Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 11, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:50

The David Knight Show - 09/11/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Transcription by CastingWords
	Transcription by CastingWords You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Monday, September 11th, 2023.
	22 years after the attack on our country.
	Who did it? Well, we're going to talk today to Richard Gage, AIA architect who has been involved in these investigations for many, many years.
	But I find it interesting that the news that broke this weekend...
	It was about the original conspiracy theory, JFK. We'll also be talking about that.
	And we'll also talk about how the other shooter dropped from 9-11, the pandemic war games that they practiced for 20 years.
	The first one was actually two months before 9-11.
	It's interesting that that is now metastasized into the governor of New Mexico, Grisham, issuing...
	Essentially, martial law.
	She is an absolutist.
	She said there are no absolute rights.
	Well, if that's the case, then I guess our governors are absolutists, pirates, monarchs, unaccountable to the law.
	We'll be right back. Well, today we're going to begin with our interview.
	Usually we have our interviews in the third hour.
	But joining us now because he's going to be involved in events in New York City today on the anniversary of September 11th.
	Joining us is Richard Gage, AIA, an architect of 30 years from the San Francisco Bay Area, a member of the American Institute of Architects, founder and former CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.
	He's now independent.
	He, along with his courageous wife and assistant, Gail, continues to lead the charge toward a real investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9-11.
	You can find him at richardgage911.org.
	Mr. Gage became interested in researching the destruction of the World Trade Center high-rises after hearing the startling conclusions of the reluctant 9-11 researcher David Ray Griffin on the radio in 2006, which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about 9-11.
	The organization he founded, AE911 Truth, now numbers more than 3,500 architects and engineers, demanding a new investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings on 9-11.
	As an architect, he's worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fireproofed steel-framed buildings.
	Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400 million mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail parking structure and mid-rise office space.
	Altogether, about 1,200 tons of steel framing.
	Please welcome Richard Gage, AIA Architect.
	Thank you so much, sir.
	Thank you, David. It's an honor to be here with you.
	Well, thank you. Let's talk a little bit about the key thing.
	You know, over my shoulder here, there's a picture of 9-11 New York City, the commemoration that they put up where they have two beams that are shining up into the sky.
	Interesting that they didn't do a third one.
	Let's talk about that third one.
	Yeah, we did do a third one about, what was it, 10 years ago now.
	We actually rented four searchlights, put them on the back of a pickup truck, and then from where we were, it looked like three beams.
	It was all designed to be that way, and we called the media in downtown, well, around New York and said, there's a third beam in the sky, and we showed it to them and tried to create a thing out of it.
	The third beam is about Building 7.
	Building 7, most architects and engineers don't even know about the third worst structural failure in modern history.
	And most people in New York knew about Building 7.
	They didn't know it came down.
	And most of them didn't know that it went back up again.
	It was rebuilt.
	So that's quite a story.
	On the afternoon of 9-11, about 5-20, witnesses heard explosions.
	Then this building drops like a rock, straight down, uniformly, symmetrically into its own footprint in under seven seconds.
	So this is exactly like the old hotels in Las Vegas when they bring them down with controlled demolition.
	You know, there's explosions first and then the building drops.
	Mm-hmm. Well, the building drops at free fall, David, straight down, but free fall means as fast as a bowling ball falling from the sky.
	So what does that mean?
	That means that not one of the 81 columns in this building gave any resistance to this seven-second long fall.
	Well, where did they go?
	There's 40,000 tons of structural steel framing in this building.
	Well, NIST says that it came down due to normal office fires.
	But wait a minute. We have never in history lost a steel frame, fire-protected building, Type 1 construction, Ever due to fires.
	I mean, we've had dozens of much hotter, larger, and longer-lasting fires in these buildings.
	So not one of them.
	And we've had many fully engulfed fires in these kind of structures after 9-11.
	But no, not one of those came down either.
	So we've got to have a real investigation.
	And in fact, FEMA did that investigation for us and others have done it since.
	But right away in 2002, FEMA finds in the metallurgical sampling of the steel.
	A hot corrosion attack on the steel.
	Its author, Jonathan Barnett, a fire protection engineer, says the ends of the beams were partly evaporated in extraordinarily light temperatures.
	Well, what does that mean? I'll stop and let you...
	I'll take a breath and you tell them.
	An ordinary office fire.
	And, you know, I would just say to the people, because I've done this and I think everybody needs to do this, just go to YouTube.
	And look up building demolitions.
	And you can watch. You've got so many videos that have been put up that just chain one after the other.
	Watch all those and ask yourself if this is something that just happened out of ordinary office fires.
	Just not possible that this type of thing would have happened.
	I remember you mentioned that it was 2006 when you...
	I saw an interview of the researcher talking about this that got you interested in it.
	When this happened, my recollection, we didn't have any television.
	And so I didn't see any video of it.
	We had horrible internet as well at the time in 2001.
	We were living out in the woods.
	We weren't doing some kind of homesteading thing.
	We were just in an area where it was dead in terms of broadcast signals, in terms of internet, and all the rest of this stuff.
	So I was relying on friends and family calling because we had family in New York.
	We actually had a family member who was in one of the buildings and then got out.
	And so I'm listening to this and it's like these planes are hitting the building.
	Then they call back later and they say one of them just collapsed.
	And in my mind, I saw this thing going down at an angle, taking out a large part of Manhattan.
	It wasn't until years later that I really saw these things going right down into the footprint.
	It's like, what? You know, they said, well, it didn't hit any other buildings.
	I'm thinking, how in the world did that happen?
	And then when I saw it in free fall, that was, you know, when it's like, okay, okay.
	I know. I was mainly concerned with how they were using this event to take away our liberties.
	But then I saw what that was, and it's like, oh, yeah, that perfectly fits.
	Exactly does. It really does.
	And the evidence, they just give it to us.
	I mean, hot sulfur corrosion attack on the steel?
	Well, guess what?
	Fire, especially normal office fires, do not corrode steel with silver dollar-sized holes.
	It just doesn't happen.
	Steel is not flammable.
	And yet, out of the towers are ejected laterally four- and eight-ton structural steel sections landing 600 feet away, ejected at 80 miles an hour laterally, clocked by physicists.
	Wow. So these sections are freely fly.
	You can see them in the videos.
	There's thousands of them.
	And they are on fire.
	Well, steel is not flammable in office fire conditions.
	So here's yet another of the dozens of pieces of evidence we're going to talk about that gives us absolutely...
	This is not a classic progressive collapse, as NIST claims.
	Mm-hmm. They claim that the upper part of the North Tower and the South Tower drove the rest of the building down to the ground and then destroyed itself.
	Well, that violates Newton's third law of physics.
	There's an equal and opposite destruction when two bodies collide.
	The top part is the lightest.
	It's the weakest. It would have crushed it.
	Destroyed itself, even coming into contact with the first part of the cold, hard, heavy, steel, intact, and not hot.
	So, that gives it away, but what really gives it away is the videos.
	They don't show in these towers, either, of any of the videos, a I don't know.
	It's telescoping in on itself, disintegrating its internal cohesive structure.
	And you see these squibs coming out, particularly the South Tower.
	Dozens of them, squibs, are isolated explosive ejections.
	And they're emerging simultaneously out of the South Tower.
	And you go, what's that?
	You have to kind of look for some of these videos.
	But they're everywhere to find.
	Well, it begins to tip over the South Tower.
	But as it's doing that, these explosions are coming off of it.
	And it then begins to settle back because it lost its internal integrity there.
	Well, after the first three seconds, it's a very different story because...
	Well, then is when we have these belt of explosions down below that the first responders heard.
	156 of them are on record, orally, in the oral recordings, they call them, by Thomas Van Nissen, the Chief Fire Commissioner.
	He required everybody to be recorded because he didn't want the memory to be reshaped by a collective memory.
	His words, well, 156 of these first responders talking about explosions, hearing explosions, seeing explosions, being blown around the building by explosions.
	Like a belt, all these explosions going all the way around the building.
	Others further away said, like a train running under my feet.
	Uh, I, I like you wanted to grab onto something.
	Uh, the, the, the, the firefighters, uh, said like, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	Uh, like they wanted to take down a building, These are all on record.
	Some of them are at least and more just on video.
	It's incredible. But then the building comes down in just 12 seconds, both of them, identically.
	I mean, these are very different damage patterns to these buildings through the fires and the planes, the columns breaking, but they all come down symmetrically, uniformly, and you can see the belts of explosions advancing rapidly down the face of the building.
	Individual explosions, 12 of them, you can actually count them in the close-up.
	You can't, but don't believe your lying eyes, just listen to the government.
	It's crazy. And you know, as you pointed out, it's not just the free-fall collapse.
	We've had a lot of fires before and even since, we have steel buildings that will burn for days.
	And I've shown those when they happen.
	You see a twisted metal skeleton, but it doesn't collapse.
	You know, it might be bent over a little bit and everything, but it's still there because of that steel frame, even though the thing burned for days.
	And so nothing makes sense out of this as an architect.
	You know, when you look at this, one of the big smoking guns about this as well is why haven't there been any changes in the way that they do firefighting?
	Why haven't there been any changes in architectural rules?
	Why haven't there been any lawsuits?
	this building or against the you know the New York where they had the code and they did the inspection on this because they had already had a plane that it hit the Empire State Building way back when and so they they knew that was a possibility that was something that they designed for right yep they did just John Skilling said this plane could take two hits from a 707, which when they were built in 73 was the largest building plane of its kind.
	But the problem would be, he said, that the fuel would dump into the building, but the building would still be there.
	Well, it's fireproofed.
	Yes, it should have still been there.
	But if we look, we can get a clue, David, if we actually look at the...
	And in the dust, in the aftermath, what does the U.S. Geological Survey find in every sample previously molten iron microspheres, billions of them, all the samples, up to 6% of some of these samples All of them are molten iron microspheres.
	What does that mean? Iron, we haven't used iron in our skyscrapers for 100 years.
	This is elemental iron, not steel.
	It's molten, meaning it achieved 2,800 degree temperatures, which fires don't even get a quarter that hot, typically.
	These fires were probably less than that, as indicated by the thick black smoke.
	They were going out at the time of the collapse.
	They were oxygen-starved.
	So, the USGS finds these microspheres, spheres, because aerosolized liquids form themselves into spheres by surface tension.
	That's just what they do. The EPA says, we don't know what these molten iron microspheres are or where they came from, but they're a signature component of the World Trade Center dust.
	In other words, it's not even World Trade Center dust unless it has these billions of microspheres in them.
	R.J. Lee, an environmental concern, confirmed doing work on this dust, says these are formed not before when the building was being built by the welders, not afterward by the iron workers taking it apart, but during the event.
	Well, wait a minute. What does that mean?
	Iron, molten iron.
	Thermite is the byproduct of thermite.
	Thermite is an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
	So we have all the dust giving us exactly what happened here.
	We're talking about thermite, the residue of thermite everywhere in the dust, every sample.
	In fact, A team of eight international scientists, led by Niels Herrod in Copenhagen, find all of those, and they confirm that, but they also confirm something that others have not found.
	And this is chips of red-gray material.
	They thought it was paint, but it's attracted to a magnet, so it has a high iron content.
	Well, this is interesting.
	Why does it have a high iron content?
	They do XEDS analysis, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy.
	What do they find? Aluminum and iron, the key ingredients of thermite in the red layer of these dual-layered red-gray chips.
	They go, whoa, we got to get to the bottom of this.
	They zoom in 50,000 times and they find nanoparticles of iron oxide and aluminum powder.
	Now we're talking about superthermite, nanothermite.
	They identify it as thermite because not only do they know the key ingredients, they put it in a heater, a differential scanning calorimeter, and it ignites.
	What does it do when it ignites?
	It makes all of these molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres found in the dust by the US Geological Survey, R.J. Lee and others.
	So we know exactly where those molten iron microspheres came from.
	They came from these red-gray chips.
	So we have unignited evidence of unignited thermite in the molten iron microspheres and evidence of ignited thermite I got it backwards.
	Ignited thermite in the molten iron microspheres, unignited thermite in these red-gray chips, which are ubiquitous in all the seven samples that they had independently collected all over Manhattan, from all over Manhattan that were sent to them.
	So this is pretty incredible because when you reduce the size of these particles in these chips to nano, that's a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, the surface volume increases exponentially.
	So the chemical reaction is virtually instantaneous.
	You've engineered an incendiary, which works by means of massive heat, to become more explosive.
	Which works by knocking things over.
	Let me interject and say it's kind of like what we see when we'll see a grain elevator explode or something.
	It's because the fine particles there can ignite because of the increase in the surface area.
	This is something that is already set up to ignite in the first place.
	Well, you mean the grain elevator?
	Yeah, I mean, it's small particles of grain, but you know, when you talk about this, it's small particles of thermite.
	Right. Well, where does it come from?
	Thermite is made only in the most advanced defense contracting laboratories.
	Excuse me, nanothermite.
	This is very special.
	Lawrence Livermore exposed this to us before 2001.
	They developed the peer-reviewed literature on it.
	They called it superthermite.
	They did these tests on it, and, yeah, it ignites at 758 degrees in the differential scanning calorimeter, and that's exactly what these seven independent samples did.
	So we know exactly what this stuff is.
	They put out a 24-page peer-reviewed paper on this in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009.
	And it's literal proof now we've had for, you know, more than 10 years of this material.
	Yet nobody submitted their own peer-reviewed paper to challenge these results.
	It stands uncontested.
	So, I mean, people will say, oh, that's just paint, but it's been proven six ways from Sunday that these are extremely exotic materials and responsible for the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9-11.
	If we got it into a court of law, David, it would put the real perpetrators away for mass murder and treason.
	Yes. Yeah, it reminds me of what happened a week after 9-11.
	That's the anthrax attacks.
	At first they said, well, this is coming from Iraq.
	And then they said, well, no, it's a special kind of anthrax.
	And then as they look further, as they tried to found a patsy they wanted to blame it on, turns out that the delivery mechanism, just like you're talking about how this is not just ordinary thermite, it's super thermite.
	They found that the delivery mechanism for this anthrax was also something that was limited to just two labs.
	In the United States. And of course, this guy that they picked for the Patsy didn't work at one of those two labs.
	The bottom line is that the technology is very advanced and allows them to get away with this stuff, but it also points directly to them.
	It's a blessing that they've left us with.
	They do make mistakes.
	I mean, they're big. They've got lots of money.
	They've got evil intentions, it seems.
	They're murdering 3,000 of their own people here.
	And, you know, since, in the latest...
	with the disease that's going around, this false disease with its false solution.
	They've got a lot of power and influence, obviously.
	But we capitalize on...
	And they just had this last week, just before the anniversary, they said that they used DNA to identify two more victims of this.
	And they seem to find the victims just before the anniversaries, you know, when this starts to happen.
	And there's still over a thousand people that disappeared on that day that they have not identified, they said, with DNA. Let's talk a little bit about the symmetry in the pile and the destruction of evidence.
	Well, I'm...
	In the pile, first of all, you brought this up.
	This is extremely important.
	There's more than 1,100 people for which there was no trace found.
	6,000 pieces they did find were small enough to fit into a test tube.
	Wow. And they were distributed 600 to 800 feet outside each of the towers.
	So the explosive mechanism was incredible.
	I mean, yes, we found 300 whole bodies.
	We should have found 3,300, 2,700 bodies.
	A lot of people just literally blown to bits.
	Absolutely. In fact, there were bone fragments a half an inch long found on top of the roof of the Deutsche Bank building across the street from the South Tower.
	How did they get there?
	These bodies should have been trapped between 110 floors, each of which...
	It was made of 4- and 8-inch thick concrete, and none of which are found at the base of the tower.
	We don't have an acre in size, these floors.
	We don't have 50 of them.
	We don't have 10 of them.
	We don't have one of them.
	What we do have at the base is a four-, five-story pile of twisted steel.
	Where's the concrete? It's been pulverized in mid-air.
	All the photos, all the videos show just that.
	And it's been laid like a blanket of 100 micron average size dust across lower Manhattan from river to river.
	Three square miles of dust.
	That's where the concrete is.
	Which means what? That the concrete is not available anywhere.
	crush the building right if it's been distributed and pulverized in midair well neither is the steel about 95 percent or more of the steel has been ejected laterally like we talked about outside the building's footprint that's a hundred thousand tons of steel that's not available to crush the building either and yet that's the whole theory of mist
	it's there's so many ways to take apart that that story they said it drove the building down to the ground it wasn't there yeah to drive the building down to the ground and yes this the north tower particularly came out almost symmetrical which means all of those columns had to give way at once on Otherwise, it would have tipped over.
	Like you said, no jolt.
	It would have hit the cold, hard, intact steel.
	It might have fallen over if it was to be that badly damaged.
	But in reality, the initiation of collapse never would have started.
	And if it did, it would have slowed down and stopped.
	That's been proven by physicists as well.
	But we don't have the platform that we need to prove these things.
	Yes, so much for the domino theory of NIST, right?
	I mean, we've had domino theories that led us into the Vietnam War.
	Now we have this domino theory about the collapse of the buildings.
	It absolutely is amazing.
	Yeah, much of that. You're very thorough in terms of this.
	Of course, you've been on this for a very, very long time.
	What about the destruction of the evidence?
	I remember a lot of people that are still suffering after all these years, It was because they were so bent on getting this stuff removed, as much of it as they could, and subjecting people to the dust, because at that point in time, they didn't care about masks.
	They care all about masks now, but they didn't then.
	And so it was a mad rush to remove a lot of this evidence, a lot of stuff that was still burning, right?
	Yeah, within two weeks after 9-11.
	This evidence is taken out from under the noses of those who would investigate it, like structural engineer Abul Hazan Astani Azzel from UC Berkeley giving a National Science Foundation grant to study the steel.
	He said they're taking all the steel to China to put it in a melting pot for 15 cents a pound.
	That's nothing. That's what he says.
	And others couldn't get their hands on it to do a proper forensic investigation.
	400 truckloads per day were lined up starting just two weeks after 9-11, taking this steel and putting it on barges sent to China for recycling.
	I mean, and prompting Bill Manning, editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine, to cry out on his magazine, the magazine that ties all the fire protection engineers together in this country.
	Crucial evidence, he says, is on the slow boat to China, showing an astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough scientific investigation.
	The destruction of evidence must stop.
	It didn't, of course.
	It continued at an incredible pace.
	This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene, but guess what?
	This was an act of war because of the attack on the Pentagon.
	So they were not bound, they said or imagined, by the rules of preservation of evidence.
	Wow. Yeah, it was an attack of war, wasn't it?
	But not from the people that they identified.
	And that's the key thing when you look at this.
	The government story, regardless of what happened, the government story is just not even close to being possible.
	And that's why you got involved in this, investigating it.
	Talk about the jet planes themselves and information that you found from that.
	Well, we know the planes hit the towers, but we don't know what planes hit the towers.
	There's all kinds of problems matching serial numbers.
	I do have firefighters that were picking up plane parts.
	There's some people who say there's no planes.
	But we have lots of evidence of planes.
	They're picking them up.
	They're putting them in the bin.
	The FBI is supervising that part of it so they can control it, certainly, because they don't want...
	They don't want those parts getting out.
	They got the wrong serial. What does that mean?
	Well, if you were going to execute a plan to bring down the tallest buildings in the world, at least in 1973, and one of the largest in Manhattan, each floor of this building was the size of a football field.
	Would you trust?
	And this one wasn't hit by a plane, of course.
	It came down anyway.
	But for these two, would you trust hijackers who failed Cessna Flying School to bring those planes to their targets?
	Probably not.
	In fact, there was remotely guided aircraft technology in those planes at the time, though it was not well known.
	And this has been researched by several others, including Captain Dan Hanley, who runs pilot whistleblowers.
	Mm-hmm. 911pilots.org You can learn more about that.
	But yeah, there's some real problems with these planes where they switched out We're more refined military craft used with the same fuselage and wings, which they had.
	And some people actually said they saw a gray plane.
	So were they even, did they have time to paint it?
	I don't even know. Now when you say the different serial numbers, where did that, where the different serial numbers come from?
	Do they find pieces or what?
	Well, I don't have the details on that, David.
	There's some things I research and there's some things I hear that have been researched.
	That research does exist.
	I'm not the source of it.
	And on top of my head, I can't take you there.
	Yeah, you focus more on the architectural stuff and the buildings.
	You know, I find it interesting, and I've said this before, That there really wasn't, even though we knew that there was remote control capability for, you know, commercial jets and things like that, because they had used remote control to crash them as they would look to see what happened to occupants inside during a crash.
	Just like you got crash test dummies for cars, they did that for airplanes for years.
	And... And then immediately after this, you've got the war in Afghanistan.
	The stars of the war were the autonomous drones and things like that.
	And so, you know, they come out here.
	Oh, by the way, you know, we've got this fleet of these things now.
	You know, they kind of kept it under wraps in terms of doing that.
	But even going back into the 1960s, they'd even talked about in Operation Northwoods That they would do exactly this type of thing in order to create public opinion around an attack on Cuba.
	So we could fly these planes into buildings.
	We could take them out and fake the fact that there are people on board and say it was blown up over the sea.
	We could even use it to attack military stations.
	And we could use all that then and identify Cuba as the people doing it in a false flag operation.
	That was what Operation Northwoods was all about.
	They had proposed that. JFK shut it down.
	But they had already proposed that back in the early 1960s.
	And so, for the longest time, they'd had the capability of doing remote control commercial jets.
	You know, it was nothing new, even though it seemed new to the public.
	It was not in the public eye.
	And, in fact, remote control goes all the way back to World War II, where we even had remote control.
	We didn't have to use kamikazes.
	But there's a plane in Florida, in an Air Museum, Air Force Museum, that is noted specifically for its remote control capability back in World War II. So this is not, you know...
	Some kind of sci-fi thing, futuristic.
	Talk about, did you get involved, were you primarily involved with the three buildings in New York?
	And of course, that's a key part of it.
	You know, everybody says, well, you know, it was hit by a plane, and then it caught on fire in the plane.
	But, you know, the airplane fuel and everything, they believe that that would do that, and you've addressed that.
	But the Building 7 was a key thing, because it was not hit by an airplane.
	It wasn't loaded with airplane fuel and all the rest of the stuff.
	That's why they don't like to talk about Building 7.
	Or even NIST. Yeah, NIST says in the case of the planes that did hit these, 90% of the fuel was burned up outside the building.
	NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology who was tasked by Congress to explain these collapses to the American people.
	They said the rest was gone, burned up in just 10 minutes.
	So we didn't have any jet fuel in these buildings for about an hour while they were burning, almost an hour, less than the South Channel.
	Yeah, you're right.
	But, you know, the public perception is, well, you know, of course they collapsed.
	They were hit by jets and all this kind of stuff.
	But Building 7 was not hit by a jet.
	You know, the key thing is three buildings but only two planes.
	You know, and that's the key.
	Do the math. Yeah, exactly.
	It's like two plus two equals five.
	You know, it's... And you've got witnesses that hear explosions here.
	Kevin McPatton says, like, ba-boom!
	Like you wanted to grab onto something.
	I knew that was an explosion.
	You know, because people who tell the truth around these matters, they get ridiculed.
	And so they try to be very specific.
	The first responders were extremely specific with regard to their quotes before the towers came down.
	And then many of them saw flashes of light.
	But Daryl, a medical student in the case of Building 7, says we were watching the building and there was a clap of thunder and then the building came down, crashing down.
	Yeah, that's interesting.
	Very specific. Bill Rosati says there's a flash of light in this building.
	And a loud explosion.
	We've got all the evidence we need.
	Have you been focused on the Pentagon and what happened there?
	Or are you primarily focused on the New York buildings?
	Yeah, I am focused on the New York buildings, but at the Pentagon, while there's controversy among 9-11 truth researchers about what did or didn't hit it, all of us agree that we need a new investigation.
	For instance, we have Honey Honger, who failed Cessna Flying School himself, Who is said to have maneuvered this 757 coming into the Pentagon, not dropping through the vulnerable roof structure to Donald Rumsfeld's office.
	No, that could have been done.
	A dive bomb.
	But... A 270 degree turn and dropping 3,000 feet per minute in what's more of a fighter jet type maneuver coming straight in and level with the ground hitting what?
	The Naval Intelligence Department, who was tasked with locating and accounting for the $2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld had announced the day before 9-11 was missing from the Pentagon budget or unaccountable in it.
	So that's...
	That's really suspicious.
	Oh, yeah. Yeah, I had a friend who was in the military, went to West Point.
	He was telling me, you know, years before that, talking about cruise missiles and stuff, he said, you know, they're so accurate, we can pick which window of the Kremlin we want to fly them through.
	I know. And then I had a personal experience, which I was caught between.
	Karen and I, my wife, were in this tourist shop in an area in Texas down in Wimberley, and there was a lady there, and she and her husband had retired from the military.
	And it was a slow season, and my wife is looking through, and I'm just kind of standing there.
	And she was desperate to talk to somebody.
	She just starts monologuing about their career and how they came here.
	She said, you know, when I used to work for the Pentagon, we were finding trillions of dollars that were missing.
	And we had all kinds of people taking early retirement to avoid being incriminated and everything.
	She goes, and then my husband retired, and I followed him.
	We came here and did this.
	And she said, you know, it was really a blessing because it was in my very office where that thing flew through.
	And she could not connect the dots.
	It's just amazing.
	You know, she did not connect the dots.
	I said, who do you listen to for news?
	Fox and CNN and stuff like that.
	It's like, okay, okay.
	She's never heard anybody question that.
	I imagine if she heard it, it would all of a sudden, it would click with her like that, but it didn't.
	I'm sitting there, I'm thinking, I need to get my phone out and start recording this, but I was afraid she was going to stop talking.
	You need to sick me on her.
	Everybody who sees this evidence, and we're just talking about it, right, David?
	But I have a 30-minute, an hour, and a two-hour presentation that I do on these subjects, and it is overwhelming to watch this Building 7 dropping as fast as a bowling ball, falling out of the sky.
	We've all seen the old hotels, so we know immediately what it is.
	We know it was taken out.
	Therefore, we know it was part of the 9-11 conspiracy.
	I mean, it takes months of planning to execute these controlled demolitions.
	So, in Building 7, they say nobody died in this building, although there's one witness, Barry Jennings, who says he was crawling over dead bodies to get out of that building.
	Regardless, The public is more open to Building 7 because it doesn't have the trauma associated with all of those deaths and the incredible jumping out of the building and then the planes hitting the buildings.
	So we start with Building 7 and people go...
	Oh, of course. That's a controlled demolition.
	That's what we do at the American Institute of Architects' conventions.
	Before they kicked us out, we had gone to five of these conventions.
	And architects stop.
	We're the busiest booth there.
	They come around and they just look at this controlled demolition.
	We say, well, do you know when this happened?
	Because they say it's a controlled demolition on the monitor in front of them.
	And we go, they go, no, I don't know when that happened.
	Well, that happened on 9-11.
	Yeah. What? That's not a twin tower.
	No, it's not.
	This is the third tower.
	We tell them what happened. And then they're open to looking at the towers and all of the incredible evidence that we have there.
	Just like a geometry of fireworks.
	Freely flying structural steel sections, laterally distributed, trailing thick white smoke clouds on fire.
	Cool. Which is the thermite, of course, and can only be that.
	It looks more like a volcanic eruption in the Tongan Sea in 2009.
	We show them that and compare the two.
	You can't tell the difference.
	Wow. Wow. That's amazing.
	What about, you know, the, what was it, Shel Silverstein?
	Was that his name? They had buildings at the same point.
	Very Silverstein. Okay, yeah.
	Yeah, well, let me say, because that's really important.
	A year later, Larry Silverstein's interviewed on America Rebuilds, and he's talking about Building 7.
	He's asked about it. He goes, oh, well, there's been such terrible loss of life.
	I was talking to the fire commander.
	Maybe the smartest thing to do was pull.
	And so they gave the order to pull, and we watched the building come down.
	That's the owner who built this building here.
	He says later, oh, I didn't mean pull the building.
	I meant pull the firefighters out of the building.
	Well, guess what? They weren't in the building.
	They were told not to fight the fire.
	They were told it was going to come down because the structure was weakened.
	It could come down on its own.
	So we're just going to wait.
	So hundreds of firefighters were nearby watching the building with these few small scattered fires that were in it and they're waiting for it to come down and sure enough after these mysterious construction workers walking away from building seven hearing an explosion over their shoulder in the late afternoon of 9-11 looking back at the building and then looking straight into the cnn camera and saying this You hear that?
	That building's coming down.
	A flame of debris coming down.
	It's going to blow up.
	Wow. It's amazing.
	It has a few small scattered fires.
	Yeah, it is. So what is the status of 9-11?
	I mean, many of us have looked at this.
	The evidence that you have given is just astounding, and it demands an answer.
	And yet, everybody seems to turn a blind eye to it, for the most part, in official circles.
	What is the status of any investigation?
	What is the hope of any investigation with this?
	They're on notice. All 435 members of Congress, or is it 535, right?
	We've given them our petition.
	Every third year or so, we go to Washington, D.C., we give them the latest DVD, the latest book, the latest efforts we're making.
	We talk to their staffers.
	They're very interested.
	They say, I'm going to get this to the congressperson.
	This is... This is really important.
	But nothing ever happens.
	So they're going to be held accountable one way or another.
	The media, of course, won't even talk to us.
	They won't. We've given...
	Well, it's not completely true.
	Geraldo Rivera had one of the family members, one of the engineers on, and he said, this looks...
	It looks suspicious to me, particularly Building 7.
	Now I know why there's 1,350 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation.
	Well, there's 3,600 now, right?
	I'm separated from the organization, Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, but they continue focusing on getting the engineers going.
	I work on the public and...
	And the media, where I can get in.
	But the way we're going to get a real investigation is by educating the public and getting a grand jury investigation, which is why we've submitted this evidence in 60 exhibits to the U.S. Attorney for a special grand jury investigation.
	Now, he's done nothing with it, and so we've sued him.
	And that's gone through the legal process, and now we're going to be taking the evidence to a federal judge to be given directly to a special grand jury and we're making a set of film 9-11 crime scene to courtroom and that is a series of two dozen episodes with myself and 24 experts giving the evidence in a boardroom jury a grand jury setting with our stand-in grand jurors we
	present all the evidence And Mick Harrison, the litigation director for the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, whose board I sit on also, we're partnering and making this film.
	He's going to be educating the grand jury and the public about what are the implications of each different type of evidence that we're going to be presenting, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, etc., And he'll give them their opportunities to subpoena people who might they subpoena for more information about this.
	What are their duties, their obligations?
	So it's an extraordinary film.
	We filmed it already in Washington, D.C. We're raising funds for the completion of it in post-production.
	And so people can actually get this film produced by becoming a co-producer.
	And your name's on the credits with a $500 donation.
	So all that can be done here at richardgage911.org.
	So we encourage you guys to help us.
	That's great. Yeah. And so, yeah, richardgage911.org.
	And people can help to crowdfund that and to complete it because you've already, as you said, you filmed a great deal of it.
	I just need to get that together.
	That would be very important to do.
	You know, Richard, I was...
	I was talking to Jay Warner Wallace a couple of weeks ago.
	He is a cold case detective.
	And they would go back and look at murder scenes where all they've got is the evidence.
	And the people, the witnesses to the crime or whatever have long since died.
	The detectives have died. But they've got that stuff there.
	That's why what you're doing is so important.
	And of course he eventually became a Christian and he applied those same types of investigation to looking at the veracity of the biblical account, the Christian account.
	But the key is what we're looking at here is we've got over 3,000 murders just in New York.
	This is something that is not going to go away.
	And just as we see with JFK's situation, there's a lot of people who have maybe not yet come forward, but you have collected so much information That ought to be damning in and of itself.
	And this is something that may be done by future generations, but the truth will eventually be discovered.
	And I think it'll happen when the people who have a vested interest in the lies have been removed from the scene.
	I think that the most important thing to do, certainly we need to raise the awareness of people to ask for an investigation.
	But by collecting this information as you've done and you continue to do, it is going to be a body of evidence that is eventually going to show what the truth is about 9-11, I believe.
	Yeah, I do too, David, and that's why I'm still at it 18 years later.
	I got really angry when I heard about this in 2006, and it's been fueling me ever since.
	Justice for the 9-11 victims' family members is my primary motivation.
	That's right. Yeah, it's hard to get your head around the death of that many people.
	And, you know, we looked at the beginning, I came at this from, look at how they're using this, right?
	How they're using this to destroy the Constitution.
	And they've laid so many authoritarian foundations for our government by using this event.
	And that in and of itself is criminal by itself.
	And that's another angle of attack to this.
	But the deaths of these people...
	I think this is going to continue to go on.
	I think people are going to demand an answer to this stuff.
	And the evidence that you guys have put together continues to expand.
	People are still looking at this, and it is going to continue to expand because there is so much evidence there.
	People can continue to investigate that, and the investigation is going to continue until we get to the end of this.
	Again, you know, when you look at these architects and engineers, to me, another smoking gun about this is just the fact that they haven't changed any firefighting procedures, they haven't changed any building codes based on this.
	They want us to believe that this is an ordinary fire that took down Building 7, but no building code changes.
	Is that correct? Are you aware of any?
	They're still going into burning buildings without fear of them coming down because they don't know about Building 7.
	It wasn't the big controversy in architecture or in firefighting manuals.
	The NFPA doesn't even discuss it and yet is the third worst structural failure in modern history due to fires.
	And the National Fire Protection Association is ignoring it, which is why we went to their convention in Las Vegas this summer and before that, Boston.
	Oh, good. Last year.
	Good. And we had a booth and we had firefighters there with us.
	Eric Lawyer of Firefighters for 9-11 Truth and I and others were educating fire protection engineers.
	We had the monitor up.
	They come by. Did you know when this building came down?
	Oh, no.
	Again, the whole story, they're just blown away because we go into, they say we go into skyscrapers routinely to put out fires, big fires, much bigger than the few small fires they had in Building 7. much bigger than the few small fires they had in Yeah.
	So their policies have not changed.
	And I'm one of 90,000 members of the American Institute of Architects, and we have not received one bulletin on this major disaster of a collapse.
	It wasn't, it was just completely swept under the rug.
	Yeah, absolutely. I remember years ago, I talked to Tony Rook of the UK, and they were trying to get firefighters together there to ask these same questions, you know, because they're using the same kind of rules as we do, the same kind of guidelines for the building.
	Do you realize Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane?
	It burned down ordinary fire, supposedly, according to...
	Why aren't we changing anything that we do?
	And so this is a concern...
	Beyond this country, in terms of people looking at these rules.
	Tell us what you're doing today in New York.
	I know you're there for a special event.
	Yeah, it's an exciting day for those of us who have the passion in our hearts to reach the public.
	I know it's a very sorrowful day, too, because we lost so many.
	Yes. But this is the opportunity for us to tell them the truth about those who died and how and why.
	Some people get into the why.
	I don't as much.
	But we'll be at Ground Zero on VZ Street near Building 7.
	All day. And we brought hundreds and hundreds of brochures to hand out.
	We're going to be telling people that right there stood Building 7, 47 stories.
	It came down to it wasn't hit by a plane.
	Did you hear about it? I heard something about it.
	It's fairly typical, but then you give them the facts and they just wake up and give them the brochure, which has a complete outline of all the information we discussed, which is, by the way, available.
	Our brochure, our DVDs, the documentary 9-11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out is on our website.
	RichardGage911.org But we tell them all of this, and there's some people who can't hear it, David.
	They'll get angry.
	And we give them love.
	We were there, too.
	I was. I wanted to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and get those you-know-whats that did this to us.
	I was a flag-waving Reagan Republican.
	When I heard David Ray Griffin on the radio in the San Francisco Bay Area, March 29th, my world turned upside down as I was hearing this evidence and went to see Kim speak.
	The next night, they were sold out.
	600 people packed in the Grand Lake Theater.
	I had to go home and watch on live stream.
	I had to prove this.
	So I made a PowerPoint.
	I took it to the firm I worked for, 14 Architects.
	Because they had thought I was kind of nuts.
	But over the next couple of months, I assembled this research.
	I took it to them. I bought them pizza.
	I made them come in and drive them.
	45 minutes of visual technical evidence.
	All of them agreed.
	Oh, my God, you're right. These are controlled demolitions.
	We've got to have a real investigation.
	Now there's 3,600 architects and engineers demanding just that.
	Well, thank you so much for caring about the truth and your consistent holding to it and pushing for it.
	You know, that's the key thing.
	If you've got the truth, it's the other people who run away from this, the other people who don't want to debate it, the other people who don't want to show what is there.
	You got the truth. You're not worried about debating it.
	Now, the documentary you mentioned, Explosive Evidence, that's at RichardGage911.org.
	That is not the one that is currently under crowdsourcing.
	There's already one that's finished.
	Is that correct? Yeah, that one combined experts and that was made 10 years ago.
	9-11 explosive evidence.
	Now we're propelling it into a new dimension.
	9-11 crime scene to courtroom.
	That's the one that we're finishing up.
	We've already filmed it. It's been filmed in Washington, D.C. at the Supreme Court and at our venue for a special grand jury investigation.
	It's extraordinary.
	It's the most comprehensive body of evidence we've ever compiled also, which is why it's 24 episodes, but they range from 10 minutes to 20 minutes each.
	That's great. Well, you know, that's the key thing.
	And again, I just want to thank you because I know that it's difficult to swim against the tide.
	And, you know, when you tell somebody something that they don't want to believe, they've already heard something else, and the government is pushing, and all the authorities and the experts are pushing in a different direction, and this is settled.
	You know, we hear that. We've got settled science about climate.
	We've got settled science about the pandemic and all the rest of the stuff.
	And when the experts and the government are all telling you this, and you come out with it, you know, then they've got these...
	Pejorative terms that they throw at you, conspiracy theorists and all the rest of the stuff.
	You're a lunatic, you're a tinfoil hat and the rest of this.
	So kudos to you for standing by what you know to be true for so many years and for pushing this.
	It is making a difference.
	The truth is eventually going to be understood by the wide majority of people.
	And the people who are going to be...
	Tart and feathered by future generations, in retrospect, are the people who lied to us and who continue to cover this stuff up.
	So thank you so much for doing that.
	Again, it is richardgage911.org, and I even had someone, Richard, contact me who had already set up the interview, and he said, I hope you cover 9-11 on Monday.
	I'm in New York. So that listener, you can find Richard there at the site of Building 7, and he'll be there all day, right?
	Is that correct? Yep. You bet.
	Good. Thank you so much for what you're doing at Tireless Pursuit of Truth.
	We'll be right back, folks.
	Stay with us. Thank you. The Common Man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	The David Knight Show dot com.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back. And I'm Rockfan.
	Thank you very much, Angus Mustang.
	Thank you for the tip. I really appreciate that.
	And he writes, the threat of Muslim terrorism seems to have declined since Donald Rumsfeld died.
	Yeah, exactly.
	As a matter of fact, I've got some information about that, what Donald Rumsfeld had to say in the wake of this coming up here.
	I wanted to just add a little bit of a coda to what Richard Gage said.
	Excellent information there.
	Also on Rockfin, Doug Alug, thank you also for the tip.
	He says, thank you for a great interview.
	Yes, Richard has been persistent about this, and I know what it's like to have people laugh at you and laugh at you to your face.
	I was with Jakari in New York.
	And we went over to the site of 9-11.
	We were taking a break. We were reporting on something else when we were there.
	And Jakari Jackson.
	And there was a tour there.
	And the guy was just going on and on about Building 7 and everything.
	It was a Building 7 tour. And it was just one lie after the other.
	So I told Jakari, I said, get your cell phone ready.
	Stand up and say something.
	And I did. And, you know, the guy just kind of brushes it off and all the people with him are like, who are you?
	And just walked away.
	And, you know, I mean, the bottom line is that they are so into that narrative.
	Their minds are closed to other things, really.
	What is he talking about?
	Pull it. I just don't get it.
	It truly is amazing.
	So he will be there at Building 7, and he has information with him to go into more detail.
	These people are walking away, and I'm trying to go there.
	They were not interested in seeing anything.
	But Richard will be there all day today.
	And Matt, who sent me the email last week, this is someone from the New York area.
	I hope you'll devote at least some time on Monday's show to talking about 9-11 truth every year since I believe the government's story of what happened less and less.
	I think this is the issue that's going to set our country free if we can expose what really happened.
	I think it is the issue that set us down the path of 21st century tyranny.
	Everything is connected to it and it was all planned and it was all connected that as I've said before the other shooter drop Took them 20 years of practicing this pandemic lockdown and vaccine passports and all the rest of this stuff.
	But the first one they did was two months before 9-11.
	Then you had the anthrax false flag attack, killing several people with anthrax.
	And then two months later, they put out the model legislation for all of the states.
	Most of it enacted in most areas because they knew they were going to have a problem with the 10th Amendment doing what Trump did in 2020.
	And so what you're going to do is you're going to rely on state laws and you're going to give them money to do what Fauci told Trump and Trump told everybody else to do.
	And then ran on the fact that he was so obedient to Fauci.
	As I said before, two more 9-11 victims identified through DNA testing.
	The 1648th and 1649th individuals to be identified with this.
	Again, 22 years.
	Why so long? Well, as you heard Richard talking about it, Literally blew people to bits.
	Tiny bone and flesh fragments everywhere.
	The vast majority of them.
	Just as it blew the concrete floors to bits.
	This was not a domino of floors collapsing on top of each other.
	The victims, a man and a woman.
	Individuals identified by the city's medical examiner using advanced DNA testing of their remains.
	Their names are being withheld at the request of their families, said the city, as we prepare to mark the anniversary of September 11th.
	And this is not the first time this has happened on the anniversaries.
	They said two previous positive identifications were the first since September 2021.
	On the 20th anniversary, they were able to bring some new victims out.
	Before that, the last identification was made in 2019.
	There are more than 1,000 human remains from the terror attacks that have yet to be identified, currently stored at the National September 11th Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center site.
	Now, where is the evidence that Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Kerrick removed?
	Isn't it interesting that these guys who are the epicenter of the cover-up, and many people, they're not counting the people who died from the aftermath of the health effects, the health struggles for heroes, who were killed in the aftermath of this slowly, slowly. The number of firefighters who've died from 9-11-related illnesses is getting close to passing the number of firefighters killed on that day.
	And this is also from NBC New York.
	They were told to rush in there and remove this stuff.
	As Richard was saying, sell it for scrap metal, take it to China, get it as far away from here as possible.
	We don't want people looking at this stuff.
	And, yeah, Rudy Giuliani.
	It's very similar. Next, we're going to talk about the JFK thing.
	Isn't it interesting how people's careers are made off of this stuff, this type of stuff?
	Arlen Spector, I think he was a junior assistant or something to a senator, but he was the one who was making the case to the Warren Commission about the magic bullet.
	He was rewarded with a lifetime career in the Senate as a Republican from Pennsylvania.
	Rudy Giuliani does the cover-up, and Bernie Carrick, the police chief at the time, they do the cover-up.
	Friends of Donald Trump.
	But you know what goes around comes around.
	How 9-11 bred a war on terror from hell.
	This is about Donald Rumsfeld.
	This is from Anti-War.
	They said Donald Rumsfeld in the aftermath told his aides, quote, near-term target needs go massive.
	Sweep it all up.
	Things related and not related.
	So, use this as an excuse to get things that are not even related, of course, right?
	And that's exactly what they did.
	Norman Solomon's article on antiwar.com.
	Today, that never-ending disaster known as a war on terror has resulted in the deaths of nearly a million people and the indirect deaths of perhaps 3.6 million more.
	And there's a new book by Norman Solomon, War Made Invisible, How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.
	It was a moment we have expected ever since September 11th, said the New York Times, four weeks after 9-11.
	They said this moment we had expected and anticipated, you know, getting revenge, getting revenge.
	Against the right people?
	You know, again, when you look at this, not only is the truth going to continue to be investigated, the truth is eventually going to become public knowledge.
	The truth is going to come out about this pandemic.
	The truth is going to come out about 9-11 and the vaccines and all the rest of this stuff.
	These lies will not survive.
	The truth will eventually come out.
	And one of the key things is when you look at things like 9-11 and the collapse of these buildings, especially Building 7, as Sherlock Holmes said, the words put in his mouth by Arthur Conan Doyle, he said, when you eliminate the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.
	And so the New York Times said four weeks after 9-11 as they started attacking Afghanistan, it was a moment we've expected ever since 9-11, said an editorial.
	The American people, despite their grief and anger, have been patient as they waited for action.
	Now that it has begun, they will support whatever effort it takes to carry out this mission properly.
	You know, as we were...
	Talking about it on Friday, Gerald Slenty talking about the attack on Pearl Harbor.
	And all the things that led up to it.
	We had essentially taken away 90% of their oil.
	They were 100% dependent on, Japan was, on oil.
	And other sanctions that were happening there.
	We were, for all practical purposes, at war with them.
	But it was necessary for them to fire the first shot.
	So we'd have what we all understand to be a just war.
	And so they had to be seen to firing the first shot.
	Donald Rumsfeld and Bush and the rest of these people had a long list of people they wanted to get to.
	And they went after them based on this, whether or not they were even related, as he pointed out.
	Rumsfeld's daily briefings catapulted him into the stratosphere of national adulation.
	As the Washington Post said, everyone is genuflecting before the Pentagon powerhouse.
	Donald Rumsfeld was the Anthony Fauci of 9-11, America's new rock star.
	That winner, the host of NBC's Meet the Press, Tim Russert.
	Told Rumsfeld, 69 years old and you're America's stud.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Kind of adulation that we saw of Fauci as well.
	Whatever their degree of precision, the American weapons were in fact killing a lot of Afghan civilians.
	Eight weeks after the intensive bombing had begun, however, Rumsfeld said, We did not start this war.
	So understand, responsibility for every single casualty in this war, whether they're innocent Afghans or innocent Americans, rests at the feet of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
	Well then, what do we say about the wars that we did start?
	We had seven wars that we were at war with under Obama.
	Trump said we've got to stop these wars.
	He didn't stop a single one.
	He didn't add any new ones.
	How about that? That was a first for the 21st century.
	A president who didn't add new wars.
	But he didn't stop any of them either.
	Including Afghanistan.
	They waited until they had to get out.
	And they exited in a chaotic Chinese fire drill style.
	So, and what about the wars that we did initiate?
	It was a righteous cause because of 9-11.
	We're just responding because we were attacked.
	Well, then, you know, the Japanese war, living in infamy, even though we had, for all practical purposes, started that war with sanctions, but the first shots fired and the escalation and that type of thing.
	Well, that justifies it.
	Well, we have continued.
	That has been our policy. The initiation of war since then.
	With 9-11, it was going to be so big.
	The key thing was not even the foreign wars.
	The key thing was the war that it unleashed on Americans.
	The war on terror is actually a war of terror.
	Terrorizing people with fear.
	So they're willing to give up liberty and law.
	And that's what we have seen.
	and just as they were tied together from the very beginning this pandemic follows that same pattern scaring people terrorizing people for political purposes the threat of violence or the actual use of violence To get them to live in fear and to accept the government as your dictator and your tyrant.
	And we see this same thing being escalated today.
	Another thing we'll be talking about is how the New Mexico governor is using this.
	Declaring a public health emergency.
	Well, if it's a public health emergency, we know because Trump did that, we can suspend the Constitution.
	And so this is yet another example of medical martial law, just like we had March the 13th, 2020.
	And this has now become standard operating procedure.
	Yet another Trump precedent.
	Yeah, just take the guns and do the due process later, of course.
	That was the red flag comment.
	But now if we have a so-called public health emergency, and who will decide what is a public health emergency?
	They will. There was no public health emergency when we had the executive order from Trump.
	There wasn't a pandemic.
	There wasn't an epidemic. Nobody had died.
	Not in China, not in Italy.
	They didn't have a case to make for any of this stuff.
	We had two weeks' worth of data from Italy, showing the average age was 79.5 and 2.5 comorbidities.
	So, for the White House, the Pentagon and Congress of War on Terror offered a political license to kill.
	And to displace people on a large scale in at least eight countries, and the resulting carnage often included civilians.
	Let me just say this.
	They don't care about the lives of Americans anymore than they care about the lives of people in other countries.
	Let's take a look at this jab.
	Sent around the world, killing and maiming and disabling people.
	And who knows what the long-term effects are going to be on this.
	To sweep away the Constitution here, to have pandemic war games, to have domestic surveillance, and to prioritize safety over liberty and law.
	That's what this has always been about, from the very beginning.
	That's why I say these two things are tied together, not only in the way that they interacted with each other at the very beginning, but also in their basic philosophy.
	I'll just finish up before we get into the JFK update.
	We're going to do that before we get into Governor Grisham's martial law in New Mexico.
	This op-ed piece by Judge Napolitano is the CIA in your underwear.
	I'll just preface this by saying that the big mistakes that we always make Or to underestimate the technical capabilities of these people in the U.S. government and to underestimate their depravity.
	And I frequently use the reference to Ted Bundy.
	Somebody just did an interview with his brother, who's still alive.
	You know, all these people. Ted Bundy seems like such a...
	He is an intelligent, good-looking guy.
	He couldn't be a rapist and mass murderer.
	Serial killer, could he? And so when you look at these people who have official positions, people who get elected, they couldn't possibly be that dark.
	We can't imagine that because we don't think that way.
	And so it's difficult for us to imagine that anybody outside of the movies, outside of a horror film, could be that kind of a psychopath.
	And yet our government is filled with psychopaths.
	Just look at it honestly and understand our government is filled with psychopaths.
	John Kiriakou, Whistleblower.
	From the CIA. Exposing the torture that was being done.
	The torture that was used to produce lies about weapons of mass destruction that was then used to lie us into the war in Iraq.
	He said, when I interviewed him, he said, the CIA is looking for sociopaths.
	And they want to get them right up to the level of psychopath.
	Sometimes they go over, you know, the types of people that they hire.
	The FBI whistleblower that I talked to said, yeah, you know, we would...
	Sometimes we'd go to foreign countries and you'd have these CIA people and they would come in and they would lie when they didn't have to.
	He said it was very embarrassing and it was difficult for us to work with these people because he said they would just, you know, flat out lie to your face about everything.
	Well, there's a CIA in your underwear.
	The CIA is spending millions of tax dollars to get into your underwear next year, says Judge Napolitano.
	Eleven years ago, he said, I wrote about the fact that That you had David Petraeus, who was then CIA director, former general.
	And you remember, I remember this very clearly as well, 11 years ago.
	We covered the story as well.
	And he gave a talk to CIA analysts, and he said, we're going to use refrigerators to spy on people.
	We're going to use our own refrigerators and things like that.
	In other words, talking about the Internet of Things, That, you know, you have in your smart home and all the rest of the stuff.
	Any appliances, anything in your house, your smart house, your ring doorbell cameras and all the rest of the stuff.
	All that stuff that is recording what is going on and feeding it up.
	The CIA saw that as being surveillance on all of us.
	And so in the talk...
	He said CIA vendors had discovered a means to log on to the computer chips and kitchen, microwave ovens, dishwashers, refrigerators.
	From there, they could listen in real time to the conversations in a kitchen if those chatting were nearby the appliances.
	This was, as he said, unfortunately for Petraeus, but fortunately for the Constitution.
	One of the analysts was so critical of the CIA's disdain for constitutional norms that the analyst recorded a major portion of his talk and leaked it to the media.
	Is the CIA in your kitchen?
	Yes. Not physically, but virtually.
	And they're going to get in your underwear next.
	And that's what they're working on. That's what he talks about in the rest of this.
	But let me just say, as he points out, I was mocked for saying this, he said, even though we had the recordings of David Petraeus.
	I was also mocked.
	Anybody who talked about this was mocked.
	The CIA's not bad guys, we were told.
	They're not going to do that.
	They're not going to use that power, but of course they do.
	CIA, he says, notwithstanding a clause in its charter that prohibits it from engaging in surveillance in the United States or from engaging in any law enforcement activities, has a long history of domestic spying without search warrants.
	He said that last phrase, without search warrants, is redundant.
	The CIA does not deal with search warrants.
	It behaves as if the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, protecting the freedom of speech and of the press, that's the First Amendment, rather, and the Fifth Amendment, protecting life, liberty, and property, it acts as if those do not exist.
	If you go back and you look, and this is the key, let me just interject here, This is Andrew Napolitano talking about this.
	But if you go back and you look at, you know, where do we get the FISA court from, right?
	Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
	That came after the church committee hearings.
	And the purpose of that was not really to talk about foreign assassination attempts or realities, as you had them talk about the heart attack gun and the attacks on Cuba and that type of thing.
	No, the purpose of that was they knew that from its inception, the CIA was spying on Americans domestically.
	In violation of his charter.
	A similar investigation was conducted by the Pike Committee in the House at the same time, but the subject of that investigation was the NSA. And that went nowhere.
	For the longest time, the NSA was no such agency.
	The Church Committee hearings and the Pike Committee hearings, those were in the 1970s.
	And again, as late as the 1980s, one of the guys I worked with at TI is older, and he had worked for the NSA. I said, the NSA? I said, what's that?
	He said, well, we say that it stands for no such agency.
	Let's just leave it at that, you know.
	That's what everybody used to call it.
	But when the Pike committee called in the head of the NSA, and they were created by an executive order.
	We have those executive orders by the president again.
	The NSA was created by Truman, and Congressman Pike said, I'd like to see your charter, because again, as we see the charter of the CIA, and that was under discussion with the church, the Frank Church committee.
	The NSA guy said, I'm not showing that to you.
	I'm not showing that to you. This is the kind of arrogance that we now see permeating everything in government.
	I'm not showing you anything.
	Andrew Napolitano talks about the time he had a public debate, he said, with a general who was then head of the NSA. And he doesn't name him, but I believe he's talking about Michael Hayden.
	I believe this was the debate where Michael Hayden ludicrously said, well, I'm a libertarian.
	Former head of the CIA, former, and, you know, and the NSA and all the rest of this stuff, and he had been head of both of these organizations, and everybody laughed in derision.
	Oh, no, I'm really serious.
	I'm a real libertarian.
	Anyway, he said, I was challenged to a public debate at the Conservative Political Action Conference by the general who was then the head of the NSA. We aggressively pressed the general on notorious lack of fidelity that the 17 federal spying agencies have for the Constitution in general and specifically on the Fourth Amendment.
	The general gave me two answers, both of which would have flunked a bar exam.
	First, he argued that the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable surveillance.
	And his 60,000 domestic spies were behaving reasonably.
	Yeah, there you go.
	It's reasonable for them to spy on people.
	That's what they do, right?
	They're spies, of course.
	It's reasonable to expect spies to spy.
	After the laughter died down, he said, I pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that all searches and seizures, all surveillance, conducted without search warrants are, as a matter of law, unreasonable.
	And thus, a violation of the amendment.
	Then he retreated to a post-9-11 argument that was crafted by the Department of Justice under George W. Bush that the Fourth Amendment only restrains law enforcement.
	It does not restrain the intelligence community.
	See, they're above the law. Law doesn't apply to them.
	He said, however, the plain language of the amendment has no exceptions to it.
	You know, Governor Grisham in New Mexico, there's no exception there for public health.
	Free these amendments. You will not interfere with free speech or the right to keep and bear arms unless you declare first a public health emergency.
	Oh, well, okay. We'll just do that, okay?
	I then reminded him we were friends, mind you, but I could not let him get away.
	I guess that's why he doesn't want to name it, but I believe it was Michael Hayden.
	But I could not let him get away with publicly trashing the document that he and I had both sworn to preserve, protect, and defend.
	That the Fourth Amendment was written in the aftermath of British intelligence agencies breaking down the doors of colonists' homes, ostensibly looking for compliance with the Stamp Act of 1765, but really looking for subversive materials by folks whom today we call the Founding Fathers.
	Last week, he says, the Director of National Intelligence...
	The nominal head of all 17 federal surveillance agencies revealed to Congress that she had spent $22 million in order to develop cotton fibers that she called smart clothing.
	See, here's where we're getting to the CIA in your underwear.
	Smart clothing.
	They're developing cotton fibers that they can use to track you.
	I guess they figure it's not enough that we would pay for our own surveillance with the iPhone.
	That that would be Big Brother. That's what they have boasted about.
	As a matter of fact, I had a listener send me the link to the original article on Der Spiegel that I talk about all the time and showing the slides with that.
	But anyway, they call it smart clothing.
	The fibers will enable the CIA and other federal spies to record audio, video, and geolocation data.
	Geospatial intelligence is a key thing, a thing that has been growing faster than any other part of the intelligence spectrum since the late 1990s.
	So audio, video, and geolocation data from your shirt, your pants, your socks, even your underwear.
	This is what I'm saying, the CIA in your underwear.
	These people are obsessive, aren't they?
	I mean, doesn't it speak to their evil nature that they are so obsessed to do this type of thing?
	These are the very last people you want to have this kind of power.
	And as I said before, we underestimate how evil these people are.
	And we underestimate their technology.
	As he pointed out, it was 11 years ago that everybody scoffed at the idea that smart appliances, smart appliances, self-monitoring and reporting technology is what that stands for.
	People scoffed at the idea that that's what their name is.
	They scoffed at the idea that it'd actually monitor and report what we're doing.
	And people scoff at the idea that now it's going to be clothing that will do that.
	She billed this as the largest single investment ever made to develop smart e-pants.
	E-pants.
	We've put together, as Judge Napolitano laughs and does, he says, so it comes out to smart e-pants.
	Smarty Pants spies out there.
	Smarty Pants. How appropriate the name for a federal intrusion.
	Smarty Pants is a jerk who can't stop talking and who won't change the subject.
	The CIA does not directly develop its ability to connect to your kitchen, microwave, and dishwasher, or your socks and underwear, though.
	Rather, it hires outside groups to do so.
	You know, in the same way that they helped to create and to fund the internet, social media companies, their venture capital firms, and again, the CIA came out publicly with its own venture capital firm, Incutel, in the late 1990s, as the internet, which was originally designed by a DARPA psychologist, J.C.R. Lickliner, in the 1960s.
	As that became practical, They got very busy in terms of picking who the competitors are going to be and funding them, people who would work with them, and then let the best man win because we're going to have an even stronger way to monitor people.
	And so they don't directly fund this stuff.
	What they do is they give money to their deputized state.
	We'll then watch everything we do, control the narrative, apply censorship, and so forth.
	The very thin facade that they have used for this kind of stuff is now disappearing as far as free speech goes.
	We've all seen the documents that have been released now.
	But we knew this was happening for a long time.
	But there's absolutely no question that's what they're doing.
	Here they talk about it now because, again, these people will never be held accountable.
	So if they want to create smarty pants, they have 28 American tech firms and laboratories that have helped to develop this monstrosity, as Judge Napolitano puts it.
	The federal government's appetite for surveillance is quite literally insatiable.
	And its respect for individual natural rights, the individual natural right to be left alone, is non-existent.
	The federal government traffics in evading and avoiding the Constitution, using absurd and puerile arguments that have never been accepted by the courts.
	Even though every single federal employee has sworn an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, as it is generally understood and interpreted, when the DNI told Congress about this, there was not a peep heard from anybody in Congress.
	Not a peep from the media.
	Not a peep from the sleepy White House for whom the DNI works.
	That's exactly right. So thanks to Judge Napolitano for pointing that out.
	It needs to be seen how many other ways they have of spying on us.
	But yeah, total information awareness.
	That's what they used to call it.
	And then we said at that point in time, in the wake of 9-11, it was too creepy.
	Shut that thing down. So they shut it down.
	The next day, you had Facebook come online.
	So we're going to take a quick break.
	I just want to remind you, please like and share the broadcast wherever you get it, whether you get it as a podcast or whether you get it as a video at various sites.
	And of course, you can find all the different places where the podcast is available.
	You can find that at ddavidknightshow.com.
	I was talking to a friend yesterday at church, and I asked him if he had heard a couple of interviews that I had the last couple of weeks, and he goes, no, I miss those.
	And he goes, and I can't find them where I listen on DLive, because DLive only keeps the show for about three days.
	But if you go to the podcasts, you will find these shows going back a long ways.
	And of course, if you go to Rumble or to BitChute or to Odyssey, you'll find these things archived as well in a video format.
	We also pull out cuts each day.
	So if you would, it helps our visibility.
	If you like the broadcast, we really do appreciate that.
	That doesn't cost you anything other than just a little bit of time if you're logged in there.
	And so we're going to take a quick break.
	And by the way, since I'm talking about Judge Napolitano, I'll tell you also, you know, Gerald Salenti, if you subscribe to his Trends Journal at trendsjournal.com, he'll give you 10% off if you use the code NIGHT. And I know that on this last, we didn't talk about it with Gerald Salenti.
	But he and Judge Napolitano always do.
	Once a week, they get together and talk.
	And that was the subject, what I just talked about there, what I just read in that article, that op-ed piece that Judge Napolitano talked about.
	That's why they talked about smarty pants and the CIA wanting to get into your underwear.
	We'll be right back. Thank
	you. Making
	sense. Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	The David Knight Show.
	And he said, I ran this through with both ChatGPT and with BARD, a couple of the chatbots that are out there with AI. And I asked them, you know, what is the controversy about Building 7 from 9-11?
	It seems it got heated from other large structures.
	And so what ChatGPT does is it gives a straight-up government line without any relief and so much as a nod to any other considerations.
	And they say, well, you know, and everything, they just regurgitate one source, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, which, as you heard, Richard Gage has thoroughly discredited itself.
	They have as much credibility, quite frankly, as the CDC and the NIH have on vaccines.
	Zero. Zero credibility from these institutions.
	Nothing but entrenched liars.
	With murder on their hands.
	Blood on their hands. And so it comes up with a summary.
	It says, oh, you know, we have the collapse of Building 7.
	This tells us this. Then we had some conspiracy theories.
	Forget about that. And then we had scientific explanations, debunking of conspiracy theories, and so forth.
	Critics of the official explanation and a critique of the official explanation.
	Often pointed to the manner in which buildings haven't collapsed.
	Citing characteristics such as its symmetrical fall and speed of the collapse, they argue that these features are more consistent with controlled demolition, though a natural collapse due to fire.
	However, experts, experts, experts, those will not have any data.
	Well, you want some experts, take a look at the, I think it's 3,000, he said, architects who have signed on to the architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth.
	You might want to take a look at what they have to say.
	As a matter of fact, I had a friend back in North Carolina who was an architect.
	And, you know, I talked to him about it, got him interested.
	I didn't give him, you know, kind of presentation of information that Richard Gage has.
	And so he went to the NIST site and read that.
	And he goes, oh, it's all explained. You know, the experts have told us what happened.
	So if you want to get your information about vaccines from the people who sell vaccines, CDC, And if you want to get your explanation about what happened on 9-11 by the people who pulled it off...
	The federal government, yeah, go ask them what really happened.
	You know, go ask Ted Bundy what really happened to those women.
	He's got a story for you.
	Didn't have anything to do with him, right?
	If he was still around, he could tell you.
	Bard was a little bit different, as a listener says.
	He says, both sides have valid points.
	It's not as bad as OpenAI's chat GPT. And so, in the Bard explanation, it said the proponents of the controlled demolition theory point to the following evidence.
	And they have three bullet points.
	And then they have three bullet points for the proponents of the fire-induced collapse theory.
	So those who said it was controlled demolition, three points are, the collapse of Building 7 was very symmetrical, not typical of a building that collapses due to fire damage.
	That's right. The collapse of Building 7 was very rapid, taking only seven seconds from the start of the collapse to the complete collapse of the building.
	And third, there is no evidence of a fire that was hot enough or intense enough to cause the collapse of Building 7.
	They could also add that, you know, go do your own investigation.
	Take a look at collapsing buildings.
	Take a look at steel skyscrapers that have been on fire for days, and you see them bent and leaning, but they don't collapse even after days, even after everything is gone except for the steel skeleton.
	They do not collapse into their footprints.
	And then they say the proponents of the fire-induced collapse theory point to the following evidence.
	Building 7 was on fire for seven hours, and the fires are very intense.
	Now we've seen this over and over again.
	Burn everything except for the steel.
	Still doesn't collapse. The fires caused the steel beams in the building to weaken and buckle.
	We've seen that as well, but that doesn't cause it to collapse and freefall.
	The collapse of Building 7 was triggered by failure of a critical column.
	But there's no change in any of the firefighting or any of the architectural guidelines.
	But let's talk about this other conspiracy theory.
	Here we are about to have the 60th anniversary of JFK's assassination.
	And now we have a Secret Service agent who is 88, who was there in the car.
	He was assigned to guarding the President's wife.
	And he has now broken silence.
	With a story about the magic bullet.
	The absurdity of the magic bullet.
	How absurd that was.
	We didn't need to know what he has to say.
	It's interesting to see what he has to say.
	But the magic bullet theory is just a theory that is not possible.
	And it doesn't matter how many government sycophants and liars you get lined up to say, oh yeah, I believe that.
	That certainly is possible. It doesn't matter how many people you have.
	Critical thinking tells you this is not what happened.
	It's kind of interesting. This is the 60th anniversary.
	I looked up to see how old JFK was.
	This year, he would have been 106 years old.
	He was born in 1917.
	He was the same age as my dad.
	It made me think about when I was a child.
	I was 8 years old when this happened.
	And... One of the things my dad said, he's always, and one of his favorite sayings was, we'll never know when something bad would happen.
	We'll never know the difference in 100 years from now.
	In the overall scheme of things, this is not going to be important in our life.
	And so here we are with JFK and my dad, born 106 years ago.
	It kind of puts things in perspective.
	I also remember when this happened.
	And it was just before Thanksgiving.
	And I remember as we got together with extended family on Thanksgiving, You had Lee Harvey Oswald executed by Jack Ruby two days after the event, after Kennedy was assassinated.
	Two days later, he shot on live TV. And it was a few days after that, I think it was like four or five days after that, at Thanksgiving.
	And of course, that's all anybody was talking about.
	It's all anybody in my family was talking about.
	It was everything that was on TV. I had a recollection that it had happened on Thanksgiving Day, even.
	Because there was so much talk about that.
	And, you know, it was, my parents were not out there as conspiracy theorists, you know, talking about all the different ways that our government had lied us into one war after the other.
	That wasn't where people's head was in 1963.
	That's what we see now, because of things like the JFK assassination, because of things like September 11th.
	But that really wasn't on their mind.
	And my parents were not, even though they lived in Florida, they were not Democrats.
	They were Republicans.
	They had no use for JFK. They didn't like his policies, but the big thing was that they didn't understand what happened with the Bay of Pigs as well as we do today.
	And they believed that it was his vacillation that nearly got us into a nuclear exchange.
	And we were sweating it out in Florida, living in Tampa.
	You know, this nuclear specter of something was going to happen, happened so quickly that even though I just lived a few blocks from the school, we were going to have to shelter in place at the school as if that was going to do any good.
	Right.
	You know, we had an Air Force base there in Tampa who's going to be a target and so forth.
	McDill Air Force Base.
	But, you know, so missiles were aimed.
	Of course, at that point in time, not as accurate as they are today.
	So, you know, the whole general area could have been a direct hit.
	And so we're sweating that out.
	And they really hated JFK because they believed they put all of that on him.
	We've subsequently found out that it was his Joint Chiefs of Staff and other people like that, just as I mentioned earlier on.
	Operations Northwoods, that's now been declassified and released.
	Joint Chiefs of Staff head who concocted the idea that we could fly buildings into planes and kill civilians ourselves, kill Americans ourselves, even attack U.S. military bases ourselves.
	And then blame it on Cuba so he could go to war with Cuba.
	And JFK said, no, and you're fired.
	So he fired Lyman Limitzer, and he then went to Europe and became head of NATO and ran Operation Gladio, another false flag operation, big false flag operation.
	It manifested itself in the 70s.
	With the Red Brigade and other things like that, and the kidnapping of Aldo Moro.
	And by the way, you know, Steve Pachenik, who Alex loved to have on to lie about January the 6th and the election.
	And a key reason why I was fired there was for attacking that CIA shill, Steve Pachenik, who bragged about having been involved in Operation Gladio.
	Bragged about the fact that, you know, about Aldo Moro.
	People in Italy, as they've held those trials, they said, well, it was after Steve Pchenik was sent by Kissinger, after they'd kidnapped Aldo Moro, realized that Aldo Moro knew what was going on.
	That was a false flag. And so the American government, via Kissinger, via Pchenik, gave the order to kill him.
	That's the guy. That's the guy that Alex had on, telling everybody that there was a big sting with the election, and Trump had it.
	4-D chess.
	That's Alex's source.
	Operation Gladio. So it goes back, all this JFK stuff, in my mind, fits together as pieces of a puzzle.
	Same guy, Steve Pachenik, who wanted to come on my show.
	Four days after the shooting in Las Vegas and say nobody died.
	You lying son of a gun.
	You know, I'm not going to put that on my show and never had him back on again.
	But I called him out right away on that stuff.
	But the...
	On Rumble. YJ72, thank you for the tip.
	And he writes, please let Gerald know that dark-colored masks look better in cooler weather.
	Yes, yes. And we've had that modeled for us by our former president, Donald Trump.
	He thought it looked really charming on him.
	He said, I kind of look like the Lone Ranger.
	He's like, no, the Lone Ranger had a mask over his eyes, which you're trying to pull the wool over our eyes, Trump.
	Anyway, Secret Service agent who was with JK on the day of the assassination breaks his silence with a claim that blows up the magic bullet theory and suggests that there was more than one shooter.
	Again, it's welcome to have somebody talk about this stuff, but we already knew that the magic bullet theory was not possible.
	It was a joke. It's like the fact that all these floors dropped on each and made it look like it was falling in free fall.
	No, that's not possible.
	A former Secret Service agent present at the JFK assassination has come forward to debunk the magic bullet theory and raises questions about whether there was a second shooter, as so many eyewitnesses said.
	Yeah, we heard shots coming from that direction.
	Not from where Oswald was in the book depository.
	Paul Landis, now 88, broke his silence on Saturday, nearly 60 years after Kennedy was shot dead.
	In 1963, he was a young Secret Service agent assigned to protect First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy.
	He said that in the chaos following the shooting, he picked up a nearly pristine bullet sitting on the top of the back seat in the open limousine.
	The magic bullet.
	It just magically appeared there.
	This is the magic bullet that, according to their official story, had zigzagged back and forth between Kennedy and zigzagged all over the body of John Connolly, the governor at the time of Texas.
	He placed it on the president's hospital stretcher, he said, to preserve it for the autopsy investigators.
	That bullet, the first piece of evidence logged in the murder investigation, has for six decades been said to have been found on the stretcher of Texas Governor John Connolly and was hypothesized to have fallen free from a wound to his thigh.
	It's long been known as the magic bullet, the bullet that supposedly passed through.
	Okay, just think about this.
	Okay, so it goes through Kennedy's neck from the rear.
	Then it enters Connolly's right shoulder, hits his rib, exits under his right nipple, then passed through his right wrist and hit his left thigh.
	It just went all over the place.
	But Landis' assertion that it actually exited Kennedy in the Cadillac could lay waste to this magic bullet theory that never had an ounce of truth to it, folks.
	According to the report, one of the shots missed the motorcade.
	Another one was this magic bullet that, you know, hit everybody in the car.
	It's kind of like that guy, that Guardians of the Galaxy, where he whistles up that flying dart and it goes all over the place.
	That's the way I think of this magic bullet there.
	Maybe that was the inspiration for the character's weapon on Marvel.
	I don't know. What do you think, Travis?
	the head landis says this is secret service agent that he believes that the bullet he retrieved from the limo may have been undercharged and dislodged from a shallow wound in the president's back falling back into the limousine seat when the fatal shot struck his head so he said maybe it fell onto connelly's stretcher when they were jostled together
	Maybe the hospital staff who found the bullet and handed it over to the Secret Service misidentified which stretcher it was from or whatever.
	Or maybe they just lied.
	How about that? You know, here he is.
	It's like that woman that I talked to down in Wimberley, Texas.
	Just can't get her head around the fact that these people would lie.
	That these people would commit murder.
	Could it be possible that our government, Especially the CIA would execute the president in a coup?
	That can't possibly be.
	We have to look for, let's come up with a magic bullet theory to explain this.
	Let's not go with the obvious answer to this.
	Does anybody believe they're trying to be truthful about this official story?
	No, I mean, everybody just falls in line.
	Doctors who are there just fall in line.
	Well, this is the explanation. Okay, yes, I will go with that.
	No problem whatsoever. This guy, after all of this time, his story raises disturbing questions about how to account for Kennedy's wounds.
	A small, neat wound in his back, around the area of his right scapula, a small, neat one in the front center of his throat, a small, neat one in the rear right of his skull, and a massive, jagged exit wound at the right front of his skull.
	And so, when you look at a small bullet hole, typically it's going to be smaller at the entry point than it is at the exit point.
	The bullet hole in his upper right back had long been explained as the entry point for a bullet that then exited the front middle of his throat.
	So it went into his back and then it came out of his throat.
	Changing direction. The throat wound was expanded by ER doctors for an emergency tracheometry.
	But they described the original wound as small.
	My question looking at this is, why would you do an emergency tracheometry if it had already exploded?
	Anyway, but if the bullet wound to his back, in other words, if he had been shot in a direction that would have exited that way, then why would it still be small?
	But the bullet wound to his back, which autopsy reports said could not be deeply probed to trace the bullet's path, was caused by an undercharged bullet that then fell back in the limousine seat.
	Then where did the throat wound come from?
	And so, one of the people that he gave his story to, a guy by the name of Robino, raises the haunting possibility that the throat wound was actually an entry point, as ER doctors had initially suspected.
	Saving the bullet might have fragmented on hitting Kennedy's spine.
	So, if it entered from the front of his throat, that would mean that he was not shot from behind.
	Hmm. And that would mean that the witnesses who said that they heard shots coming from the grassy knoll in front might have been telling the truth.
	But don't believe your eyes, just like on 9-11.
	Don't believe the eyewitness accounts that you hear.
	No, believe whatever your government tells you.
	Whatever your government tells you is true.
	Don't you pay attention?
	You just have to listen to the government and the media.
	Whatever they tell you is true, no matter how impossible.
	Landis was standing on the running board of the car immediately behind the president's limousine when the fatal shots were fired.
	He heard the first shot and he looked over his right shoulder in the direction of the sound.
	Looking back to the president, he saw Kennedy raising his arms, evidently hit.
	As his partner Cliff Hill sprinted toward the limo, he heard a louder second shot, then a third, he told the Times.
	The fatal shot that struck Kennedy's head.
	He was haunted by the day, he said.
	The president's head exploding.
	I could not shake that vision.
	Whatever I was doing, that was all I was thinking about.
	He was so traumatized by the assassination that he quit the Secret Service six months later and returned to Ohio.
	And it's also not a good thing to go against the government's narrative, is it?
	He never testified to the Warren Commission.
	He said none of the Secret Service agents did.
	Isn't that interesting? He said, he looked at it as they were trying to, you know, the head of the Secret Service was trying to protect them.
	Are we trying to get at the truth?
	How many people are they trying to protect?
	Are they trying to protect the murderers as well?
	He never testified to the Warren Commission.
	His two written statements immediately after the shooting do not mention finding a bullet.
	And they differ in other aspects from his recollection now as well.
	After the shooting, he had said that he only heard two shots.
	But he also, again, talks about how traumatized he was.
	Landis said that for years he tried to put the assassination out of his mind.
	He didn't read about it. He never doubted that Oswald was a lone gunman.
	But that changed in 2014 when he finally read a book about the assassination that a friend gave to him.
	A law enforcement officer gave it to him.
	The book was called Six Seconds in Dallas.
	And the 1967 book argued that there were multiple shooters.
	67. We've known about this for a long time.
	As I said, you know, it was pretty clear to everybody.
	That Jack Ruby was not operating out of some patriotic angst.
	Learning that the official account where the pristine bullet was found was flawed, he emailed his old partner, Clint Hill, who replied with a warning and said there's going to be, quote, many ramifications if you speak out.
	He grappled with his conscience.
	He finally decided to write a book.
	That's going to be coming out on October the 10th.
	It is titled Final Witness.
	He said, I have no goal at this point.
	I just think it could have been long enough that I needed to tell my story.
	And who knows, maybe at 88, maybe they won't, you know, there's not going to be enough people around to try to destroy his life or kill him as they would have earlier on.
	He said there was nobody there to secure the scene, and that was a big, big bother to me.
	All the agents that were there were focused on the president.
	A crowd was gathering.
	This was all going so quickly, and I was just afraid that it was a piece of evidence that I realized right away, very important, I didn't want it to disappear or to get lost.
	So it was like, Paul, you've got to make a decision.
	And I grabbed it, he said.
	If what he says is true, said Mr.
	Robin Hall, We're good to go.
	And if Mr. Connolly was hit by a separate bullet, then it seems possible that it was not from Oswald, who, he argued, could not have reloaded that fast.
	He got six seconds.
	In six seconds, he got three shots off from a bolt-action rifle.
	This guy's not only in excellent marksmanship, but, you know, he's as fast as a flash, really.
	It truly is amazing if you stop and think about how ridiculous this theory is.
	It's very common as people get to the end of their lives, said one person, a prominent presidential historian.
	He says it's very common as people get to the end of their lives that they want to make peace with things.
	They want to get things on the table that they've been holding back, especially if it's a piece of history, and they want the record corrected.
	This does not look like a play by somebody who's trying to get attention for himself or to get money.
	I don't read it that way at all.
	I think he firmly believes this.
	Whether it fits together, I don't know.
	But people can eventually figure that out.
	Then in the article in the New York Times, they go to a guy who wrote a book in 1993.
	Case closed.
	Yes, Oswald did do all of this stuff.
	You know, the magic bullet and everything else.
	You know, it is...
	Never have believed that. Anyway, he said his argument was that people's memories generally do not improve over time.
	So he said that is a flashing warning sign to me about skepticism I have over his story, that on some very important details of the assassination, including the number of shots, his memory has gotten better instead of worse.
	Look. None of this made any sense.
	That's why the FBI created the pejorative term conspiracy theorist.
	If you didn't believe that Oswald was a lone shooter, acting alone, well then, quite frankly, you are a conspiracy theorist.
	It's been used as a pejorative to shut down any questioning of any narrative from the government, no matter how absurd.
	It's been used that way ever since.
	Mr. Landis said the reports he filed after the assassination included mistakes.
	You know, they said, well, there's some discrimination.
	He said, there's only two shots, and there were three shots, and so forth.
	Now you're saying. He said he was in shock, and he had barely slept for five days as he had tried to focus on helping the First Lady through the ordeal.
	And he said, I wasn't paying enough attention to what I had submitted.
	He didn't even think to mention the bullet, he said.
	To me, that seems perfectly plausible.
	This is a guy who was so haunted, he said all he could see was Kennedy's head exploding.
	He hadn't slept for five days.
	Within six months, he's out of the Secret Service.
	I would be inclined to believe this guy, not what he initially filed.
	Again, you know, when you look at this at the time, most people, if you have even a cursory, look at this stuff instead of just listening to the official story.
	It is absolutely incredible.
	Just like 9-11.
	You know, the magic bullet theory, well, 9-11 is riddled with magic bullets.
	There's magic bullets all over the place with 9-11.
	One after the other.
	One absurd, impossible thing after the other.
	And don't believe your lying eyes.
	Don't believe what the witnesses there had to say, including the Secret Service agent.
	Yeah, believe what this guy wrote in his book back in 1993.
	He says, I didn't want to talk about it.
	I was afraid. I started to think, did I do something wrong?
	There was a fear that I might have done something wrong, and I shouldn't talk about it.
	You may still be afraid of the people who actually did the murder.
	You know, if he puts two and two together, and he understands that Oswald was not a lone shooter.
	You know, he looks what happened to Jack Ruby and all the rest of this stuff.
	I'm sure that he's not that dense, that he doesn't worry about what's going to happen in Washington.
	If I was in his position, if I was afraid of these consequences, I would get out of Washington myself.
	Especially being in the position of a Secret Service agent.
	You were there to take a bullet, right?
	Well, you might take a bullet for telling the truth about what happened to JFK. They could easily arrange that.
	So again, his partner, Clint Hill, said, yeah, many ramifications if you talk about this.
	He said he had to duck to avoid being splattered by flesh and brain matter.
	He knew instantly that the president was dead.
	Mr. Hill, who was now in the back of the limousine at the time, turned back and confirmed it with a thumbs down.
	Yeah, he's gone. So why do these doctors do a tracheometry on JFK, on the gurney?
	There's so much suspicions about the autopsy and all the rest of this stuff.
	There's just one liar after the other.
	Just like 9-11.
	Just like the COVID pandemic.
	Once they reach the hospital, Mr.
	hill and Mr. Landis coaxed the distraught first lady to let go of her husband so she could be taken inside so he could be taken inside after the exit of the car Mr. Landis noticed two bullet fragments in a pool of bright red blood he fingered one of them but put it back and that's when he said he noticed the intact bullet and the seam of the tufted dark leather cushioning he said he slipped it into his coat pocket and he headed into the hospital where he planned to give it to the supervisor but in the confusion instinctively put it on Kennedy's stretcher
	instead and again you know the doctors say well we found it on you know a Conley stretcher It must have fallen out of his thigh.
	These are doctors who concurred that a single bullet could have caused all the damage.
	What did they know about ballistics?
	Nothing. Nothing.
	Or looking at the zigzag pattern that it would have to take.
	Bouncing off different parts of the body.
	The bullet was described as nearly pristine, however, and had lost only one or two grains of its original 160 or 161 grain weight, causing skeptics to doubt that it could have done everything that the Warren Commission said that it did.
	Ballistic experts, I said, however, using modern forensic techniques, I've concluded that the single bullet theory was perfectly plausible.
	Well, if you believe that, then you probably believe that masks work for individuals, even though they don't work for the overall population and all the rest of the absurdities that have been given to us by official experts.
	These people, you know, climate scientists who said, you know, I had to change my paper in order to get it published because I didn't believe the climate stuff here.
	This is the way the world works, folks.
	Let's wake up, okay? Stop being naive little children about this.
	Pollyanna. Well, the government says that, and you've got a bunch of doctors who say this who are under the gun, literally.
	Well, that's the way it is, I guess.
	He said, night after night, those seconds of violence in Dallas kept replaying in his head.
	The President's head exploding.
	He says, I couldn't shake that vision.
	Whatever I was doing, I was thinking about that.
	With Mr. Landis and Mr.
	Hill still protecting her, the former First Lady was in constant motion in the months afterwards.
	She'd be in the back seat sobbing, and you'd want to say something, but it wasn't really our place to say anything, he said.
	After six months, he couldn't take it anymore, and he left the Secret Service.
	He moved to Cape Cod in Massachusetts, as they say here, that he was haunted.
	Then he moved to New York.
	Then he went to Ohio, near Cleveland.
	For decades, he made a living in real estate and machine products and house painting, anything as long as it had nothing to do with protecting presidents.
	He was generally aware of the conspiracy theories, yet he never read a book about them.
	Or the Warren Commission report, for that matter.
	I paid no attention to any of that.
	This is perfectly reasonable to me, that he wouldn't want to read any of this stuff.
	Right? He is so...
	Again, I don't want to relive any of that.
	And I've got to say, you know, it was a while, just like it was a while for Richard Gage to catch on with what was going on.
	Because all you hear are the lies of the government.
	And so it took Richard Gage five years to look at this stuff.
	It took me a while to look at 9-11.
	I hadn't even seen the collapse of the buildings and that type of thing.
	It's perfectly reasonable to me that he would just put all this stuff aside for decades.
	He did a few interviews in 2010 and thereafter, but he never mentioned finding the bullet.
	Then in 2014, a local police chief he knew.
	Gave him a copy of Six Seconds in Dallas, a 1967 book by Josiah Thompson, arguing that there were multiple shooters.
	He read it, and he believed the official count of the bullet was wrong.
	This led to conversations with two men, Mr.
	Merletti and Mr. Gormley, and eventually, after many years, to his book.
	It was not easy.
	As he finished the manuscript, he stared at the computer screen, broke down, and cried uncontrollably.
	I didn't realize that I had so many suppressed emotions and feelings.
	I just couldn't stop.
	And that was just a huge emotional relief.
	Again, that book is going to be out October the 10th, 10-10, Final Witness.
	On Rumble, we have a couple of comments here and tips.
	Obsoleteman1776, thank you very much for the tip.
	He says, we love you, Knight.
	22 years later, people still, as Godfather Salenti says, swallow the excrement.
	That's right. Rumble, KWD68. Thank you for the tip.
	I appreciate that. Thank you.
	David, I'd love to know your thoughts on this video.
	Lots of information about JFK assassination before, during, and after.
	And he links to a YouTube video.
	So Travis says he saved the link.
	So I'll take a look at it and I'll let you know what I think about it.
	You know, this is, I think, a very interesting clip.
	Stanley Kubrick, who seemed to be on the inside of a lot of this stuff, you know, when you go back and you look at You know, 2001 Space Odyssey and the other one they did with Tom Cruise with Eyes Wide Shut or something like that.
	Here's Full Metal Jacket where you got R. Lee Ermey explaining to the recruits about the JFK assassination.
	A little bit rough language, but not as bad as it is throughout most of the movie.
	Do any of you people know who Charles Whitman was?
	None of you dumbasses knows.
	Private cowboy. Sir, he was that guy who shot all those people from that tower in Austin, Texas, sir.
	That's affirmative. Charles Whitman killed 12 people from a 28-story observation tower at the University of Texas from distances of up to 400 yards.
	Anybody know who Lee Harvey Oswald was?
	Private Snowball.
	Sir, he shot Kennedy, sir!
	That's right. And do you know how far away he was?
	Sir, it was pretty far from that book's repository building, sir!
	All right, knock it off. 250 feet.
	He was 250 feet away and shooting at a moving target.
	Oswald got off three rounds with an old Italian bolt-action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a headshot.
	Do any of you people know where these individuals learned how to shoot?
	Private Joker! Sir!
	In the Marines, sir!
	In the Marines!
	Outstanding! Those individuals showed what one motivated Marine and his rifle can do!
	And before you ladies leave my island, you will all be able to do the same thing!
	Yeah, and there you see the Kubrick stare that Trump used to such great effect on his mugshot.
	And if you believe what they're telling you, then you probably believe that it really was the schoolbook suppository.
	We'll be right back. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about the governor of New Mexico.
	And she has now taken a new tack towards gun control.
	But really, it is a repeat of what President Trump has done.
	She claims that the Constitution doesn't matter as long as there's a public health emergency.
	Where did we first hear that from President Trump on March the 13th?
	And I said at the time, if we go down this path, this is medical martial law.
	This is going to set up a very dangerous precedent that is going to be used in many different ways, and we have seen this used in many different ways, subsequent to Trump's executive order and setting out the hospital death protocol where they were financially incentivized subsequent to Trump's executive order and setting out the hospital death protocol where they were financially incentivized to label people even without a test, just with a clinical diagnosis as having
	the people who do Medicare, Medicaid, if it is a patient, but getting a $13,000 bonus when they point the finger at somebody and say, you got COVID. And then if they put them on a ventilator, they get $39,000.
	And so you got one patient, you put them on a ventilator, you've already made a profit off of your ventilator.
	That's, you know, $52,000.
	Things typically cost about $50,000.
	And then you get a 20% bonus for all the charges that you give them until you kill them with the intubation of the ventilator, which they did to over 90% of the people.
	But now she is using this in a new novel way.
	And so, show the tweet there, Travis.
	She says, today I signed an executive order declaring gun violence a public health emergency.
	I can call it public health emergency.
	We're done with the Constitution.
	To my fellow citizens, get loud, step up, demand change.
	Yes, that's right. It is a call for us all to action, to see how they continue to use this public health emergency.
	So she said, enough is enough, and there's going to be more coming from me tomorrow.
	And as you see, there's a picture of her signing it, and then there's the declaration next to her.
	This is what the declaration looks like here.
	And declaring state of public health emergency due to gun violence.
	That's the title of it.
	And whereas New Mexico consistently has some of the highest rates of gun violence in the nation, not the highest at all, whereas the rate of gun deaths in New Mexico increased by 43% from 2009 to 2018, compared with an 18% increase over the same time period nationwide, Whereas New Mexico, and I'm just skipping through some of this stuff now, has recently experienced an increasing amount of mass shootings, including mass shootings in Farmington and Red River this year.
	Whereas gun-related deaths and injuries have resulted in devastating physical and emotional consequences for individuals, families, and communities.
	Whereas the impact of gun violence extends beyond physical injuries and fatalities, causing emotional trauma and Economic burden, long-lasting consequences for those affected individuals.
	Well, therefore, I am going to, and it strains our overburdened healthcare system because somebody gets shot.
	Look, all the stuff that she said about guns.
	You could say that about cars, as a matter of fact.
	And I've seen this argument made many times by people on the gun.
	They say, look, cars are so much more dangerous.
	Well, that's a very dangerous argument to make.
	Because they want to ban cars as well.
	They've made no bones about that.
	They've already given us a time at which they're going to have banned cars.
	And not just EVs as well.
	As I pointed out last week, Boudiguet's lieutenant there and their Transportation Equity Committee, the comrades, the communist comrades in that committee, have said we're going to ban cars.
	All cars. Not, you know, just internal combustion engines.
	All cars.
	Because, you know, when people do things, you can have accidents, you can have things happen deliberately.
	I mean, we've had a mass murder attack using an SUV. You know, the guy went down the Waukesha Christmas Parade running, targeting grannies and targeting children and running over them, you know, because he hated them, presumably because of the color of their skin or whatever.
	But, you know, car, anything can be used for mass murder.
	And you could say car-related deaths and injuries have resulted in devastating physical and emotional consequences, haven't they?
	Yeah, sure. Haven't they burdened the health industry, the hospitals?
	Haven't they caused economic burdens and long-lasting consequences and so forth?
	Yeah, all of that stuff could be said.
	But one of the most amazing things that she had to say was this.
	If you are out under this order, if it stands, you notice I said if, and I think I've warned everyone, that we expect a challenge.
	Probably while you're writing this, we're getting a challenge, and that's the way it should work.
	Last follow-up. Yeah.
	But your point is valid.
	You took an oath to the Constitution.
	Isn't it unconstitutional to say you cannot exercise your carry license?
	With one exception, and that is, if there's an emergency, and I've declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers.
	No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath.
	Is intended to be absolute.
	There are restrictions on free speech.
	There are restrictions on my freedoms.
	In this emergency, this 11-year-old and all these parents who have lost all these children, they deserve my attention to have the debate.
	About whether or not in an emergency we can create a safer environment.
	And I'm doing everything I know to do.
	And I think showing a little courage, even when the clarity of that courage will be challenged, is worth the fight.
	Well, she's going to get a fight.
	And she deserves a fight.
	There have been two lawsuits filed already.
	And there have been two individuals who say, and I should have looked this up, I don't know where the makeup of the government there in New Mexico is, but I suspect that it's heavily Democrat, and that they will not be able to get her impeached, but she ought to have the articles filed against her.
	She should be removed.
	She is a tyrant. As I tweeted out, because she said, quote, rights are not absolute.
	You heard her say that.
	Rights are not absolute.
	Well, let me say this.
	That if rights are not absolute, then your government is absolutist.
	That's what I tweeted out with this.
	And by absolutist, I mean a central dictator, a monarch.
	That is an absolute monarchy.
	And so if the law...
	The law is in the mouth of this monarch or this dictator.
	That's what it means when we call somebody a dictator.
	The law is in their mouth.
	They dictate what is going to happen.
	If you're going to suspend the rule of law whenever somebody has a whim and calls it an emergency, and of course she's only doing this for 30 days.
	Well, you know, it was two weeks to flatten the curve.
	It was only 14 days to flatten the curve, and that turned into years of this nonsense.
	And look at how that metastasized, and look at how that public health Emergency executive order from Trump, and then Biden continued it, and both of them used it to do things like, say, the CDC can stop all evictions and foreclosures and other things like that.
	It just kept expanding and giving new powers to agencies that they didn't have.
	New powers to agencies, by the way, that really have no authority on the Constitution to exist.
	And so, as she...
	This is from Jonathan Turley.
	He looks at it and he says, well, she has suspended gun rights in Albuquerque for public health emergency.
	He says... Jonathan Turley, a law professor and columnist, I think he teaches at George Washington University.
	Anyway, he says it's flagrantly unconstitutional in my view.
	It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short that it becomes moot before any final decision is reached by a court.
	You know, it's kind of interesting you think about that.
	You could have said the same thing about Trump's executive order of 14 days.
	Well, it's just 14 days.
	Okay, well, they've extended it just now for a couple more weeks.
	Oh, maybe it's just been extended for another month or so.
	It's hardly worth the bother.
	As a matter of fact, when you had that happening with the CDC, that first happened under Trump.
	And it was for a short period of time.
	And then the CDC reauthorized that.
	Trump said, yeah, that's fine. And then it kept being reauthorized by Biden.
	You know, the idea that they're going to...
	CDC is going to override as a public health emergency any foreclosures or evictions.
	As they were doing that, it finally got to the point where it got to the Supreme Court in the summer of 2021...
	And they said, CDC said, well, we're going to get rid of that, so you don't need to make a ruling on this.
	A bunch of cynical liars.
	And Kavanaugh went for it.
	Kavanaugh wrote an opinion, and it became the majority opinion.
	And he said, well, you know, this is wrong, but they said they're going to get rid of it, so we'll let it stand.
	And they continued to do it.
	And continue to do it.
	And finally it came back to the Supreme Court and he said, all right, you know, they lied to us.
	We're going to take that power away from them.
	It's just amazing how they will continue to lie.
	They just want to keep this thing going as long as they can.
	If we can lie to the Supreme Court and say that we're going to remove it ourselves, if that lie can buy us another couple of months, we'll do it.
	We really don't care. And I think that was a calculated effort when they talked about two weeks to flatten the curve.
	It was already obvious the first week of April that that wasn't going to end.
	I had been calling it medical martial law from the very beginning, and it was that first week of April that the Anti-Defamation League and the Daily Beast did the article.
	They had Chuck Baldwin, they had me, and they had several other people.
	I was the only one who was saying it in Infowars.
	So they came after me.
	He says it's medical martial law.
	Can you believe that? This guy is a lunatic, tinfoil, hat extremist.
	He's paranoid about all this stuff.
	I said, I know exactly what they're doing.
	Anyway, when the New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, she said, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game, when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn, something is very wrong, she said.
	Well, yeah, it is. Lady, your government has failed.
	Your government is there to provide law and order.
	And when your government doesn't provide any order, then you remove the law.
	That's what you've done. You've taken away both law and order.
	It's your failure, as usual.
	Jonathan Turley says, Democratic leaders have increasingly turned to a claim that has been used successfully during the pandemic.
	You notice how Jonathan Turley, who writes for his commentary, Part of the commentary at Fox News.
	Notice how he always says Democrats did it, right?
	This is like the same, well, you know, that whole pandemic thing, that was just Democrat governors doing that to us.
	Well, no, it wasn't. Take a look at what your Republican governors did, but take a look at who did the executive order.
	And that's one of the reasons why everybody backed down.
	Nobody wanted to tackle Trump.
	They were afraid of him on this issue.
	The only person who pushed back against Trump on any issue was Thomas Massey, who pushed back on him.
	On the trillions of dollars that Trump wanted to spend on this stuff after he took away everybody's livelihood, to keep people from starving, to keep them from grabbing their pitchforks and coming after him, Trump was a big part of the people who would have typically pushed back against this and who would have pushed back against Hillary Clinton doing this.
	Just laid down.
	They were told by Alex Jones, it's just 4D chess.
	So just let him do it.
	He knows what he's doing. And it may really be real.
	We've got to be afraid of this thing.
	We don't care about law and liberty.
	And so we don't care about law and order.
	We're going to let Grisham do whatever she wants.
	But let's not call out Trump.
	Not even now. Not even Jonathan Turley.
	Democrat leaders are using this.
	Not Trump. No, it was a Trump precedent.
	That's why I call him Precedent Trump.
	He set a lot of precedents.
	Because everybody believed that he was an anti-globalist, even though he did everything that the globalists wanted.
	Everything. And he's now talking about, well, let's have freedom cities.
	It is a full-on implementation of Agenda 21, of the UN 2030 agenda, of the smart cities and everything.
	But he calls them freedom cities.
	And so, you know, if it's President Trump calling it a freedom city, it's fine.
	It's only a concern if it's a smart city, because that's Klaus Schwab doing it.
	But, you know, if Trump does it to us, it's okay.
	We've only got to be concerned when we use the labels that the UN and the World Economic Forum and these other globalist organizations want to use.
	But if Trump is doing it, it's fine.
	So during the pandemic, these Democrat people, says Turley, declared a health emergency to maximize unilateral authority of the governors.
	And there's also been other calls to declare racism a public health emergency, to say that transgender programs are a public health emergency.
	Yes, of course. He said the motivation behind many of these calls is not to negate constitutional rights.
	I disagree with him strongly on that.
	That is exactly what they're doing.
	Your rights are a zero-sum game with their power.
	They increase their power by taking away your rights, your God-given rights.
	And so that is exactly what they're trying to do.
	They're trying to increase their central control of your life.
	They're trying to increase their power, their reach into your life.
	And the way they do it is by scaring you to death, declaring an emergency, saying that to protect your safety, you're going to give up your liberty.
	And those who give up essential liberty for the promise of security, said Benjamin Franklin, the founding fathers knew exactly how these people, like Grisham, were going to come after us.
	Anybody who will trade essential liberty for the promise of safety deserves neither.
	And history has shown us that you get neither.
	To the extent... That you give up that, you're not safe.
	If you become a slave, you're not safe.
	If you become a prisoner, you're not safe.
	When you're dependent on these tyrants, you are not safe.
	And to the degree that you give up on these essential liberties, to that degree you are actually making yourself subject to these people at their mercy.
	Will Grisham protect people from violence?
	She has no interest in doing that.
	Even if there were things that she could do.
	And again, if you look at some of these situations, the answer to that is more armed people.
	Just like the answers to bad information, disinformation, misinformation, malinformation.
	The answer to that is more information.
	It's to have a clash of ideas.
	Openly debated. The answer to gun violence is to have a clash of gunfire.
	It really is. The answer to bad guys with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
	Same thing. When you have more gun violence, you need more guns.
	When you have more lies from the government, you need more free speech to combat those lies.
	Same thing. First and Second Amendment.
	As a list of claimed health emergencies grow, says Jonathan Turley, even the Democratic judges may begin to balk at the obvious end run around constitutional rights.
	I don't think so.
	Now, you've got the leading law schools, as I pointed out last week, top ten law schools are saying, we don't, the Constitution's dead, they said.
	And we don't want to bring it back in any way, shape, or form.
	We don't like those restrictions on government.
	Governor Grisham doesn't like restrictions on her powers either.
	The order allows for an expansion to other cities that meet her arbitrary threshold for violent crime.
	If a thousand or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents have occurred per year since 2021, that's her arbitrary metric.
	It also sets a threshold of 90 firearm-related emergency room visits per 100,000 residents.
	Again, if you use this same type of thing, you're going to ban...
	Automobiles, for sure. You might even ban bathtubs, right?
	How many things are you going to ban in the name of safety?
	When what is striking about this effort is a short specified period.
	Jonathan Turley says, by setting a short 30-day period, the governor makes it difficult to secure a final decision.
	If she gets a sympathetic trial judge, the time could run out before a final ruling could be secured on appeal.
	It makes it less likely that the case can then be taken to the Supreme Court or even through the federal court system.
	This is not a conspiracy theory.
	This is the way that they ran a lot of the stuff in this so-called pandemic.
	Oh, I'm only going to do it for 30 days, you know, or for two weeks, or this or that.
	It's a moot point now.
	I'm taking this away. But I'm reserving the power to do this at any point in time, and that's what she's saying.
	I'm going to do it for 30 days, but I may reimpose it at any point in time.
	And so he goes on to say that it is not moot if you can make the case that it's going to be reimposed.
	He says that's a difficult thing to do.
	However, in her order, she makes it very clear that she will.
	Reintroduce or extend this.
	So that is something that could be brought to bear with this.
	He said it is too clever by half.
	If a court decides that this is not moot at the end of the period, New Mexico could supply a vehicle to curtail future such claims.
	To the extent that even David Hogg is criticizing her on this.
	The gun control, the gun grabbers are concerned that she is setting up yet another loss for them by her tyrannical overreach.
	I've never seen David Hogg say anything that I've ever agreed with, but I agree with him with what he has to say about this.
	And of course, in Albuquerque, both the police chief and the sheriff have clearly come out and said, well, we're not enforcing this.
	So who's going to enforce this?
	That part of it is a moot point.
	And that's why I keep saying, stop focusing so much on the presidential race.
	You need to focus on the people there locally.
	Your sheriff. You don't get to vote for the police chief.
	The police chief is a bureaucratic functionary.
	So you need to focus on the people who appoint and control the police chief.
	The city council.
	The county commissioners, the mayor, any of those executive positions.
	You need to know where these people are on these things.
	That's going to make the bigger difference in your life.
	Because it is already too easy for them to corrupt the presidency and the state government even.
	Let me take a look at it. Even here in Tennessee, you had a Republican governor doing everything he could with a special session, trying to add new gun control laws.
	Well, the thing that stopped him Was the local elected state legislators.
	And so you need to know who those guys are.
	And you need to know who's running.
	You've got some good state legislators.
	It's going to be a check.
	To the governors who have national and even global ambitions.
	Many of these governors, you know, like Kemp and Georgian, go to the World Economic Forum in Davos and things like that.
	So, you know, these governors have political ambitions and, you know, they're typically not on our side.
	So again, the state legislators, the local elected officials, the sheriff especially, because that's where the rubber meets the road.
	So, and he points out, he said, look, you know, we've had in 2008, because of overreach by the District of Columbia, we had the Heller decision that established that, yes, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms.
	That was a situation where you had a police officer, and they said, no, you can't carry a gun when you're off duty.
	It's like, what? You don't even trust a police officer?
	He's got to have a uniform in order to have a gun on him?
	It's got to be in uniform and on duty, otherwise he can't have a gun.
	They said, no, it's an individual right.
	Of course it is. All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
	The ten that are there, the Ninth and the Tenth Amendment are kind of a wrap-up.
	You know, and oh, by the way, just because we didn't specifically mention something, don't assume that you've got that power.
	And if we haven't given you specifically that power, then it's reserved to the right of the people.
	But the first eight are all about individual rights, individual speech.
	And a right against search and seizure and a due process.
	Those are not collective rights.
	You know, due process, that's a collective right?
	That applies only to the militia or something?
	No. The Second Amendment applied to the individual, just like the First Amendment applies to the individual.
	In 2010, Chicago gave us McDonald versus the city of Chicago, he said, saying that the right to keep and bear arms is incorporated against state and local government.
	And so he says now, and then we've seen a whole bunch of things coming out of New York.
	The Bruin decision recently.
	It's been a real gift for people who want to clarify that the Second Amendment is the right of the people.
	The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
	Each individual person.
	New Mexico, he says, is now going to be the next big opportunity.
	So how is this working out?
	Well, again...
	You're going to say that there is no right that is absolute?
	Well then, lady, you have no right to be in office.
	You have no authority to be in office.
	And she needs to be removed.
	I doubt that's going to happen, though, because of politics.
	She said, citizens with permits to carry firearms are free to possess their weapons on private property.
	But when they're transporting the firearm, they have to do so in a locked box.
	Use a trigger lock or some other mechanism that renders the gun incapable of being fired.
	Where'd she come up with this stuff?
	Where'd she come up with these infringements?
	She just made it up.
	She just made it up. Just like Trump did.
	You know, hey, this is what I say.
	Take the gun, do the due process later, whatever.
	I don't have to wait for anybody to ban a bump stock.
	Yeah, just a bump stock.
	We'll ban that. Everybody says, well, it's Trump.
	So he's playing 40 chess, so we'll let him do that.
	And then he turns around and he tried to ban the pistol brace thing.
	And he pushed for a couple of years on that.
	And then backed off after the election.
	Because he didn't want, you know, people were talking about, hey, you realize what this guy is about second?
	You realize what a New York Democrat hypocrite Trump is on the Second Amendment?
	Yeah, his sons go out and do big game hunting.
	So what? He doesn't think you should have anything, right?
	Yeah, I mean, you know, so Trump Jr.
	and Eric are hunters.
	Good for them.
	However, you know, you got all these hypocrites in Washington who have armed bodyguards who protect them.
	People like Nancy Pelosi, she doesn't think you ought to have a gun.
	Just because his sons go big game hunting, do you think that he believes in your Second Amendment rights?
	Take a look at what he said. Take the gun, do the due process later.
	Let's take the bump stock.
	Let's take the pistol brace.
	He stopped it in December of 2020, that pistol brace thing.
	And then immediately, Biden picked up on the Trump precedent.
	Well, Trump did executive order gun control.
	I can do executive order gun control.
	And that's now what?
	Grisham is doing. She's following Trump's lead.
	He did gun control by executive order, and he did public health emergency orders to give him the power to do whatever he wished.
	Medical martial law.
	That's just this again. Both of these precedents set by Trump.
	So the order covers cities or counties averaging a thousand or more violent crimes.
	It doesn't even have to be with guns, you see.
	A thousand more violent crimes, because they haven't had that many people who have been shot.
	They haven't had a thousand people shot, right?
	This is just a thousand violent crimes.
	What does that mean? You know, more people are killed with fists than with firearms, you know?
	Oh, okay, we've got people attacking each other for whatever reason.
	Now we're going to take away your guns as well.
	So she cited specifically...
	Recent shooting deaths of a 13-year-old girl, a 5-year-old girl, and an 11-year-old boy, as well as two mass shootings this year.
	But, you know, she's talking about a thousand violent incidents to do this.
	The National Association of Gun Rights were the first ones to file a lawsuit against them.
	They're good people, by the way.
	I used to do video work and stuff like that for them.
	I was there... 2012.
	Went with a family. My son's doing camera.
	And we're doing interviews and taking pictures at the UN. We have the twisted pistol barrel and all that kind of stuff.
	And at that point in time, they're trying to get through the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
	And the National Association for Gun Rights was tackling that directly.
	And so we were there as part of that effort.
	So they were the first ones to file suit in Albuquerque.
	They sued her in federal court, arguing that her order flies in the face of U.S. Supreme Court 2022 ruling of Bruin in New York.
	New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin.
	That decision overturned New York's sweeping limits on public possession of firearms and established a constitutional test for gun restrictions.
	The court said it had to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation, unquote.
	Gun Owners of America then filed another suit.
	Another federal lawsuit, both groups arguing that Grisham's executive order plainly fails the Bruin test.
	In the first lawsuit, the National Association for Gun Rights says the carry ban is, quote, presumptively unconstitutional.
	Because the plain language of the Second Amendment covers public possession of guns for self-defense, and the state is unable to rebut this presumption because this regulation is not consistent with the nation's historic tradition of firearm regulation, quoting the Supreme Court in Bruin.
	The order, quote, clearly and unambiguously violates the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, says the second lawsuit by Gun Owners of America.
	And deprives the law-abiding gun owners of their only means of self-defense from criminal attack while in public.
	Think about the fact, she says, well, if there's a thousand incidents of violent attacks, we're going to take people's ability to protect themselves from those with a gun.
	We're going to take that away. And guess who's going to be affected by that the most?
	Women, the elderly, the people who are least likely to be able to protect themselves in a fight.
	The gun is an equalizer to some degree.
	It gives you an equal chance.
	The New Mexico Shooting Association, a chapter of the NRA, said it planned to join the other two groups in challenging Grisham's order.
	Let me just say this. You know, I've interviewed over the years, I've interviewed Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, many, many times.
	A great organization I've worked with and for the National Association for Gun Rights.
	I have zero respect for the NRA. Zero respect for them.
	Never had anything to do with it.
	They have betrayed us over and over again with half measures, with compromises, and they're nowhere to be seen on this yet.
	This prescribes a fine of up to $5,000 per violation, but again, as I pointed out, the police chief of Albuquerque, Harold Medina, said he will not enforce it.
	The county sheriff, John Allen, said that he's uneasy about it, raises too many questions about constitutional rights, he said, and then later on he issued a statement and said the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold.
	She's not going to get either of these people to enforce this.
	But she doesn't care. She's going to go ahead.
	Because this is about establishing a precedent.
	When a reporter asked her about that, she said, well, there is no constitutional right, again, as I played for you, that is intended to be absolute.
	Well, then you are the absolutist.
	Then you are a dictator.
	Any government that says that, Is lying to you.
	Any government that says that is a tyrant, a dictator, and someone who, because of their unfaithfulness to their oath to the Constitution, has no authority, even if they do have power.
	But the good news is that she doesn't have any power to enforce this.
	The police chief and the sheriff are not going to force that for her.
	That's why I say those are important positions.
	You don't vote for the police chief, but you do vote for the people who appoint that person.
	I have emergency.
	I have power.
	You know, beating her chest, I guess.
	She said, gun violence is an epidemic.
	No, lady, you're lying about that as well.
	Another one of these Napoleon complex shrunken up little girls who wants to be a big guy.
	Look at me. I got smarty pants.
	COVID was not an epidemic.
	And it certainly wasn't a pandemic.
	You didn't have people getting sick and dying all over the world.
	They didn't even try to make that case.
	They said it could happen. We want to stop it before it does happen.
	This could turn into an epidemic.
	So we've got to stop it before it becomes an epidemic.
	Well, this gun violence there is not an epidemic.
	As a matter of fact, when you look at her, that's the only city, that Democrat-run city, that's the only city that has a thousand incidents of violence in it.
	And those are not all gun violence.
	And so that's out of 100,000 people.
	So, yeah, 1% chance of being involved in violence somehow.
	During the press conference, she indicated that she probably would extend the order.
	She said it would be lifted only if the epidemic of gun violence ended after 30 days.
	And she said, and I bet it's not over in 30 days.
	Well, that lady needs to be removed.
	She really needs to be removed.
	So, one person says, well, I'm not aware of any precedent for this, just for criminal wrongdoing in general.
	State representatives, two of them, Republicans, said this was grounds for impeachment.
	The legislature has a duty to intervene when the government is overstepping its boundaries, and Governor Grisham's order and comments disqualify her from continuing tenure as governor.
	So, I went on to say, Accurately, this is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace.
	Look, they may not be able to remove her from office, as she should be removed from office, but they do have the ability to nullify anything this tyrant does.
	And that is already happening, even before the legal challenges.
	So there was a 13-year-old girl that was killed by a 14-year-old friend, who evidently had a gun that should not have had it.
	The 5-year-old girl was killed in a drive-by shooting.
	That's gang violence, folks.
	That's the drug war, you see?
	I mean, you go back and you look at prohibition, right?
	Alcohol prohibition. You had a constitutional amendment for that.
	You need a constitutional amendment if you're going to prohibit anything.
	You're going to need to change the Constitution if you're going to take away our guns.
	And you should have a constitutional amendment if you want to prohibit alcohol, marijuana, anything else.
	But when they prohibited alcohol, you had Al Capone and other people like him doing drive-by shootings.
	There were innocent people who were killed in that.
	They didn't respond by saying we're going to ban cars and ban guns.
	The 11-year-old boy died as an enraged driver fired on the car in which he was riding as he and his family left a baseball game last week.
	So one of the two mass shootings was carried out by an 18-year-old high school student who killed three people.
	There was another shooting that killed three people in Red River.
	It stemmed from a confrontation among gang members.
	Okay, so we got, what, nine people or so?
	We've got two mass shootings, six people each, another three people versus nine people.
	Of those... At least four, I'll say four of the nine were drug-related, drug gangs.
	And so you have nine people who've been shot out of a city of 900,000.
	Albuquerque. You know how many accidents they have in Albuquerque?
	Fatal accidents. Ten in July.
	Ten fatal accidents in just one month.
	Six fatal accidents in just August.
	We have to get past this idea.
	That we're going to sacrifice liberty and the rule of law because somebody feels unsafe.
	That is a lockdown mentality.
	They can lock us down with that fear.
	That fear of living our lives.
	So they point out here only two of these crimes even happened in that county where her order applies.
	So this is not nine people in that county.
	This is nine people all over the state.
	Only two of them happened there.
	One of them was road rage.
	Rather than addressing crime at its core, said one person, Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
	And again, yeah, this is, there is no absolute right.
	A reporter asked her, do you really think that criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque for 30 days?
	She said, no, no.
	I expect this is going to continue to go on.
	How cynical. She said, I believe the emergency order won't stop criminals from carrying or using weapons.
	It'll only put New Mexicans in danger as they won't be able to defend themselves against violent crime.
	So that is the reality of what is happening here.
	But again, the sheriff and the police chief have pushed back against this.
	Two lawsuits have been filed.
	Babylon B... Their comments are, the Democrats accidentally revealed their plan to destroy the Constitution ahead of schedule.
	Well, you know, again, they're following Trump's precedence of a public health emergency and of gun control by executive order.
	But let's just make it about the Democrats.
	That's the way this all works.
	It just drives me nuts to see this blindness.
	We have to address the people who come after our God-given rights.
	We have to address the people who hold office but don't care about the Constitution.
	And that applies to Trump especially.
	Especially to him.
	But because of this personality cult, people don't want to hear that.
	As part of this back and forth, besides getting her to admit that she is an absolutist, Reporter said, well, all the examples that you've cited are crimes.
	Kids shooting at other kids, shooting from cars.
	So what's the value of a civil order?
	Why not have better law enforcement?
	Well, she says, I've got to make this a statewide issue.
	We've got to make sure that everybody is bumping up their services.
	You say, I've got to arrest people.
	I can't arrest everybody.
	I just take all their guns, right?
	Wish I could. A reporter says, well, if somebody's got a concealed carry permit in Albuquerque walking down a public street, they're not going to get arrested.
	She says, well, I can make the point that maybe they should be.
	Wow. Wow.
	Law-abiding citizens who took the class, paid the money, filled out the forms, did all this kind of stuff, went public with it with the government, oh, take their gun away.
	So, again, he says, wait a minute, you're talking about crimes.
	There's already laws against these crimes that you just mentioned.
	And Grisham said, yes, but if I'm unsafe, who is standing up for that right?
	The right to be safe?
	There's no right to be safe.
	The government is there to protect people from infringing our lives and liberty.
	So he said, Madam Governor, do you really think the criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun for 30 days?
	And she said, of course, no, as I pointed out before.
	She really doesn't expect this.
	So we have a couple lawsuits that have been filed.
	I want to point out what Musk had to say.
	Elon Musk on Twitter responded to this.
	So, what has to be done and how long is it going to take to get this woman out of office?
	Spot on. And then you've got David Hogg, as I said before, got on and said, I support gun safety, but there's no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.
	Bingo! Bingo!
	There is no public health emergency exception to the Constitution.
	That applies to Biden, it applies to Grisham, and it applies to Donald Trump, who set that precedent.
	So, she said, well, you know, I just have to do something.
	These legislators don't have any plan.
	As a governor, it's my job to take action and put the safety of New Mexicans first.
	Not to complain about the problems that we've got here.
	Well, here's the thing, lady. You know, the Constitution is a plan.
	Rule of law is a plan.
	And some people, like 9-11 Rudy, are finding that out the hard way.
	You know, he decided that he was going to take shortcuts around the Constitution and the rule of law by using RICO statutes to come after organized crime.
	And now, because he supported these shortcuts, 9-11 Rudy is having the RICO statute used against him.
	It's poetic justice, but it's a very bad precedent for all of us.
	You know, when these people, to make it easier for themselves, get rid of the rule of law, like she's doing, like Rudy Giuliani did, then eventually that comes around to them as well.
	We see it over and over again.
	But understand that as this is happening in New Mexico, and we can all say, well, that's a Democrat and so forth.
	Well, this from American Thinker says a six-year-old boy has been suspended and labeled potentially dangerous for playing cops and robbers during recess.
	And they said, yeah, you know, while we're being distracted by the madness coming out of New Mexico, A red state in the Deep South, that's in Alabama where this is happening, is also waging war against an armed populace with a different and more strategic approach.
	And arguably, Alabama's method is scarier and more dangerous because of how subtle it is.
	Just like it's dangerous...
	When Trump does this stuff and everybody says, well, he's a Republican, he's playing 4D chess, and we'll give him a pass on it.
	And in Alabama, what happened is you got two boys during recess start using their hands as guns, pointing the index finger, you got your thumb up and pew, pew, pew, pew, bang, bang, bang, you know, like that.
	And because they were doing that to each other, pointing their fingers and going bang, bang, bang, you have this one kid in particular, child identified as JB, was suspended, and accused of committing a Class 3 infraction.
	This is the most serious infraction that you can have in this place called Jefferson County in Alabama.
	What would Thomas say?
	About this county, named after him.
	And you've got a couple of kids playing cops and robbers, pew, pew, pew, with their fingers.
	Class III infractions, which they've charged him with, includes things like possession of guns or explosives, sexual battery, battery of a school district employee, robbery, other things like that.
	He's pointing his fingers and going, pew, pew, pew.
	How's that? Like that.
	The child's father said they labeled my six-year-old as a potentially violent and dangerous student because he's being a little boy and playing cops and robbers with another student.
	What would they do to Ralphie?
	You know, from Christmas Story.
	Ralphie even had a gun.
	Ralphie could even put his eye out with that thing.
	What would they do about him?
	Hey folks, get your kids away from these insane, dictatorial, politicized people in the school system who have been completely indoctrinated by living in this thing all of their life.
	We were just talking about that, Karen and I. You know, some people we knew from college who are now retiring from being school teachers, just how radical they've become in the transgender thing.
	Because they never got out of school their entire life.
	They go K-12, college, go right back into the schools, and it just keeps recycling this liberal filth until they're embracing transgenderism and this type of thing.
	It's because that's where they have lived.
	Get your kids out of that environment.
	Years ago, during a discussion with a friend about the federal government's weapons and technological capabilities, it brought up something to my attention I've never considered, says the writer of this, an American thinker.
	He emphasizes not necessarily the hardware you need to worry about, but the software.
	What he meant by that was that the hardware, the tools, are only a threat when the software, the human minds, are programmed to deny a person their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and so forth.
	He said, you know, you look at this, linen, He said, give me a child for eight years, he'll be a Bolshevik forever.
	Give me one generation of youth, I'll transform the whole world.
	Give me four years to teach the children, and the seed I will have sown will never be uprooted.
	Well, you know, Hitler said that type of thing as well.
	So did Plato, and so did God.
	God said, raise up a child in the way they should go, and when they're old, they will not depart from it.
	You see, education is a lot more than just some information.
	It's a lot more than just the wrong information that they're giving people.
	And not even the objective stuff of math is safe from this type of institution that the Marxists have now marched through and trampled into nothing.
	And so, to spare your child from this type of thing, but to give them the kind of background that they need.
	Again, education is not...
	Just about some facts and figures and dates.
	It really is about the values.
	The moral foundational values that we all need to have.
	And so this is what's happening in a Republican red state.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	And as you watch those people rip those masks off of their faces and smile...
	We now have had a response from the guy who, if you remember last week, we played Michael Smirconish, who took on Fauci.
	So CNN saying, hey, we got this study, and of course the study was repeated by the New York Times.
	You got the New York Times, you got CNN saying, we've had enough of this stuff, Fauci.
	And you heard Fauci come back and say, well, you know, there's other studies.
	He doesn't mention what the other studies were.
	And he said, that may be true of public health.
	Maybe the masks don't work for public health, but it works for individual health.
	The person who put this study together said, that is absolute nonsense.
	As part of that study, Tom Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson again, here we go, said there's no evidence that masks make any difference.
	Full stop. That's the conclusion of the study.
	And so, in fact, she says, yeah, but there's other studies.
	Well, Professor Tom Jefferson, who was running that study, and again, it was randomized controlled trials.
	They had, I think it was 78, and they republished this again with another 11.
	And, you know, just these last 11 had 36,000 people that are part of this.
	So Professor Tom Jefferson says...
	That he's committed to updating the Cochran Review as new evidence emerges.
	But he responded and he said, so Fauci is saying that masks work for individuals, but then they don't work at the population level?
	That simply doesn't make any sense, he said.
	Well, he's absolutely true.
	But doesn't he realize that that's what Fauci and company were saying throughout this entire thing?
	Your mask doesn't protect you.
	Other people's masks protect you.
	How can that be? That doesn't make any sense.
	And I said at the time, I said, well, we know that that's the same nonsense that they've been saying about vaccines.
	Your vaccine doesn't protect you.
	Other people's vaccine protects you.
	Herd immunity. Herd masking.
	It's a herd mentality.
	This has always been a lie.
	And I said, this is like, and people say, well, you know, we can tell you to wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet.
	I said, well, actually, no, you can't.
	You've got the power to issue fines to me, but you don't have the authority to say that.
	And it makes absolutely no sense.
	And, you know, whatever happened to informed consent?
	But I said, this makes about as much sense as saying that your seatbelt doesn't save you.
	Other people's seatbelts save you.
	Or your motorcycle helmet doesn't save you.
	Other people's motorcycle helmets save you.
	This has been the crux of their argument from the very beginning.
	And the crux of the argument from the very beginning was, individual health doesn't matter.
	It's this collective herd.
	And I always said, well, if you don't have individual health, the herd is made up of individuals.
	So how can you have public health, group health, If you're not concerned with the health of the individuals.
	And so Fauci just turns this whole thing upside down.
	He's an inveterate liar. And Professor Tom Jefferson called him on that.
	I mean, we've been calling him on the rest of this stuff from the very beginning.
	That's always been his ridiculous lie.
	Tom Jefferson went on to say, and he says that there's other studies.
	What other studies? He doesn't name them.
	So I can't interpret his remarks without knowing what he is referring to.
	Well, of course, that would be the data that he doesn't want you to see.
	You know, same thing as the climate change stuff.
	Initially, Fauci said masks were ineffective, unnecessary.
	In March of 2020, he told 60 Minutes, right now in the U.S., people should not be walking around with masks.
	But only a few weeks later, he did a U-turn, and he says, well, when the facts change, I change my mind.
	So Jefferson said, so what were the facts that changed?
	There were no new randomized studies.
	There was no new evidence to justify his flip-flop.
	That is not true.
	He's not citing any evidence now to justify what he's lying about.
	Since then, Fauci has remained adamant that face masks not only stop people from infecting others, but they also protect the wearer.
	Jefferson said what Fauci doesn't understand is that cloth and surgical masks cannot stop viruses because viruses are too small and they still get through.
	How long have I been saying that?
	And you've seen, and I retweeted, had it pinned at the top of my Twitter feed.
	Somebody did a film where they put on an N95 mask, and they had breathed in a bunch of smoke, and they exhale it.
	And it's coming out the sides, and the top, and the bottom, and through the mask, and all the rest of the stuff.
	And it's like, well, what they're telling us about viruses, whether they're correct about viruses or not, you know, viruses, they're just like subatomic particles.
	Or really an intellectual abstraction to try to explain a phenomenon there, you know, like transmission of disease.
	But they can't actually observe it.
	And you shouldn't be surprised if they get it wrong, or if their theories change.
	We've seen that happen with subatomic particles many, many times.
	Look at how different the Niels Bohr model of the atom that I grew up on is from quantum mechanics.
	There is no resemblance whatsoever.
	These things are abstractions to try to define observations.
	But, you know, they're not just as we see with astronomical observations.
	You see them coming up with ideas like dark matter and black holes and things like that, which, you know, there could be other explanations for these types of things that they're observing at a distance.
	When you've got something that is at an astronomical distance or is that incredibly tiny...
	You come up with abstractions, you come up with models, and they may not be right, but that never worked.
	And we always knew that that would never work.
	And they would say, well, it's about the spittle that comes out, but we talked about that as well.
	Thank you for joining us today.
	Let me tell you, The David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	And you want to know something else?

▲