well, I know a few things. I know those buildings fell in their free fall.

[Phil]

You believe because someone told you they felt free.

[Ian]

Oh, I watched it.

[Phil]

You've pulled it up, calculated. What's the. What's free fall speed?

[Ian]

Give me the 9.8 meters per second squared, roughly.

[Phil]

Okay, and what's your source on that?

[Ian]

That's the fucking speed of gravity, dude.

[Phil]

Where'd you learn that?

[Ian]

Physics class.

[Phil]

Right, so you watched a video where someone told you that and you went, whoa.

[Ian]

Watched a video where someone told me what?

[Phil]

That the building fell?

[Ian]

I watched the buildings fall near free fall speed, over and over from different angles.

[Phil]

I get it.

[Ian]

And I heard scientists and engineers and architects talk about it.

[Phil]

You live in a bubble.

[Ian]

It's called earth.

[Phil]

No, it's called, Ian, land.

[Ian]

You live in, like, deluded, don't want to think about these things. Land. I don't understand.

[Phil]

Where's your brain construction of logic to come?

[Ian]

There's no logic in assuming something you don't have evidence for.

[Phil]

What you do, Ian, is you draw a conclusion and then try and find your way there.

[Ian]

No, man, I was given the evidence. That's why I'm finding my way there. I'm following evidence. You just said you're given one. More likely that this thing with I have no evidence has occurred. Has occurred.

[Phil]

Ian, I don't think you're able to understand what I'm saying.

[Ian]

You said that it's more likely that they skimped on the building materials and that the central columns were not built.

[Phil]

Or they were built in proper weeks.

[Ian]

Okay, now I'm saying that's a fact. That's an interesting assumption. And if you really think that's more likely, give me something.

[Phil]

It's not an assumption, Ian. I don't think you're able to comprehend what's going on.

[Ian]

I mean, it's more likely that you.

[Phil]

Are emotionally attached to your worldview of 9, 11 being.

[Ian]

It's not emotions, dude. It's physics.

[Phil]

You. You can't comprehend the amount of steps it takes to complete the process of planting bombs in a building versus a construction construction company not doing a thing. Do you understand that? One is three steps and one is 17.

[Ian]

Yeah.

[Phil]

Which would indicate that one is.

[Ian]

No, no. I mean, they were in there for like 11 months. There was a one elevator company in there for 11 months before.

[Phil]

And you're making assumptions, knows who was.

[Ian]

In there doing it. But it could have been complex. It could have been.

[Phil]

Let's say. Let's say. How many months would it take for a company to not put central support columns in a building? Actually, negative. Negative months. They would get the job done faster, but they.

[Ian]

How many central support columns?

[Phil]

Dude, you don't know that.

[Ian]

Well, I mean, no one ever in the world has ever said that they didn't after they came down.

[Phil]

Maybe you haven't done the research.

[Ian]

I'll look it up right now.

[Phil]

You're making a bunch of assumptions.

[Ian]

They show. Even NIST shows the central support columns crumpling.

[Phil]

Maybe they're lying because they didn't want to tell people that they built a faulty building full of asbestos.

[Ian]

I'm looking up the World Trade center of central support columns.

[Phil]

So how many of your nine, 11 investigators and engineers have actually reviewed the construction plans and Verified that those columns were actually there.

[Ian]

I listened to one of the architects that built the building talking about it. The word this says that they didn't have central support columns. Instead, they had an innovative tube design. Perimeter support columns, 59 columns on each face of the building. Three to four feet in the center. In on center, three foot, four inches.

[Phil]

Let's try and get these collars and see if they're here.

[Ian]

And a core column of 47 steel, giant box columns.

[Phil]

Professor Brian, are you back?

[Brian]

Yeah, sir, I'm back.

[Phil]

What is that?

[Brian]

Yes, I've been here the whole time. I haven't left because I am a long time caller, first time listener. That's an old joke.

[Phil]

Sorry.

[Brian]

Anyway, okay, My question is, it's for the whole panel. It. I've been watching the social media, and it seems to me that there's an effort of put to downplay what happened in New York, where a man was murdered in cold blood on the street. And now that it looks like the perpetrator of said murderer, of said murder has been apprehended, social media left. The social media is trying to turn this guy into some kind of folk hero. How can we push back against this narrative? Because it's sickening.

[Phil]

Well, that. That's why when I opened the show, I explained that his manifesto indicates that he's a. And we need to expose his manifesto to show people him saying, I can't formulate an argument because then when they all say he's a folk here, you can say, actually he was just some retard who had no idea what he was talking about and killed a guy. Tell me how his plan did anything to make anything better and I'll listen. But you can't. It's just some young guy who couldn't understand how the world worked and was angry and couldn't have sex. And you guys worship an incel. I mean, that's one way to do it. You can play the emotional game and be like, you guys are worshiping the incel guy who got mad he couldn't have sex, so he killed his CEO. You guys are losers.

[Ian]

Yeah. Also dispassionately, like, make, understand and express that the guy is. Killing a guy doesn't solve the health care problem like that. That takes lots of structural change within our food supply.

[Brian]

All right, thanks, guys, for your answer. And, hey, Tim, Ian, the kids hate it when y'all fight, so figure out a way.

[Tim]

All right, I'll.

[Brian]

I'll yield the floor.

[Phil]

All right, well, thanks for calling in.

[Ian]

I. I don't Consider that fighting. I don't know about you guys. That's an argument, which is a healthy form of discussion. I think that, you know, we're gonna.

[Phil]

Try Cam and sense. Are you back?

[Caller 2]

Hello? Can you hear me? Okay, cool. So I'm going right into it. A man legally changed his gender so that he could get his kids back.

[Tim]

What?

[Phil]

Really?

[Caller 2]

Yes. Yeah, this happened actually. Apparently this is kind of an old story about 2 years old. And this happened down in Ecuador. I haven't got any updates on it. No. Like, I couldn't find anything saying whether or not actually worked. But yeah, a similar. Someone in Canada also legally changed the agenda so they could get a reduced car insurance payment.

[Tim]

That was Lauren Southern.

[Phil]

Huh? That wasn't for car insurance. I think she just did it to prove it.

[Tim]

Really?

[Phil]

Yeah. Lauren Sudden was like, I'm just gonna go get my gender changed because I can. And then she walked in and they did it, and now she's a man. I'm pretty sure she still. She still is a man in Canada. She's illegally a man in Canada.

[Caller 2]

I didn't. I didn't know that person. I'm. Congo Is a dude that changed their gen to female to get their concho reduced down to. Reduced by 1100.

[Phil]

Oh, wow.

[Caller 2]

But is this. This the solution to fighting against the male gender discrimination?

[Phil]

Nope. They're cheering for it. The left is saying we. They. They think, like, we've. We've tricked them into doing what we want them to do. They're not. Men are not claiming to be women for benefits. Good. We win.

[Ian]

Like Zuby, when he identified as a woman to break the female deadlift title, it was, like, a shock, but I don't think it's a sustainable solution.

[Caller 2]

Now, I do know that when the. When the guy changed his gender to become a female, there was massive outrage and backlash on it. So I. It definitely. I don't think. I wouldn't exactly call that cheering.

[Ian]

You wouldn't call it what?

[Caller 2]

I wouldn't call that chewing.

[Ian]

Yeah.

[Caller 2]

Like, a lot of people on the left were pissed about it.

[Ian]

Yeah. Like, if there's a problem and someone's like, look at how horrible this problem is. That's good to do once. But then if some. If people stand around and keep, like, reveling in the horror of the problem, that's a problem. So you kind of want to bring attention to the issue, be like, look how stupid this is, and then fix it by, like, you know, enhancing healthy gender stereotypes. Like strong masculine roles, strong feminine roles in family and in friendships. And relationships and things.

[Tim]

You still there?

[Ian]

Are you? It sounded like you were screaming just then. What's happening?

[Caller 2]

I got up hips like, oh, okay. Under my femur. I need. I need a specialized surgery where they had literally have to like, break my hips, extend up my soccer or some like that.

[Derek]

Don't kill an insurance.

[Ian]

See ya. Yeah. Have you ever done inversion tables? Is that something that could potentially help you?

[Caller 2]

No, my hip sockets are too shallow. It's a genetic thing.

[Ian]

Oh, so you're getting what, the surgery. You're gonna. You're gonna break something open and extend it?

[Caller 2]

I don't really know the details. I'm not doctor, but I have a consultation that's supposed to be on the 18th about POS. About them going in, cutting me open, breaking my hip, and extending the socket or something like that. I think that's what they gotta do.

[Ian]

That's amazing.

[Caller 2]

Although, because some from within showing that might get pushed back like four months, even though I've been waiting on it for like, six.

[Phil]

Wow.

[Ian]

That's like, literally topical rest just in general, man. Much healing for you, brother.

[Caller 2]

Appreciate it.

[Phil]

Is there anything you want to do? Shout out?

[Caller 2]

Not really. Can I make one quick point on that 911 thing? I'm not supposed to touch on other point that y'all go for, but do they have to make one quick point?

[Phil]

Yeah, go for it.

[Caller 2]

There were some Israeli Austrians that had temporary construction passes to the Trade Towers, which could be a possible vector as to how bombs were placed inside the building.

[Ian]

You said it was Israeli. What were they?

[Caller 2]

Art students. Oh, art students, yes. And this was also at the same time where Israeli art students were going around to different DEA offices. And I don't know if they were, like, asking for information or they were doing something at different DEA offices across the country. Maybe getting. Maybe try and get info or something. I don't. I don't exactly remember. It's been a while since I've looked into it.

[Phil]

Well, all right.

[Caller 2]

So, yeah, that is definitely a possible vector.

[Phil]

All right, well, thanks for calling in.

[Caller 2]

Yeah, you guys have wonderful night. Stay safe.

[Ian]

You too, man.

[Tim]

Thanks, man. Take care.

[Phil]

So I'll just say this. People get extremely emotionally attached to their worldviews around 24, when the human mind begins to solidify, as it were. This is the point at which your worldview is being. Let's ossify. I'll just say that. And the reason for this, at this point, people have determined their worldview is correct and cannot be changed a second period in someone's life around the age in their 40s is when their mind reopens and adjusts. This is a normal period. This is a lot to do with evolutionary psychology. The reason for this is in evolution, a human who survives at the age of 24 has done something that has led to success. It becomes imperative to maintain that position to maximize success. That's why people who are beyond the age of 24, between 24 and 40s tend to be closed minded and will suffer emotional distress and mental anguish when their worldview is challenged. This is why they say science changes when old men die, or science advances when old men die. Around 40s there's another period at which the mind readjusts and begins to review things. There's also part of evolutionary psychology rooted in a being, a human that has survived this long. Now evolution recognized any, any human that was adhering to old structures at this point. It wasn't that evolution chose this, it's that you would die if you didn't adapt. That's why people have midlife crises is one of the reasons. So what ends up happening is there's a lot of people who at an early age will read things, choose to believe them when it is a fact that the average person hasn't read all of it. They can't. They will then make a determination of what is true and adhere to it with emotional vigor to the point where they actually experience physical pain when they're confronted with evidence to the contrary. A good example of what ends up happening with what I would use, 911 for instance, is, well, I'll give you, I'll give you this one rat fink saying that I stand on shit I have no idea about and I never studied, despite the fact that I correctly said Stephen Jones was a, was a, was a physics professor at Brigham Young University. Because a person who sits and reads nothing but the Internet all day has probably read way too much of all of this and watched way too much. Not only that, I was actually part of an activist group in the mid 2000s who are 911 truthers and ultimately said these people don't actually have any answers to anything they're talking about the bomb scenario of bombs being planted in the building is similar to the problems of string theory, which evolved into M theory. Physicists, realizing they dedicated their whole lives to string theory, but couldn't reconcile a lot of the problems, decided to add extra dimensions and thus they created membrane theory. A friend of mine, his father was a physics professor at a university in Chicago and he said, yeah, we think M theory is probably Correct. But you got to understand that a lot of these old scientists dedicate their careers and their lives to this. And when you go and tell them they may be wrong, they lose their fucking minds. So when Garrett Leasey created the Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, which he believes the Universe Unified Theory is simply an EI late, an E8 lie group, this actually offended a fuck ton of scientists. They decided that it was easier just to say, no, our theory must be correct. We've dedicated our entire fucking lives to it. Add another goddamn dimension. So now they got to 13 and their argument was maybe at the smallest of scales there could be additional dimensions. We didn't notice yet. That explains it. Dark matter and dark energy, another component of this, we can't explain what it is. So we're just going to not give up on our theories because they have to be true. So what ends up happening with things like 911 is that people have followed this path for so long where certainly they've not read every bit of evidence, and certainly the only people who are continuing to investigate it are in a similar line where they say 911 was an inside job. Not everybody. Some just say, investigate 9 11. But typically common among most of them is a conclusion that the story is false, which I believe to be correct. The official narrative makes no fucking sense. And that elements within the government had to have been involved. It could have been Saudis and Israelis who did it without the US Government knowing. It could have been, as I already mentioned, several steps. It's a simpler solution that construction companies did not engage in the proper securing of the buildings because they wanted to steal money. That's a really simple solution. It takes only one step. Guy steals money. Whereas planting bombs takes numerous steps over 11 months and is extremely difficult to reconcile. How could that have been done? Certainly it's possible, but it makes a lot of assumptions. The issue with the bomb theory is that to justify the pancake and the squibs and all of these things that these arguments that have been made, you have to then add the bombs were planted theory, which is extremely difficult and is shoehorned in for a lot of people who are now probably in their late 30s and 40s who grew up watching things like Loose Change and Loose Change, Second Edition, and then followed people like Steven Jones or Luke Rutkowski and Alex Jones. They've only ever heard the confirmation bias. Thus they have determined themselves my bias must be correct and I reject any and all other evidence or theories. Me, I was part of a group in Seattle where we actually went around Flyering at uw. And then I remember exactly when I said, this is retarded. It's when we watched Alex Jones Endgame and all these people were talking shit. And I said, none of the questions that I had actually ever got answered. And you're making a fucking ton of assumptions. And I was like, how and when would they have done these things? Then you get to the Israelis on the rooftop. And I said, guys, this doesn't prove what you're saying it proves. Israelis on the rooftop cheering could mean a bunch of different things. Yeah, but what about the Jews who got a call the day before saying not to show up? What about Mayor Willie Brown being warned? All of these things? And I'm like, I agree the official story is bullshit, but it doesn't prove what you're saying is true. It doesn't prove bumps. And that's when I said, these people just want to believe whatever the fuck they want to believe. The official story is bullshit. Someone did something bad. We don't know what the fuck it was. And people are just deciding they know it's true because they followed this path and they don't want to give it up. That's my rant.

[Ian]

Good rant, man. You're my number one draft pick.

[Phil]

Sure.

[Ian]

Hey, well, I mean, I'm with you. It is so important that we don't fall for our own biases. So I like having people like you in my life that at least challenge me to read about. Like for instance, the actual columns of what the World Trade Centers were built out of. Not your traditional.

[Phil]

They. They took all of the materials from the 911 collapse and shuffled it off to be destroyed before China, before anyone could investigate. So to assert that we know that there was thermite despite the fact we know that they destroyed all the evidence is silly then they say, but people have pieces of the World Trade center and they've sent it in for analysis. And I'm like, okay, so we have. That's a maybe. And we also know they covered it up. We don't. It's. It's hard to verify that the samples that were given are uncontaminated because we know that we don't have any firsthand evidence because they destroyed it all. That's indicative of a cover up. And the official story being bullshit. That's an easy conclusion. I don't care what the media says. But to then say we know for sure, like nanothermite. Nano. Thermite's a conspiracy term. Nanothermite is a way of getting around the fact that planting thermite bombs would be damn near impossible. So it's nano now. It's super small.

[Ian]

It's like military grade. Like you couldn't. Your. Your average dude could make a thermite which will melt steel. But this nano thermite, they'll use like in tanks in the field to decommission them. They'll melt the steel tank from the inside so that the enem. We can't take the tank because it's too expensive to bring home.

[Phil]

There's no passport that fell off a plane. That's retarded. They're using it to justify their official cover up of what really happened. We don't know. The government would never tell us anyone who believes the official story is a. Because the government's not going to give away classified secrets as to how we got over on that day. Be it internal forces or external foreign forces. The fact is we don't actually know. Everybody wants to find out. I don't blame them for wanting to find out. But I'll add one last thing. A guy saying he heard bombs going off. He's hearing pops and bangs and explosions. People don't know what they're hearing. I was in Ferguson when gunshots were going off. And the fucking fat guy from ABC goes those fireworks. And I'm on the ground with my buddy who is a war reporter, And I said, do you see any fucking fireworks? No. I'm like, do you see guns? And he's like, yes, I'm. Get the fuck down. People don't know what things sound like. But anyway, guys, we went way over, Way over. I gotta go to bed. This has been fun. Thank you all so much for being members. Colonel Kurtz needs medical attention.

[Ian]

How you feel, man?

[Derek]

I had a great time, though.

[Ian]

Yo, bro.

[Phil]

All right, all right. We're gonna. We'll be. We'll be back tomorrow morning, of course. And thanks for hanging out. We'll see y'all then.