Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 4, 2023 - Fresh & Fit

02:05:53

Ryan Dawson, Mike Sartain & Destiny DEBATE RUS/Ukraine, 9/11, & MORE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the Fresh Air Podcast, man.
	We're joining some bros in the house.
	Michael Sarté, Destiny, and Ryan Dawson.
	Let's get it away!
	Let's go.
	All right, we're back.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to the Freshman Podcast, man.
	We're joined with a very special panel today.
	It's going to be probably one of the highest IQ conversations that we'll have on the platform in a while because we're going to be joined by some dumb bimbos after this.
	So let's go ahead and have the fun while we can now.
	Hi, y'all!
	So real quick, I'll go ahead and have you guys introduce yourselves while you guys are over here doing your last-minute research on your phones.
	Yeah.
	He's not live.
	He's not live.
	So, yeah.
	We'll start here with Destiny.
	Go ahead, man.
	Introduce yourself to the people and we'll get this thing going.
	Welcome back.
	Hey, what's up?
	My name's Destiny.
	You know me on YouTube, Instagram, Kik, all at Destiny.
	I do politics, philosophy, video games, social commentary, I guess.
	I have blue hair and guns.
	Oh, sorry, Twitch.
	Had to mention that.
	We gotta definitely come to Rumble.
	Yeah, he's banned.
	And Facebook?
	Keep Facebook for now.
	All right.
	Sartain?
	My name is Michael Sartain.
	I'm a retired U.S. Air Force captain.
	I was an instructor navigator in a KC-135.
	I flew in Iraq and Afghanistan, probably 500 combat hours.
	And then I did counterintel for two years.
	And then somehow I ended up in Las Vegas and I host all the biggest bikini competitions in the world.
	I have the men of action mentoring program where we teach networking, leadership, like what I learned in the military, and how to bring 100 girls to a party with you.
	That's why I teach.
	And yeah.
	I'm excited to be here with these two guys.
	I love debating, and these two guys I think are both better than me, and I'm excited to be on the panel with them.
	Alright, sweet.
	I'm Ryan Dawson.
	I'm banned on basically everything.
	That's a great intro.
	That's an accomplishment.
	I can never take that away from you.
	You're the only guy I know that's been banned off MySpace.
	Oh yeah, and AOL. Could you imagine, you know, it's like fucking 2000 and you're like trying to go on to AOL and you're like, I can't turn to log in and they're like, oh, sorry, you're canceled off AOL. You don't got mail.
	It was bad back then.
	That's one.
	Oh, was that?
	Yeah.
	You got mail.
	All right.
	It's like, you got no mail, nigga.
	Get out of here.
	Should we be on Twitter or no?
	It was like, anti-neocon report, ANC report.com.
	And I guess I'm kind of known as like the conspiracy theorist that isn't a kook.
	And yeah, I do geopolitics and make documentaries and I have a sub stack and a telegram.
	That's about it.
	And Twitter.
	I got Twitter back this year.
	Yeah.
	Post Elon.
	A lot of people got returned.
	Nice.
	And all the guys' links are below, guys, so go ahead and show them support, all the members of the panel.
	We're going to hit a couple topics today.
	So I guess we could start off with Russia-Ukraine.
	Whoever wants to go first and kind of take their stance on it.
	We talked about it before.
	I'm going to discuss the strategery, and you guys are going to discuss how we got to this point.
	Now, you had a comment.
	We were talking in the elevator about the Maidan revolution.
	Just before we get into any of that, just say a bit about Gonzalo Lira, because he's an American journalist that had disappeared at the border, maybe.
	Which border?
	Well, he was trying to get into Hungary.
	Journalist, that's a big stretch of that term.
	He's the guy that said, the last time we talked, he said that in 10 years I'd kill myself.
	And now it looks like he might be the one dying before me.
	Oh, shit.
	Big ups on that one.
	That's a little dark right there.
	Damn!
	Okay!
	I don't know who you are, dude, but I hope you don't kill yourself.
	I guess Destiny didn't forget.
	Y'all don't get along?
	You and him?
	No.
	Oh, shit.
	I didn't know that.
	The last time we talked, he was screaming about how he was fucking a continuous chain of 18-year-olds, and I would never be at that level.
	What was this?
	A while ago.
	A while ago.
	He used to go by Coach Red Pill.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, no, no.
	Red vs.
	Blue?
	That's probably why.
	Go ahead.
	Well, they don't like it together.
	I'm sorry.
	Go ahead, man.
	Still didn't deserve to be tortured in a prison, so...
	I know he's been on this show, and I don't know him from the Coach Red Pill days or any of that stuff just recently, and he's been on my show, and I just feel like, hey, that's an American journalist.
	He's been disappeared.
	So even if you hate somebody, they deserve human rights in their trial.
	Yeah, we've done a couple shows with him.
	He's a good guy.
	Very smart, very bright Ivy League graduate.
	And yeah, it sucks what's going on.
	I mean, just for free speech, they're trying to pretty much...
	If I'm not mistaken, they're charging him with espionage charges in Ukraine, right?
	For...
	Criticizing the Zelensky regime.
	It's hard to know that there's so much fake news on that stuff, and everybody's trying to be first, but we don't really have enough information.
	But that's what it seems like from the indictment that I looked at, because he posted it all on Twitter.
	Before, yeah, he was under house arrest for thought crimes.
	Well, wasn't there some implications that he might have been giving information to Russian troops in the area as well?
	Was there?
	I don't know.
	There was.
	Also, it's kind of a stretch to say he was disappeared when the guy was tweeting before and after getting out of prison.
	He literally tweeted, I'm going to be riding a bike to, what, Hungary?
	Or Romania or whatever?
	Yeah, Hungary.
	Yeah, I'm trying to get to Hungary.
	And then I guess the next day they caught him trying to ride a bike into Hungary.
	It's not very disappeared, I think, but...
	Well, I think he posted it online, that's all.
	But, I mean, yeah, we don't know.
	I mean, obviously, my prayers are with him.
	I hope he ends up okay and he's able to get on the other side of this.
	He's an American and an Argentinian citizen, so hopefully they'll be able to do something.
	But, yeah, I know there...
	He was tortured when he was in...
	Or Chilean, I'm sorry.
	Yeah, Chilean.
	To be clear, he claimed he was.
	Now, he hasn't shown any pictures of Marx or anything like that, but...
	I mean, if they're punching you and stuff like that and...
	He claims he was being punched, but we don't know if that's the case.
	I believe it, bro.
	I'm sure you do.
	Because the guy's lied about fucking every single thing related to his life up to this point.
	Why would you believe him now?
	Damn, bro.
	Damn, Modesty really doesn't let him sky.
	Let him live, bro.
	Damn, man.
	I mean, from an obvious point of view, let him live.
	Well, that's up to the Ukrainians right now.
	I mean, like, what are the chances that you imprison and torture a U.S. citizen if you're Ukraine?
	That would be some wild shit.
	You're fucking up pretty bad at that point, if you do that.
	That's true, but it was the prisoners that were doing it, not the guards.
	And then you also gotta remember that they're going after him for like, they're trying to say he's like a spy.
	Yeah.
	So, the gloves are off whenever there's espionage.
	There's also the possibility he is a spy.
	And when we say spy, that's loosely defined.
	Like, if you're in the United States, and even if you're a U.S. citizen, you go to another country, and you start passing along information, then you're in deep shit.
	So, I don't know.
	I don't know enough about this.
	But my whole thing is, he's making a good point in that for as much help as they get from us, for them to put a U.S. citizen in prison unjustly doesn't make a lot of sense.
	But at the same time, If the Ukrainians are doing this, then maybe they believe he is passing along information to the Russians.
	And the way the social media is used in this war is unbelievable compared to every other war.
	I think that's what they're doing to substantiate the charges against them.
	By the way, it's a war, so substantiating the charges, what does that even mean?
	It's a war.
	Do you have evidence that he's been in communication with anybody?
	For sure.
	The guy is literally tweeting out that he wants Ukraine to fall as the country is being invaded and he's living there in these territories.
	It's not the smartest cookie in the basket.
	If he was a spy or they thought he was, they wouldn't have let him out on July 6th.
	Yeah, that's...
	Well, it depends.
	We have no idea.
	It could have been that he flipped on some people.
	It could have been he gave some information.
	It could have been that upon further investigation, they weren't huge charges.
	It could have been that people he was communicating with were killed or they feel he doesn't have contact with him.
	There's like a million things that could be.
	That's why I said there's not enough info.
	And it's weird that...
	It's weird that anybody who's trying to seek asylum in Hungary would announce, hey, I'm going to Hungary right now.
	I think he did that more for an insurance policy.
	Oh, you think he went somewhere else?
	So he wouldn't die or something?
	Yeah, I mean, so that he has a record that he left.
	Or maybe he did it to throw them off that he actually went somewhere else.
	That's what I thought too.
	I think they caught him literally trying to cross into Hungary.
	I think they got him literally at the checkpoint.
	That's what I heard.
	Like Ryan said, this is all shit that you see on Twitter.
	It's hard to know what's true and what's not true.
	Especially because, not just me, there's a lot of people that don't like him, so there are going to be people that make shit up and post it on Twitter and you actually have no fucking idea.
	Why Hungary and not Poland?
	I mean, the Polish have sent mercenaries into Ukraine.
	Maybe he thought Hungary had a better chance at asylum.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I don't know what's going on in his head, so.
	Interesting.
	I figured maybe Poland, because it's in NATO. Is he going to die?
	I don't think they'll kill an American.
	They'll just keep him in jail.
	I mean, if you have someone under your control, it doesn't really benefit you to take their life.
	Just keep them in jail.
	Hmm.
	Alright, I guess, segwaying from that...
	Yeah, I didn't know that was going to set a trigger off.
	Well, yeah, I didn't know that.
	I didn't know that they had a history like that.
	So, I guess, Destin, you can start off with, what's your stance on the Russian-Ukraine conflict?
	Yeah, I guess in the broadest of senses, from 1991, Ukraine has been a country that was recognized by everybody around the world.
	Fast forwarding through a lot of stuff, in 2014, there was an ousting of a leader.
	Some people call it a revolution.
	I think some people incorrectly call it a coup.
	In response to that ousting, Russia invades Crimea, and Russia begins to fund and back separatist movements.
	Ukraine refers to them as terrorists in the east and the Donbass.
	And then from 2014 on to 2023, we've got basically military conflict that's been escalating in 2022.
	The invasion happened, everything is subsumed under that actual invasion, and here we are today.
	I think that the broadest of senses, I'm sure we'll get into the details of all of this, I don't think that the initial Russian invasion into Crimea was at all justified.
	In 2014.
	In 2014.
	I don't think that there's any evidence of any CIA coup or any sort of backing from the West showing that Euromaidan was artificially inflated by Western forces.
	I don't think there was any evidence that there was an actual coup d'etat.
	I don't think that the backing of separatist leaders in the East is good for anybody.
	It's not good for Ukraine.
	It's not good for the people that live there.
	It only benefits Russia if they can manage to peel away those separatist states and incorporate them into some kind of Russian Federation.
	And I think that Russia is in the moral wrong basically from start to finish with this entire conflict.
	So you don't think they had any real basis for an invasion, whether it was 2014 or now?
	Absolutely not.
	What about, and just playing devil's advocate, I'll turn it to Ryan here in a second.
	What about the fact that they're planning to invade the Dunbass region in March?
	Who's planning to invade?
	The Ukrainians.
	It's their territory.
	What do you mean invade?
	Well, it's ethnic Russians that dominate that area.
	It doesn't matter.
	They're Ukrainian citizens.
	Yeah, I mean, there's ethnic Mexicans that live in San Antonio, but if Mexico tries to invade, we would still stop them.
	It doesn't give them the right to invade just because people speak the same language.
	They're Ukrainian.
	You can't invade your own territory.
	It's their territory.
	In fact, let's take this analogy further.
	You can kill 14,000.
	Right, but my point is you don't have the right to do it just because those people.
	By the way, if Russia is giving them weapons and money to do so, then they fight back.
	Then the narrative becomes, look at what Ukraine is doing.
	They're killing all these people in Donbass.
	Well, then stop giving them weapons.
	That's the difference.
	Again, I'm going to use this example because a lot of people from this country, if Mexico started funding terrorists that live in San Antonio, Harlingen, and fucking Brownsville, the United States would do something to stop it.
	And the news media would be like, do you see the Americans killing these Mexicans inside?
	No.
	At some point, if you attack, they get to attack back.
	And his argument is going to be sovereignty.
	My argument is to be, even if there was a coup, the problem is they invaded Crimea.
	Invading Crimea doesn't make the populace more likely to be pro-Russian.
	It makes them less likely to be pro-Russian.
	Secondly, their parliament had almost unanimously agreed...
	To trade agreements with the West and their president and the last second switched sides and said, no, we're not going to take these trade agreements.
	And then that's where the that's where all these people started rioting.
	My point is, even if there was a coup, which he's going to say there's no evidence, but that's how the CIA works.
	They don't leave evidence.
	I'm still saying there's enough reason for the people in Ukraine to not want to be a part of Russia after they you understand I'm saying you bite my leg.
	Maybe I don't want to be friends with you anymore.
	You take Crimea, maybe we don't want to be with Russia anymore.
	So his thing is, there's no evidence that there was a coup.
	My thing is, even if there was a coup, there was enough reason for the people in Ukraine to not want to join with Russia.
	That's my point.
	Ryan, what's your stance and response to that?
	Crimea was not annexed.
	That was a secession movement, and it's mostly ethnic Russians that live there anyway.
	Russia's not going to lose their base on the Black Sea, so they have every reason to back it.
	But invading how?
	It wasn't a military invasion of Crimea.
	Crimea left Ukraine.
	And Ukraine did attack the Donbass.
	And probably Russia did back separatists.
	But I think you have to go back before that.
	This was avoidable.
	And Zelensky's talking about the Belarus memorandum.
	I'm so tired.
	I flew here from Asia.
	Memorandum.
	Which is about how they had to Get rid of their nuclear weapons because they couldn't afford to maintain them.
	And it was kind of political blackmail to say, send us money or we're going to reduce these weapons, but you're going to have to pay us to maintain them.
	Everyone agreed to get rid of nukes in that.
	Zelensky brings it up again.
	And that's the flex showing the Russians don't want a nuclear-armed Ukraine on their border.
	They know they're trained to NATO standards, and they don't want NATO expansion.
	They've seen what happened in Libya.
	They've seen what happened in Yugoslavia.
	And so I understand the Russians' fear about this.
	When they finally have a pro-Russian leader in charge that was going to accept The economic agreements that were favorable to the Russian state, you have to see they were walking into this 15 billion euros in debt.
	Ukraine's had corrupt governments from the 90s to now, one oligarch after another.
	So there's a lot of people within the state that they were in favor of some sort of economic partner, either the Americans in the EU or the Russians.
	And obviously it's in the US's interest for it to not be with the Russians.
	Newland and the rest of them were when there was there was violence that both sides could take advantage of so you had protests against the election results and then you had counter protests and the counter protesters were walled up in Odessa in 48 people burned alive and That's insane.
	And when you look at Maidan, it's very similar to Syria with snipers shooting police and things.
	And so many people believe there's foreign-backed separatists.
	So would you, I guess, so you disagree with Destiny?
	Because Destiny is saying there was no reason for Russia to invade.
	So you're saying there was...
	He's saying they're unjustified.
	That's different than what he's saying.
	He's saying that, I mean, we had all these issues.
	I'm explaining why they would say they did it.
	I think Destiny would understand there's a reason for them to invade.
	The question is, do they have the right to invade?
	And going back to what you're saying before.
	Hold on, wait, real quick, because I would want to fight on almost every single one of these fighters.
	Can I say one thing real quick?
	Yeah, go for it.
	The president who went and took that friendly Russian deal, he agreed previously to not take that Russian deal.
	We're going to have a debate and I don't have the internet.
	I don't think anyone else should.
	Oh, sorry.
	I just took notes.
	I apologize.
	I can stop doing it.
	Just get rid of phones.
	Yeah.
	The point is...
	Wait, the facts are the facts.
	Why should that matter?
	There's a lot of things to keep track of.
	Like that 14,000 figure of deaths you cited, I don't even know where that comes from.
	It's like a misciting of the UNHCR report.
	That's not true, that 14,000 civilians have been killed.
	The fact that Russia didn't invade, that's not true.
	Spetsnaz and other special infantry were seen literally going when Russia called that SNAP 150,000 troops that they collected on the eastern border for a distraction on February 22nd.
	That's not true.
	The idea that Russia would see what happened in Yugoslavia and Libya, that's not Russia.
	Why would NATO attacking those countries have anything to do with NATO attacking Russia?
	February 22nd is not what I was talking about with Crimea.
	And that what?
	February 22nd is the hot war from last year.
	I'm talking 2014.
	Oh, that was the same date, actually.
	On 2014, there was a Russian invasion.
	There were Russian troops that went into, through Sevastopol, that were dropped off.
	There were Spetsnaz, there were special forces.
	The little green men, the election that they held afterwards, the locking of the checkpoints to the north.
	You agree, but even Putin doesn't deny that.
	You think that election was just a farce, rigged?
	I don't know if the election was a farce, but I do know that the election was held, there were reports of intimidations on the ground by the little green men, and that there was a report that I think, what, 97% of those people ended up supporting, separating, and joining Russia, and that that election wasn't allowing any independent observers whatsoever?
	Are you asking me if it was rigged?
	I don't know.
	Do I trust it?
	Absolutely not.
	The other issue is the president in 2014, he passed anti-protest laws and right before he doesn't take those favorable trade relations with EU, he switches his position.
	So when you're saying like my point is he wasn't the whole time he was pro-Russia right before.
	Everyone was surprised when he went ahead and voted for the pro-Russian package.
	And that's the reason why it makes me even less think you're saying maybe he's corrupt.
	That doesn't fit with the CIA plot.
	The point is there's that many people protesting.
	Their parliament is almost entirely in agreement with joining with EU. And they've already had part of their country taken away.
	You're saying that they separated.
	That's fine.
	But if I'm a Ukrainian, I still don't like the fact that Crimea is part of Russia.
	It doesn't make me want to vote for Russia.
	It doesn't make me want to join with Russia.
	That's the issue that I have.
	What I'm saying is, he's saying there was no CIA plot.
	I'm saying if there was a CIA plot, I don't think it makes any fucking difference.
	I think it would be the same thing either way.
	I think they're in a situation where you've lost part of your country, and the parliament has voted to join with favorable trade agreements with the EU, and then all of a sudden your president one day decides to not do it, and then there's a huge riot, and the president has to leave the country.
	And where does he go?
	Where does he go when he leaves the country, everybody?
	He goes to Russia.
	That's where he escapes to.
	So that's my issue, right?
	I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here.
	Go ahead.
	Ryan, do you have anything back to that?
	Yeah, as far as the anti-Russian sentiment started long before Crimea, they heroicized Stefan Bandera and others, which was reversed in 2010.
	But you have to see how the Russians are looking at that when they are heroicizing Crimea.
	Nazis from the past and then banning the Russian language and taking steps.
	You're talking to Ukraine, they're banning the Russian?
	Okay, because you said the Russian, sorry.
	Yeah.
	Well, this war has really disturbed me in the sense of how anti-Russia has gotten where anything Russian, even Paralympics, athletes, musicians, are being banned because they're Russian, which I think reminds me of after September 11th, there was a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment.
	Where, or even is Arab.
	It's actually worse than that.
	Even if you're a Sikh from India or something, you look Arab.
	There's a lot of ignorance going around.
	Doesn't that remind you of Germany?
	When everything was being banned?
	Anything German was being banned?
	Well, yeah, it's similar, but, you know, you would think we...
	This isn't that a...
	This is 2022, 2023.
	Yeah.
	To ban all things Russian, to have so much hate, so much of a lopsided media.
	And this is before Elon, so Twitter was just hardcore left.
	All the social media were coming out now with all these different Twitter files and information and how many spooks were all over all these sites and why people are getting censored.
	So I don't feel like we're getting...
	The best of information.
	But there's some stuff we do know.
	Like, for instance, two months before the invasion, Vladimir Putin said there was not going to be an invasion.
	And from a state craft or from a military standpoint, that was a good move.
	But from a diplomacy standpoint, after the war, do I ever want to sign a treaty with Russia?
	If they're willing to lie about an invasion like that, do you see the problem?
	I'm saying some of it, they're bringing it on themselves.
	George C. Marshall Strategic Studies Institute, almost half of Zelensky's cabinet is coming from that.
	Seeing a lot of people around him.
	Mihorko Lamoysky sends him $41 million.
	There's a lot of corruption in Ukraine.
	And so it's almost a mafia state, has been, since the 90s.
	Russia's looking at that as these people are easily bought and paid for.
	And they were afraid of having Western weapons and military troops on their border.
	We can agree on that.
	Because that's what happened in Finland.
	Just to stay focused real quick, do you have anything to refute from what Destiny was saying?
	Because you had to disagree with some of your points.
	The Russian language was never banned.
	That's completely not true.
	Stepan Bandera is...
	It's weird that we selectively bring up neo-Nazis on both sides, or on the Ukrainian side, when I think you can find neo-Nazi ties to the other side as well.
	Pavel Gubarev, I can't pronounce these names, but this is the guy that called himself the...
	The first leader of the Donbass People's Militia, that guy explicitly came from a neo-Nazi group.
	It was founded by Alexander Barkashov, who also came from a far-right nationalist group.
	The idea that neo-Nazis only exist in Ukraine, when Pew Research polling data shows that Ukraine is one of the most welcoming countries in the entire world for Jewish people, when they've had two Jewish heads of state, the only other country in the world besides Israel to do so, I don't think that finger-waving over potential neo-Nazism in Ukraine, that also just happens to align with Russia's primary propaganda vehicle, which is that they're fighting Nazis, That's too convenient, and there's too little evidence to actually support that.
	I don't think the Nazis in Ukraine are the anti-Semitic Third Reich like a lot of people paint them out to be.
	They have the same symbols.
	There's some swastikas and things, but...
	The Bandera movement and the Nazi movement that they heroicize and build statues of these people wasn't about, it's not the same as Hitler putting people in camps.
	It was more of an anti-Russian, more than anti-Jew.
	Correct.
	They wanted to ethnically cleanse that part of the country.
	Excuse me.
	Sorry.
	No, you can say it.
	I can't.
	I don't know.
	And I understand it.
	I understand the Ukrainian point of view, too.
	I mean, they suffered tremendously through Holdemore and then occupations by both the Soviet Union and the Nazis.
	And they saw a lot of their wealth transferred to ethnic Russians.
	They saw a lot of corruption during the whole Soviet era.
	And so they legitimately have...
	The problems with that thinking, obviously, though, is Russia also suffered under communism and Russian people also starved, just like Holdemore, from the same leadership.
	You don't blame the ethnicity for what a government did.
	Well, we say Russians also starved.
	Things like the Holodomor caused very specific damages to, like, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
	Like, even today, when we talk about Eastern Ukraine is full of ethnic Russians and Crimea is full of ethnic Russians, that's specifically because crops were requisitioned from starving Ukrainians that were, like, defending their families from cannibals who were being shot in the back and they tried to flee their villages.
	And then once, what was it, is it three to five million, I think, Ukrainians died in the Holodomor?
	Maybe more?
	No, like, There might have been 11 million.
	Then afterwards you have, and then Kazakhstan too, not even doing that, then you're bringing in a bunch of ethnic Russians afterwards to rucify the country to use that excuse, you know, later on and say, well, there's a lot of ethnic Russians there, therefore we ought to respect that there are ethnic Russians there.
	Do you guys understand what he's talking about?
	Joseph Stalin like starves out a bunch.
	The reason why there's so many ethnic Russians, Russian speaking, you understand Ukrainians don't speak Russian.
	There's two different languages there.
	Some of them speak both.
	But what he's talking about before it was during Stalin, they needed to take the crops from eastern Ukraine and then use that to feed their own troops.
	Yeah.
	And then when those people tried to escape, then they just shot them in the back.
	And then what happened was Russia started filling that area, and they both agree on this, they started filling that area with Russian-speaking people.
	It's not their fault.
	The people that are there now that are Russian, it's not their fault.
	But just like I would say before...
	A lot of Russians in Russia also starved, also had...
	For sure, for sure.
	We can agree.
	Stalin was a piece of shit.
	How about that?
	But my point is, when we go back, you said something before about the nuclear weapons, giving up the nuclear weapons.
	First off, it's not Ukraine's fault that they had nukes.
	That was the Soviet Union who gave it to them.
	And number two, when they agreed to get rid of their nukes, it was the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia who all agreed to accept the boundaries of Ukraine.
	And so...
	Well, they got...
	They were supposed to get...
	Security promises.
	For sure.
	If they're going to get rid of the nukes that they can't afford to maintain, then that's going to come with certain...
	By the way, let's go back to the can't afford to maintain thing, because when we get to the World War III thing, we're going to discuss that.
	Okay.
	Also, I think you guys should result, because that is important.
	In 94, that Budapest memorandum guaranteed them, you said security assurances that we're not going to fuck with you, but could you please give your weapons essentially back And they did.
	You were saying blackmail, but one more thing.
	The point I'm trying to make is they didn't make the nukes.
	Russia gave Ukraine the nukes during the fall.
	You have the invasion of Afghanistan, then you have Chernobyl, and it becomes incredibly expensive.
	Then you have perestroika.
	The whole country falls apart.
	They start giving off the satellite countries and they don't get back the nukes.
	So Ukraine has those nukes, but they didn't abscond with them.
	They didn't steal them.
	So the fact that they give them up, it's not like they're not blackmailing.
	Yeah, nobody's claiming they built their own nukes or something.
	My point is it's not their fault.
	For instance, I'll also make the argument it's not anyone's fault that Ukraine has the 20th largest oil supply in the world and that that's the reason why Russia is actually invading.
	I don't think they're doing it to protect the people of Donbass.
	At all.
	I don't think so.
	I think their country is 35% of their GDP is petroleum.
	It's shrunk down to 18% of their GDP is petroleum.
	Over half of their government revenue comes from taxes on petroleum, and this is severely hurting them.
	So you have a country that's in between you and Germany, and that country is going to sell their own petroleum to Germany?
	Fuck that.
	That's why that's Part of the reason why they evaded and the other reason why I think they evaded when they did is the 200 F-35 Lightnings that are going to be shipped to NATO countries.
	You're going to have countries like Finland that has air supremacy over Russia now because Russia doesn't have anything in the arsenal that can stand up to an F-35.
	That's why I think Russia didn't have- The F-35A can carry nukes as well.
	Well, pretty much.
	A B-52 can carry nukes.
	So this is kind of a misnomer.
	A B-1 can carry nukes.
	An F-117 can carry nukes.
	A B-2 can carry nukes.
	An F-16 can carry nukes.
	An F-15 can carry nukes.
	An F-18 can carry nukes.
	The thing is, it's the A modification.
	They can all carry nukes.
	Nukes just means it's a bomb that has a warhead with uranium, plutonium, and tritium in it.
	So, okay, just going back to make sure we hit the overarching thing.
	Destiny's stance is there was no real reason for Russia to invade.
	Do you agree with that or disagree with that?
	He's saying whether it's moral, political, whatever.
	I mean, there are reasons.
	I mean, it wasn't justified.
	They want to keep Ukraine in their sphere of influence.
	Would you agree with that?
	I agree they want Ukraine in their sphere of influence.
	I think they're Their main reason, though, for...
	And you don't think they were justified?
	Look, the Donbass tried to secede, tried to be independent, tried to join Russia.
	They got rejected.
	Then they tried to be independent.
	They recognized that independence.
	It was like a week or so after that, there ends up the war, or the SMO, starts.
	They call it Special Military Operation.
	Sends in about 90,000 guys.
	Not enough to take over the country and everything.
	I think he was still trying to...
	Negotiate with the West by not going in full steam in the beginning.
	Maybe you can talk about the strategy part, but I'm anti-war.
	I don't want there to be a war between Ukraine and Russia.
	But I feel like the Ukraine side, the Ukraine point of view, is on TV. If you want to hear what Ukraine thinks, just turn on the news.
	Yeah, but if we wanted the war to be over, we should have just let Ukraine finish recapturing the Donbass.
	The war is only extended right now because of Russian troops, military training, and arms flowing into the country from the east.
	Well, they're not going to let them retake or conquer the Donbass because Russia then has to deal with NATO-trained standard troops on their border.
	What about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania?
	They're already there.
	Finland already has NATO-trained troops on their border.
	Finland is there too, yeah.
	All Russia has done is expanded the amount of NATO countries on their borders now as a result of the conflict in Ukraine.
	So you were saying that they'd have NATO-trained troops?
	Yeah, Estonia is not Ukraine.
	Ukraine is a much more powerful state, larger population, larger military presence.
	And they would love to not have that situation with Estonia and Finland either.
	But, you know, Putin drew a line.
	He said, you're not going to expand in Ukraine.
	And they have a lot of, like you guys were saying, there's a lot of resources there that are in play.
	And they didn't have the Nord Stream lines yet.
	Those got blown up.
	But they had to transit through Ukraine.
	They were going to circumvent them and go directly to Germany.
	But they also knew how easily you can reverse that by blowing up the line.
	But there's also the problem is that Which they said they did themselves at first.
	Wait, who said they did it?
	They said Ukraine said they did.
	Ukraine did not take credit for those attacks.
	No, Ukraine didn't say that.
	Just Western media tried to act like Russia blew up its own pipeline.
	Oh, got it.
	So Russia didn't actually say they blew up their own pipeline?
	No, the official story now is Ukraine blew up the pipeline.
	There is no official story.
	Yeah, I don't think there's an official story.
	There's one official story that Sweden or Norway had something to do with blowing it up.
	Yeah, Cy Hirsch had his, he had his, well, supposedly documented, it was in a Substack article, he thought that the U.S. blew up the line using allies.
	Yeah, but Hirsch's story is total conjecture.
	He provides no compelling evidence, no proof in that entire...
	The U.S.'s story is, no, he didn't do it.
	Ukraine did it.
	The U.S. does not say Ukraine did it.
	I think right now the position is, if you look at all the evidence, it looks like it was probably Ukraine.
	I think that's a fair assumption to make.
	I think the most credible story I've seen so far is that the Ukrainian military, without Zelensky's knowledge, might have sent forces to that area and destroyed those pipelines.
	But I've also heard, I believe that Norway said they've witnessed like Russian ships, like three Russian ships that were in areas they weren't supposed to be that could have been equipped for diving operations.
	So it looks like Ukraine might have done it, but there is no official story.
	I don't think anybody knows right now for sure.
	Back for that, Ryan.
	I don't know about the Russian ships.
	So there's no reason for Russia to blow up its own pipeline when they can just turn off the gas and leave the infrastructure.
	Just so we're clear, there was no gas actually running through the pipeline at that point.
	There was gas in the pipeline because you can't keep it in a vacuum.
	Yeah, they had two lines, but it was on the verge of opening.
	So just to go back to what I was saying before, one of the reasons why the Middle East became so wealthy the way that it did is because it's easier to dig for oil in sand countries.
	That's also the reason why we dig for oil in West Texas and places like that.
	That's why you don't dig for oil in places like Colorado.
	It's harder to get through that type of environment.
	Because of new technologies as far as extracting oil, there's all of a sudden all this oil that's in Ukraine that's available now that wasn't really available 30 years ago.
	That's a part of this that's kind of being missed.
	And a lot of it's around Crimea.
	So what's happened is Ukraine was threatening also to allow Western countries to come in and get some of that oil.
	It's not just the fact that Russia can't go through Ukraine with their pipelines to sell their oil.
	It's that Ukraine will then sell its own oil.
	Does that make sense?
	You have a country, a petro state, which is basically what Russia is, 35% to 30% of their GDP came from petroleum.
	And now you have a neighbor that's in between you and your number one buyer of oil, which is Germany.
	And he's saying, hey, not only are we going to make it harder for you to sell your oil through our country, we're going to sell our own oil.
	That, to me, was a pretense for them to invade.
	To me, that was the number one pretense for them to invade.
	Not because they're worried about ethnic Russians in the eastern part.
	No offense to Vladimir Putin.
	Well, they have a naval base in Crimea.
	They can't lose either.
	That was already an autonomous region.
	They already had agreements to have Sevastopol, that naval base there.
	There were no problems with that.
	Most of the people in Crimea, one of the reasons why the invasion probably worked is most people there were friendly towards the Russian navy.
	They had no problem with the ships there.
	They were in and out all the time.
	That port was used pretty commonly.
	But it's not like that port was ever under threat.
	Okay.
	Are you in agreement with that?
	Yeah, I was saying that's just another reason in addition.
	I don't know to what degree Ukrainian oil going on in the market is worth a war.
	It's going to cost a lot more.
	But the problem is, so it's a bunch of things, right?
	Is it worth a war if that's all you sell?
	Do you see what I'm saying?
	Is it worth a war if they take away Germany, which is buying 30% of its petroleum from Germany?
	From Russia.
	And is it worth a war if you know they can just bomb the Nord Stream pipeline?
	Do you see what I'm saying?
	It's like, now your security, your ability to sell petroleum is now put direly at risk.
	And while the United States, we use a lot of petroleum, our economy is not 30 or even 20 percent...
	Why aren't they going to sanction them from selling oil to all those places for going to war anyway?
	But here's the problem.
	That is exactly my next point, which is, even if they win, they lose.
	That was my issue with this whole thing.
	Because in the end, you had President Putin, he goes off and he lies to the entire world and says he's not going to invade.
	And then he invades.
	And while, again...
	Great statecraft, incredible military strategy, absolutely terrible when it comes to diplomacy.
	You're going to have to pay for that in the end.
	When you tell the world that you have hypersonic missiles, and then you have the Ukrainians shoot down those hypersonic missiles, turns out they're not hypersonic missiles at all.
	When you tell the world that you have Sukhoi 57s that are supposedly better than F-22s and F-35s, and it turns out you don't even use them in battle.
	When you tell the world that you have these incredible S-14 tanks that are supposed to be able to knock out anything, and they're just getting blown up on the side of the road, Russia has lost 40%.
	1,500 tanks in this war already.
	That's incredible.
	Just for size and ratio, the United States lost 80 M1 Abrams tanks during all of their invasion of Iraq the entire time, and 63 of them they put back in service.
	What's happened with Russia is...
	I don't want to get too far into this, but there's this huge design defect with the tanks where they put the shells right next to the turret, and when you hit it with a javelin, then all of a sudden it blows up the entire tank.
	And you can see photographs all over the place, look it up yourself, with tanks with the turrets knocked off.
	And this is another problem.
	So now Russia, their second biggest export, which is military defense, Nobody wants to buy their Sukhoi 27s because they don't work.
	Nobody wants to buy their tanks because they don't work.
	They don't want to buy the T-52s, the T-72s, the T-90s, the T-80s.
	Nobody wants to buy these tanks.
	So Russia has triple fucked themselves.
	They're going to have sanctions with them as far as they're selling petroleum.
	They're going to have sanctions with them as far as their trade agreements.
	They're going to have a bunch of companies that are like, we don't want your armament anymore.
	Clearly put into use against American armament.
	You guys could not stand up to them.
	And then finally, do you think tanks have done well on either side?
	I think tanks are going to do really well when those 31 M1 Abrams show up in Ukraine in a couple months.
	I think tanks are going to do really well.
	A T-72 cannot do anything to an M1 Abrams.
	It cannot.
	And that's going to be a serious problem for Russia.
	I don't think it's a tank on tank issue, though.
	It's a javelin on tank.
	Landmines and helicopters.
	I don't think the Leopard 24A is a bad tank.
	I just think any tank that walked into...
	A field of landmines that's getting targeted by drones and cornet missiles and helicopters and anti-tank personnel is going to get destroyed.
	We're not having giant tank versus tank battles.
	It's not World War II. We had one.
	We did have one in, I forgot what the city was, but there was a massive one in the entire Russian tank brigade was lost.
	They lost the tanks to Ukrainian landmines.
	My point is this, like, one of the issues that Ukraine, and by the way, it was Pregorin, how you say his name?
	He was the one who actually said this.
	This is before the coup, the attempted coup, whatever it was.
	He actually was talking about how the Ukrainian military, which by the way has been trained in large part by the United States.
	I wouldn't even possibly deny that.
	And by the way, Ukrainian fighter pilots right now while we're speaking are training at Shepard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, Texas to fly those jets, those F-16 squadrons that they're about to get.
	My point with that is that he actually said Ukrainians use doctrine of mechanized infantry along with tanks, along with aircraft.
	They're using them together.
	The Russians don't do that.
	The Russians will just run a bunch of tanks into a certain place, or they'll just use artillery, or they'll just use air power, and they don't have the ability to coordinate.
	That was Prigojin who said this.
	And so my point is, this whole thing is like, even though you have a country that is four times bigger than the other country, This should be a first round knockout.
	This should have ended in the first week.
	The fact that we're at a year and five months, I think this is a really, really bad experience for Russia.
	And I think I don't see any way for them out of this without Russia.
	So you think Ukraine is winning the conflict?
	It's like this.
	If I'm the underdog and we're tied, I'm winning the conflict.
	Do you understand what I'm saying?
	But you think it's tied?
	No, but the thing is right now, just so you know, when you have an invading force going up against a defending force throughout history, the invading force loses more people.
	They just do because it's just harder.
	Their supply lines are further.
	Also, if you have an invading force, let's just say for every person that's fighting, you need three behind them in support.
	So we're talking about medical, we're talking about logistics, we're talking about fuel, we're talking about food.
	For the invading force, you need about seven or eight.
	That's a really reductive way to look at it.
	But you need more than twice as many people to invade as you do to defend.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, of course.
	So the problem is with the attrition situation, you have one country that has...
	You notice how...
	Ukraine is not trying to defend the whole country.
	They're trying to defend Kiev more than any other part.
	And so when that happens, you have an unlimited budget.
	We can all agree to that, right?
	Ukraine has more money to spend than Russia.
	Do you guys disagree with that?
	So just for people to understand, NATO has a $1 trillion defense budget.
	That's including the $800 trillion that they get from the United States.
	And Russia has an $80 trillion $1 trillion versus $80 billion.
	So it's about 12 or 13 times as much.
	Ukraine has a blank check.
	The United States is giving them javelins.
	If you think this is morally wrong, I'm not here to have that argument.
	My point is, if the United States is giving them top-tier anti-tank weapons, two squadrons of F-16s, and their first battalion of M1 Abrams tanks that Russia has no chance against, God forbid if they bring F-35s into this.
	I just don't see how Russia can win.
	That's my point.
	I disagree with that, all of it.
	I'm not big on the U.S.'s wonder weapons.
	They thought that would be the Heimars.
	They thought it would be the Javelins.
	They thought it would be the Leopards.
	And they're all just getting destroyed.
	I think the War of Attrition, like I do agree, they're not going to run out of money because they have NATO money.
	So they're not going to run out of money.
	It's going to be hard to make them run out of toys.
	They might run out of ammo temporarily, but they're not going to run out of stuff because NATO will keep giving them things.
	They will run out of personnel.
	Possibly.
	Possibly.
	But I think they have better trained personnel.
	The nutrition war, I think they were trying to set up a porcupine.
	And they thought that the sanctions were going to be, even Russia thought this too, that the sanctions were going to be way more devastating than they were.
	They were pretty much ineffectual.
	And they thought, if we can lead them with sanctions and force them to charge into well-fortified, bunkered, entrenched positions, it would be, you know, pure victories at best.
	And Ukraine has been extremely tough, extremely resilient.
	And in the beginning of the war, they did have very, you know, cracked defense.
	And they kind of pussyfooted their way in with 90,000 troops.
	But Russia was looking at it, holding back, because they also didn't know whether or not they could deal with the sanctions.
	Without the clock on their side, because they're not in a hurry, they don't have to, they're not bleeding from sanctions, they decided to go with the meat grinder approach instead of the blitzkrieg approach.
	They're going to sit back, With artillery, the very slow, methodical way.
	That is what Russians are good at.
	Where you can destroy them at range.
	You don't lose a lot of personnel because you're hitting them from further away than they can hit you.
	It's a very slow way to do it.
	But they've got all the time because the sanctions are hurting NATO more than they're hurting Russia.
	And Ukraine is running out of personnel.
	The sanctions are hurting NATO. Yeah, because the reason why I disagree is because we've already had China denounce what's going on in Ukraine.
	So that, to me, China is going to be...
	Yeah, and I think Russia's done some funny things, I think, with their currency and everything, with disallowing people to sell Russian currency.
	And they're doing ways to try to artificially inflate the economy they have.
	But I'm pretty sure most experts agree there's been a pretty big contraction of the Russian economy.
	It's been 3% a quarter for Russia's GDP over the last couple of years.
	It's already a country that's pretty poor, I think, in terms of GDP per capita.
	Russia is not the richest country in the world.
	Russia is about as wealthy as Mexico, and a lot of people don't realize that.
	Russia is right on point.
	Russia has a smaller GDP than Italy.
	I don't think you can judge the real economy just by GDP numbers.
	But what I think is you can judge how well you can replace tanks and replace aircraft and replace anti-tank weapons with economy.
	And then once your biggest secondary supplier...
	They're out of 155 millimeter ammo, even like NATO's supply.
	That's why they went to cluster ammunitions.
	They don't have enough artillery shells to shoot.
	And Russia is able to do that around the clock.
	And they're not running out of supplies.
	They've been preparing for this for a while.
	I'm pretty sure.
	Haven't we used like 2 million of the 20 million artillery shells we have in stock?
	I'm pretty sure we just haven't shipped the rest yet.
	And then even if we do exhaust our supply, can Russia, the country, out-manufacture the rest of the Western world when it comes to artillery shells?
	Yes, they are.
	I don't think they can.
	And anti-air defense, too.
	And like the F-16s.
	Syria shot down an F-16 by very well-trained pilots from the Israelis.
	For sure.
	With an S-200.
	Yeah.
	Now you have less trained Ukrainian pilots versus well-trained Russians with S-400.
	S-400.
	So...
	I don't think they're going to be a game changer either.
	They're going to get shot down.
	Yeah, so the difference with the Israeli thing is the United States is going to supply those F-16s with anti-radiation missiles that can fire at more than 60 miles.
	I think the S-400 is in deep shit, and they don't have any S-400s in country.
	They can't bring them in country because one of the problems is when you turn...
	That's what happened.
	By the way, I don't know if you know this.
	A lot of those anti...
	Aircraft machinery didn't work.
	They never turned them on.
	And that's why they weren't able to defend that part of the country because they weren't even turned on.
	Because one of the things that happens is if the United States is involved or if U.S. firepower is involved, this is one thing we learned is what F-16 Wild Weasel does.
	Real quick, because we've got to keep a focus because we're going into this whole tangent here.
	He's basically saying that the sanctions are hurting NATO more than Russia.
	And you guys are saying you think the sanctions are hurting Russia more?
	Yeah, definitely.
	I definitely think it's hurting Russia more.
	Ryan, what's your basis for saying that you think the sanctions are hurting NATO more than Russia?
	There's a cost of living going up in Europe.
	They need the oil.
	They need the gas.
	The sanctions are hurting them.
	I agree with Andrei Martignanov about GDP. There's a lot of ways to finesse that stuff.
	Russia and Mexico are not on the same level of living standards.
	Agreed.
	I agree with that.
	And then what about you guys?
	What makes you think that Russia is suffering more from the sanctions than NATO is?
	I mean, we're having energy issues all over the world.
	I don't know if it's just the sanctions on Russia that are dealing with that.
	My understanding is the cost of energy has come down pretty significantly in Europe in some ways, too.
	I think natural gas is about where it was prior to the conflict, I think.
	I'm pretty sure Russia can say that GDP means nothing.
	Maybe to Russia it doesn't.
	They didn't say nothing.
	I don't think quoting GDP would be like, that's the economy.
	There's a lot of other factors to judge the economy.
	But it's also the wealth that the government has with which to fight a war.
	Their war chest is a taxation of GDP. That's why I bring that number up.
	It depends.
	Like, also, I don't think, like, we have an enormous military expenditure, more than, like, the next 40 countries combined or something.
	Just so you know, it's 800 for us, and then 290 for the next is China, then after that is Russia at 80.
	But how cost-effective is a lot of our military gear?
	Like a lot of these Lockheed Martin products.
	I mean, you're talking about a half billion dollar F-22 Raptor, a Sidewinder missile.
	Should it be that price tag?
	It's a really great question.
	And so part of the reason why we've been able to take away some of that cost is because we sold 200 F-35s to NATO. Yeah.
	Yeah, I was going to say, when we say, is it worth that price?
	The rest of the world seems to think so, because everybody wants to buy our F-35s.
	It's a very highly in-demand plane.
	So it seems to be that everybody else in the world agrees that it's an incredibly cost-effective weapons platform.
	Maybe some people don't.
	Maybe Russia says it's not.
	But Russia, again, they also said they have hypersonic missiles, which are being intercepted by Patriot missile systems.
	So apparently that's not the case.
	They blew up the Patriot system in Kiev.
	So here's the thing.
	They might have blown up one of them when they launched, what, with the six missiles at once, I guess?
	Such a great point.
	Those missiles shouldn't ever be intercepted, though, by...
	If it's a true hypersonic missile, which it's not, right?
	So let's talk about this.
	For those of you who don't understand, Patriot missile battery, it just fires anti-air.
	It takes on missiles from the opposing side.
	But it's ballistic.
	It's kinetic.
	It doesn't have a warhead in it.
	It just goes through it.
	In this case, what you're talking about, the Russians said they shot down...
	They damaged one of the Patriot missile batteries.
	I think Ukraine said they had it online that day.
	Yes.
	And...
	And the Americans and the US, the Western media agreed that that's what happened.
	That's why I actually trust what I'm hearing more from them than what I hear from Russia.
	Because what I hear from Russia is that they have hypersonic missiles.
	And then when they don't work, they arrest three of their missile scientists the next day for treason.
	So to me, this just feels like from a military standpoint, if you want to make a moral standpoint, I can understand.
	But from a military standpoint, this just feels like one cataclysmic failure after another.
	Okay.
	I'll even critique Mike because you kept saying it was maybe bad statesmanship to say that they weren't going to invade and then invaded.
	I think the initial plan was there was never going to be an invasion.
	It was going to be the special military operation into Kiev and they were going to have Belarus 2.0 and then they could have said we never invaded.
	It was just a thing.
	But that failed miserably so.
	You believe that You believe that Putin believed that he was going to be welcomed coming into Ukraine?
	I just, from what I've read, I guess you're the military analyst guy, from other military analysts, is the readiness of the Russian military was just not where anybody in Russia thought it would be.
	They were undersupplied, they were understaffed, the supplies they did have weren't maintained, and that, yeah, what you had was a bunch of unaccompanied armor, uncoordinated troops that were launching horribly coordinated attacks, which they've gotten their shit together a lot better now, a war into the conflict.
	So there's an FSB report that was released that showed that they didn't know there was going to be an invasion.
	So that goes to your point.
	I've heard the same thing that you're saying.
	I predicted the invasion.
	Got it right.
	Even when a lot of people are like, they're not going to do that.
	Yes, they are.
	I've been preparing for this for a long time.
	Did Trump also as well predict it too?
	I don't know.
	Did he?
	I think we got some rants.
	Chris, should we look at them now or no?
	Or wait?
	Okay, so what I'll do is I'll read the rants and then I think we're good here with, unless you guys have any other disagreements on, it seems like you guys agree on this Russia-Ukraine thing.
	Can we do this?
	Can we all three have predictions?
	Actually, all five of us, can we do predictions?
	Of which thing's going to happen?
	Yeah, I think that, I think because in a debate like this, this is different from the other ones.
	In this, there is a unique chance for us to be extremely right.
	So what do you, you have a prediction, Walt?
	Yeah, I do, actually.
	I think, personally speaking, Russia, they would have to do by going into Ukraine.
	I agree with that.
	However, at the same time, what they did is they caused an issue because now NATO's going to be all on their necks.
	So eventually, they either got to surrender or become part of NATO. And at that point, they're not going to surrender.
	And they've been offered to join NATO before.
	I think during the Yeltsin administration, they did, and they declined.
	They don't want to.
	So I think at this point where it's going, if they don't win, they're going to have to surrender.
	What do you think, Stephen?
	It seems like whether or not Ukraine can retake significant territory is going to come down to whether or not they have the personnel and they've got the supplies and they have the micromanagement.
	Right now they have a really hard time macromanaging all of their different forces together.
	That the Ukrainians don't have that wide-scale discipline and training yet to be able to deploy all of these different weapon systems and make them work in a unified combat sense.
	Assuming that they continue to improve there, they have an unlimited purse from the West, they probably have an unlimited desire in their citizens, because I think Ukrainians want to fight to defend Ukraine probably more than Russians want to fight to do whatever they're doing in Ukraine.
	So I think that, I feel like in a year from now, we'll have a pretty clear picture of what the time horizon is on Ukraine's victory.
	And I think a victory for Ukraine at the least includes recapturing the Donbass.
	I don't know about Crimea.
	I have a hard time believing they'll get that back, but who knows?
	Myron, what do you think?
	What do you predict?
	A year, five years?
	I think Russia is going to hold what they got.
	Ukraine is going to be cut in half.
	Well, not half.
	I mean, yeah, roughly.
	It's like 15%.
	The entire eastern part of Ukraine will belong to Russia.
	Chris, if you could show that map so that people could have an understanding.
	I think they're decisively winning the war, slowly but surely.
	And I think that at this point, Ukraine isn't going to be able to regain the lost ground, you know, from the east.
	Just as you guys see, that is before the war.
	And then there's the initial invasion.
	You see all there.
	Sumi and Kharkiv have been taken by the Russians.
	And then this is the counteroffensive down there in the bottom left.
	So Kharkiv and Kyrgyzstan have been taken back by Ukraine.
	And then this is where we are currently right there with Bakhmut being taken by the Russians.
	Mariupol is like far...
	A lot of people talk about the Mariupol thing.
	Mariupol is far inside of Russian territory.
	A Russian or, you know, Russian taken territory.
	I don't think Kharkiv was taken.
	It was surrounded.
	Sumi was taken.
	Kharkiv was never in Russia.
	There was a commander in the Russian forces who put out an evacuation order.
	That's all I know.
	So again, we have the fog of war, but I've read a report that it was actually taken.
	And then you guys give your predictions that we're going to switch over to 9-11.
	What is your prediction?
	I think they'll hold to Donbass.
	They'll take Lehman.
	They may push up to Dnepr.
	They're not interested in Western Ukraine.
	And Ukraine's going to run out of personnel.
	I don't think the F-16 is going to be a game-changer.
	I don't think Ukrainian counter-offensive or offensive has been successful at all.
	They're getting...
	You know, they could sharpen their discipline and be better at hybrid warfare, but Russian artillery has proven to be the king of the battlefield and Ukraine doesn't have an answer for it.
	Yeah, I think Russia, I think Ukraine is going to have an answer for artillery.
	I think they're going to have just as many pieces as the Russians are.
	My whole issue is this.
	I think the only way this ends is at some point Putin is no longer the president of Russia.
	If that doesn't happen, then there's always going to be some level of conflict at this area.
	If he was taken out, it would change everything.
	And I think there's a high probability that they do things.
	They have what's called a Russian election where they push you out of a four-floor window.
	I think some...
	And I'm not...
	I'm not hoping death on anybody, but if he leaves the country, if he goes somewhere else, I think what happens is the cost of this war and the unpopularity of it in Russia immediately, whoever the new leader is, starts to secede certain areas of Donbass.
	Crimea, you're right, that has way more to do with their hold over the Black Sea, but I also disagree with the two of you.
	I 100% believe they intend on trying to take Western Ukraine.
	I think that they want to have a revolution in Ukraine.
	What's the other country?
	Moldova.
	And in order to do that, they're going to have to connect those two pieces.
	So they're going to have to...
	Transnistria, I mean?
	Yeah, Transnistria.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	So I think they're going to try to start something there.
	And in order for them to do that, they're going to have to push further west.
	And I think one of the problems is because of the way Putin gained power and because of the popularity of his annexation of Crimea, the unpopularity of this combined with any kind of loss is...
	In Russia, they don't have peaceful transfers of power.
	I mean, I know between Yeltsin and Putin they did, but I think he's, in a way, fighting for his life.
	And so because of that, I think they can't quit.
	They can't stop fighting, no matter to the point where it gets irrational.
	I think they can't.
	And the other problem, what I said before, is while you're saying that they have a personal problem in Ukraine...
	On the Russian side, they have a materiel problem because China is no longer going to supply them with stuff.
	Now, they can still get artillery shells from Iran.
	I think South Africa, there's a couple other countries that can give them the artillery shells.
	But the problem is, like I said before, this is going to be a serious, serious problem.
	And I think the ultimate ending of this thing is going to be the end of the Putin administration.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So I'll read these rumba rants, then we're going to transition over to 9-11.
	Okay, guys?
	And what do we got here, Chris?
	There we go.
	One second.
	All right.
	Okay.
	So we got here.
	Myron Stein goes, Massad has Chris compromised.
	Get him with a big honey trap name.
	Miriam.
	Easy blackmail.
	He couldn't resist.
	Stay safe.
	FNF. Got you, bro.
	Various layers goes, have a great evening, gentlemen, and keep up the great work.
	CEO Network.
	Cool.
	Shout out to you, bro.
	Shout out to the CEO Network.
	Abortion survivor.
	Meep.
	Okay.
	Appreciate that.
	P1 Dizzy goes, shout out to Dawson University.
	Also grab a 9-11 anthrax timeline map here.
	Okay.
	And then we got the link below.
	Go ahead and check and get one of those maps.
	Make less than he out his phone.
	Put his phone away.
	Demetra Demma goes, Hey Fresh, I got your DM. You should send me the Columbia vlog footage for me to edit.
	So by the end, you are out of YouTube jail.
	You got the vlogs edited and ready to go with thumbnails.
	Is that the same guy from before?
	Yeah, I got it.
	And then LiveInReality goes, Does anyone on this panel have tattoos?
	I don't think any of you guys do.
	What are your reasons for not having any?
	What the hell?
	You don't put bumper stickers on a Bentley.
	There you go.
	Oh, wait!
	What does that say?
	Oh...
	That's pretty funny.
	Okay, that's a strange...
	Okay, what else here?
	That was it, Chris?
	Nope.
	Caught up?
	Okay.
	Shout out to everyone that's been supporting the Tates from day one, unlike someone on the panel.
	Oh yeah, we can talk about that too if you guys want.
	You still think they're guilty, Destiny?
	I think so, yeah.
	Okay.
	I disagree, but that's fine.
	We can move on to 9-11.
	I mean, I think we can talk about that.
	I don't have a problem if we talk about that.
	What's good, FNF Productions?
	Mike, oorah!
	I'm 3-11, Rifleman, X-Fire, Captain, Destiny.
	Ryan D has been thinking about you, my G. I've been at them boys' house about every day.
	They all over.
	Martin Lawrence, okay?
	And then Peter goes, FNF on your final 9-11 series with Ryan, and you mentioned that you will have Scott Ritter and Dawson on the same panel.
	Is that still happening?
	On another note, Ritter vs.
	Sartain panel would be insane.
	Ritter had some family obligations, guys, so yeah, we tried to make it happen, but he couldn't come.
	809, Destiny didn't say, didn't you say that Ukraine was winning the war when you debated Nick last year?
	Yeah, I think that they were winning last year.
	I think they're still winning.
	I think, was it you that said that, like, if you've got an underdog and then a not underdog, if they're even, the underdog is winning.
	And against anybody, Russia would have been against Russia, you're considered the underdog for sure.
	By themselves, they would be an underdog against Russia, but they have all NATO support and American money.
	When the invasion happened, the thought was they would be by themselves.
	That's number one.
	And number two, there's multiple reports that Russia has actually lost more military personnel than Ukraine has.
	No.
	But I think we're forgetting that this war isn't between Russia and Ukraine, between the nations with Ukraine and Russia.
	You bring up a great point.
	It's too bad because we can't talk about that.
	But what is Ukraine's...
	What are the casualties that you're saying?
	Because Ryan disagrees with you.
	There's somewhere between...
	So the confirmed is like 50,000 for Russia and something like 26,000 for Ukraine.
	Confirmed.
	Meaning like they've actually...
	Yes, KIAs.
	KIAs.
	When it goes up, I'll show you the things.
	And then the other one is...
	So you're saying there's more dead Russian soldiers than Ukrainian soldiers?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	Only 26,000 dead.
	Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
	I've seen multiple things, and every single one of them that I've seen shows that there are, other than the Russian sources, it shows that there are more Ukrainians, there are more Russians dead than Ukrainians.
	Like I said before...
	The source I've seen was 150k dead from Ukraine.
	Yeah, I haven't seen that.
	I mean, I haven't seen that.
	But again, my problem is this...
	That's why I was supposed to say we killed 500,000 Iraqi citizens?
	So here's the problem.
	One more time.
	In an invading force, the invading force is going to lose more people than a defending force.
	So if you're saying that, what I saw, the most recent one was 100k loss for Ukraine, 150,000 loss for Russia.
	But again, the fog of war, we just don't know.
	My point is, it's not 26,000 Russians and 100,000 Ukrainians.
	That is not accurate.
	What's your figure, Ryan?
	I don't think it's only 26,000.
	No, no, no.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	These were confirmed.
	This doesn't mean...
	It means they've notified the family.
	I'm not saying that's all the people have done.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	Yeah, confirmed kills while the war is going on.
	Kind of silly because it's so hard to know.
	Totally agree.
	Fog of what?
	My point is...
	Despite looking at how bad their offense has been this summer, the numbers are much higher on both sides than that.
	It's very hard to know, but they did have those leaks that were showing how bad the losses were from Ukraine.
	So I think they've lost over 100,000.
	Yeah, I said the same too.
	I believe Ukraine's lost 100,000 and Russia's 125 or 150.
	If you're scrambling around to get...
	But you're saying 26,000 is confirmed, but you think 100,000.
	No, there's another one where there's estimations that I've seen.
	Again, it's the same thing.
	Confirmed means we notified the family.
	I'm not talking about that.
	I'm saying with the estimations due to the fog of war, the estimations that I've seen, all of them put the lost totals on Russia higher than those on Ukraine.
	Interesting.
	Yeah.
	You can kind of get a ratio by prisoners because you can count those.
	Unless you're Russian, you don't take those.
	They took them in Mariupol.
	Okay.
	They took, yeah.
	Yeah, they take them and torture them in the Donbass as well.
	Then they probably wouldn't get counted.
	Yeah, no, they don't.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	They've had prisoner exchanges.
	All right, so 9-11.
	I guess I'll give a quick little overview, overarching thing.
	Okay.
	As you guys know...
	What happened then?
	We covered 9-11 extensively with Ryan.
	Basically, to summarize, Ryan believes there were three main entities involved.
	Saudi Arabia, deep state America, and Israel.
	Well, Al-Qaeda.
	Of course, as well.
	I'm with you on the Al-Qaeda one.
	I'm not going to disagree with you on that one.
	That goes without saying.
	Obviously, Al-Qaeda as well.
	But all the parties were involved in making this happen.
	I guess I could turn it to Destiny.
	I don't know if you disagree with any of those things.
	I'm basically fully on board, because I watched the new Pearl Harbor, which I understand.
	I don't think Dawson echoes any or very few of the claims on that.
	But I think after watching that, doing research on that, I'm basically fully on board with the official story right now.
	So you go with the 2004 official 9-11 commission?
	Correct.
	That it was only terrorists, no one else involved.
	No controlled demolitions?
	Absolutely not.
	Okay.
	Well, Ryan's not saying there were controlled demolitions either.
	No, no, he's not saying that either.
	So you don't think it was an inside job whatsoever?
	Absolutely not.
	Okay.
	Well, I guess there's quite a bit of ground here.
	What do you, Ryan, do you want to...
	Well, I mean, do you know what my 9-11 work is?
	Don't you generally claim that there were, I think the two that I've heard from you, this is third hand, so I could be wrong, is that one is that people in our intelligence services, I think the FBI and the CIA probably knew that there were terrorists training here to fly, but they either didn't report it for some reason, I don't know, and then the second one is that Israeli intelligence services knew that there was a terrorist attack coming, and they knew it with a great deal of specificity, but they didn't say anything because they were hoping that the United States would get pulled into some Middle Eastern conflict.
	You did say they tried to warn.
	No, they actually did tell the United States, and they didn't act on it.
	Okay, gotcha.
	I've watched a ton of your stuff.
	And I don't feel qualified to...
	One thing I will say that I really do appreciate is, number one, all the Freedom of Information Act things that you did, all the places that you traveled, and the fact that you don't say words like Illuminati or Rothschilds or any of that shit.
	You actually name names.
	I do appreciate the fact that you called out all these people talking about CGI planes and all this other bullshit.
	So I do appreciate that.
	I'm not fully...
	I'm not convinced that...
	I'll give a credit, too, also for not being a flat earther and for thinking that we went to the moon.
	Really?
	That's such a high bar.
	Are you serious?
	He probably thinks that dinosaurs are real.
	There's a lot of overlap between what I call the 9-11 kook movement.
	The airplane deniers and the mini-nukes justification and all that stuff.
	100% of flat earthers believe that.
	There's a huge overlap between...
	Do you think the earth is round?
	Because the people that are saying it's holograms and things like that are usually the ones that are so ghastly or whatever they think The Earth is a pancake or something.
	And it's unfortunate because it's a very, very serious topic because I don't isolate 9-11 just to that day.
	There was an anthrax attack and they were erroneously associated to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
	They claimed that Muhammad Atta, the lead hijacker in Flight 11, had received anthrax in Prague from senior Iraqi officials.
	And that just wasn't true.
	And the anthrax was genetically, physically traced back to labs within the U.S., particularly Dugway and Fort Detrick.
	And so they used propaganda about 9-11 as war propaganda against Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 at all.
	And people my age signed up to join the military.
	to fight Saddam Hussein thinking he had something to do with September 11th.
	Now you can say other stuff about Saddam Hussein, but he was not guilty of 9-11 whatsoever.
	And so, you know, a lot of 3,000 Americans died and you can't talk about this topic without it It's already a tar baby.
	Because I don't use...
	If someone says, are you 9-11 truther?
	I'm like, no.
	Because that label's been so...
	Bastardized.
	Yeah.
	Like Alex Jones-ified.
	That you're like, oh yeah, Larry Silverstein, Ted Pullett.
	You've all heard the Kook stuff a million times.
	And so I can't even get my foot in the door.
	To start mentioning, I can lay out the evidence so you can think whatever you want, but here's the evidence for foreign state involvement with Al-Qaeda or foreknowledge.
	All right, so just to stay focused here.
	So Destiny, you believe in the official story from 2004 with the 9-11 Commission.
	Ryan, I know you disagree with the 9-11 Commission significantly.
	Even some of the people that sat on that board you said had ulterior motives to lie.
	You have to realize, the 9-11 Commission wasn't the only investigation in 9-11.
	The Senate did one, the JAS report, which was much more in-depth than the 9-11 Commission.
	The 9-11 Commission had all this fanfare.
	It was like theater almost.
	Look at this.
	Yeah, Lee Hamilton, who was also part of the Tower Commission for...
	I ran Contra.
	His partner in that was Dick Cheney.
	There's a little bit, there would be room for bias there.
	But the GIS report did uncover the fact that money from the Saudi state was sent through intermediaries to at least two of the hijackers, Nabi Fahazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.
	And that was left...
	It's redacted for a long time, 28 consecutive pages, which was now unredacted.
	I don't know if that's even, like, that important.
	Like, my understanding is that Saudi Arabia funds a lot of bad stuff in the Middle East, arguably.
	A lot of Sunni extremisms, a lot of Sunni...
	There's a name for...
	Jihad?
	No, no, not Jihad.
	Salafist?
	It might have been that one.
	But the...
	Fatwa?
	The idea that some people that were part of the original group of hijackers might have gotten money that came eventually from Saudi Arabia, it wouldn't surprise me if 100% of every group operating in the Middle East at some point is tied back to some kind of money coming from Saudi Arabia.
	That actually wouldn't surprise me.
	So you're saying it might be a coincidence that I think it would be really compelling if you could show that somebody with knowledge of the attacks happening in Saudi Arabia was specifically funding them with the intent to cause it.
	That would be really compelling.
	And not funding other people.
	I think that would also be...
	It's almost like Facebook gives money to the Democrats and the Republicans, and so you're only going to remember one side.
	Yeah, but wouldn't it be a little strange that it's Saudi Arabian intelligence that's doing this?
	Because that's, I think...
	I mean, Ryan...
	Well, it's more specific than that, because...
	These men...
	You said it was the wife of someone who was sending the money.
	Was that it?
	That particular money trail I brought up.
	We need to get an energy drink for Ryan, man.
	I'm sorry.
	I had a 22-hour flight and then like a four-hour drive down here.
	So, yeah, I'll try and ganky up or whatever.
	But they...
	Yeah, Bandar Bush's wife sent it to Muid Nalkat, who was the wife of Omar Bayoumi, who gave it to Osama Masnan and gave it to the hijackers.
	They also rented a house for them, lived with them, logistical support, financial support.
	But the details is, you're right, Saudi Arabia finances terrorists all over North Africa.
	That was my point.
	Yeah, they do do that.
	And the U.S. is aware of a lot of that, and some of them are on the look-away list.
	But the specifics, these guys stayed with KSM at an Al-Khaina summit meeting in Malaysia that we know that they knew about from WikiLeaks and from Operation Encore, as well as Private Manning.
	So cooperated several times.
	They spent the night with KSM, whose nephew was Ramzi Youssef, that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, So the Al-Qaeda operatives meeting with the head, I mean, that's really above, that's the same level as Osama bin Laden.
	They knew they were in the U.S., used the real names, fast-track program out of Jeddah, knew they were going to flight schools.
	Yeah.
	And the FBI was also warned, because you have to put all this stuff together.
	There was an Iranian operative who spied on Afghanistan, who tells the FBI that they're already in the United States, that they're going to use airplanes, that these are the targets.
	Mike Fagelli and others and translators, they squash this.
	It's not shared.
	The CIA doesn't share its information about the Al-Qaeda members that were meeting with KSM with the FBI. They say until August.
	I would argue they never told them.
	But it's not sure the FBI would have sprung into the action anyway.
	And this is...
	Well, that's something, if you could explain, because those are the compelling part.
	Why do you think information wasn't shared?
	So, I think...
	To play devil's advocate, I think a lot of these three-letter agencies are very competitive with each other.
	As petty as that sounds, and you, I mean, you're DHS, like, you would say, like, why wouldn't you do this?
	They're going to attack America, but they want to be the one to get the guy.
	But isn't that negligence instead of nefariousness?
	It's negligence, then.
	I mean, so what?
	Well, that's a conspiracy.
	That's a night and day.
	There's a night and day difference between, like, my child got sick because I... Yeah, I will give you the case of why I think it's more than...
	I just want to give you an example.
	Can you keep up with all the names he's been naming?
	You've had him on here four times.
	If we ask you to recite all the names that he has told you before, could you recite them?
	Not all, but I can go very slowly.
	No, no, it's not about going slowly.
	I want you to consider a federal agent who's underpaid and overworked, who makes $50,000 a year back then, who has a wife at home, and instead of one whiteboard with a couple of guys who went to flight school, there's 50 whiteboards.
	And I have to, if you could show me that there was, this was the only intelligence that they had and they deliberately tried to not look at it, they'd be fine.
	But like, there's just too many threat assessments and there's too many people.
	And we're white Americans generally, right?
	Like these names are not like, oh, it's Jake Tapper.
	It's Dave Smith.
	I don't know.
	That's my only point.
	Could you see negligence happening in that case?
	I can.
	I'm not married to this idea, but it's not just hinge on that one example I gave.
	It's a holistic thing.
	I was kind of agnostic on this for a long time.
	It is the government.
	They could fuck it up.
	Absolutely could be incompetence.
	Had no clue it was coming.
	Should have.
	Here's all these warnings.
	Here's all these clear red flags.
	But it is the government.
	And you'd be amazed at how it's not run the way the TV shows show us with CSI and Law& Order and they're going through forensic evidence and got the DNA and, oh, I found his reflection in this picture.
	Zoom in here.
	It's, you know, most policing is just road pirates and they give speeding and parking tickets.
	And a lot of the intelligence the U.S. lacks is Linguistics.
	And they rely heavily on the Saudis and the Israelis because we don't have enough Arab speakers.
	We don't have enough Farsi speakers.
	And so it's very easy for foreign operatives to hide information or translators that didn't allow.
	I'll give you an example.
	Like there was a blueprints of high-rise buildings sent to Baluchistan by a carrier.
	And when you translate stuff, there's like the verbatim and there's the summary.
	Real estate in New York didn't mean anything until after 9-11.
	After 9-11, you want to go back and say, shouldn't we get the verbatim of this transcript?
	Because they're talking about high-rises in New York and it was sent by a courier, so you don't want any electronic intercepts and stuff.
	This would be something we need to be looking at.
	But They didn't want the embarrassment of that field office making that mistake.
	Nobody wants to own up to any of the incompetence.
	So there's a lot of room to show it could be a series of screw ups on all these different departments.
	It's absolutely possible.
	But Some of the other things makes me lean more towards, no, it's not just incompetence.
	Incompetence is kind of the plausible deniability.
	I feel like, yeah, okay, so I think that the central claim for there to be a conspiracy, because conspiracy means a plan by several people, it can't just be negligence.
	There has to be something that rises to the level of conspiracy.
	Now, if we want to claim that it was conspiracy disguised as negligence, I feel like at that point, our theory becomes even more difficult to defend.
	Because now we're talking about interdepartmental people that we all we already agree that they don't like working with each other.
	The government, the government, the coordination within these departments can be shoddy sometimes.
	Not everybody in the FBI knows everything that everybody else knows.
	Right.
	We're talking about now some sort of plan that is roping together different departments and different members in the department to conceal certain information from other like at that level, the coordination required would just be unfathomable.
	It would probably be the largest U.S., like, past, like, the Manhattan Project, be one of the largest U.S., like, intel projects of all time, except not against a foreign enemy, but against us domestically, which makes it even more difficult.
	Not if somebody else is intercepting your wiretaps when you're trying to police Al-Qaeda and that you have an ally working against you.
	Mm-hmm.
	Can I, I want to find, like, just central things that maybe the two of you can debate, because here's the one question that I had, and your belief is that there was Israeli involvement either through negligence or actually aiding the terrorists in, you said you're not married to that idea, but you believe Well, they were celebrating the attacks, and they were monitoring Al-Qaeda next door to them.
	I heard the Donald Trump speech where he said there were thousands of people celebrating in New Jersey or something like that.
	Well, Donald Trump doesn't know how to say anything without going to the nth degree.
	Everything's the most, the best, the number one, huge, whatever.
	It's huge.
	It was just...
	There are different reports of people celebrating, but the more damning thing is there's a group of guys that were working for a front company called Urban Moving Systems who were celebrating at Doric Towers.
	Three guys who got later, several witnesses see them there.
	This woman, Maria Tepton-Relly, waits till her husband gets home before she gives a report.
	But she's the one that got out the binoculars and wrote down the license tag and things.
	They thought it was weird for somebody to celebrate a plane crash, much less two plane crashes.
	Why would that be funny?
	Why would you be flicking lighters and hugging?
	Why are you excited that a plane just hit a building?
	Chalk it up to immaturity or something.
	You're going to have to start stretching.
	But then, all of them, they get arrested.
	All their timelines are different from each other.
	They're clearly lying their asses off.
	Sivan Kersberg was caught and witnessed at Doric Towers prior to 9-11.
	Yeah, they all have passports to leave the country.
	$5,000 in cash.
	Their owner of Urban Movie Systems Fleas, Paul Kersberg, was flagged.
	They left out a redaction.
	They redacted the Jewish agency, but then in the footnote forgot to redact it.
	You said you reversed, identified one of them that was redacted, but because his name was so long, you were able to figure out.
	Oh, well, okay, so there's Paul and Sivan Kersberger brothers, and then there's Jaren Schmel and Odette Elner and Omer Mamari.
	Is everybody keeping up with this, Walt, these names?
	It doesn't matter.
	Do you see my point?
	This is kind of my point, but just keep going.
	Well, I mean, names are whatever, but the key points that you bring up are very good points.
	No, no, I agree.
	I saw that first thing.
	It was the first one that you guys did together.
	They don't have the names in my FOIA request at all, but the names are all in the regular police report.
	So when the Virgin Daily Record had it, the Jewish Daily Forward had it, and I got the police report, and that has all their names and description, mugshots, and so on.
	And so I did a little Rosetta Stone thing.
	So when saying the brothers, which has to be Paul and Sivan, so, you know, not those two, right?
	And then you can start...
	It's somebody that's already been mentioned.
	They don't keep using the last name over and over again.
	Got it.
	And so through a bunch, it doesn't matter how I figured this out, but you just going through and seeing the statements and you know what they're wearing and so on.
	And I know who was driving because that's in the police report.
	So the driver, that's Sivan.
	So you can start to Process is deduction.
	No.
	Which one said what?
	But even if you didn't, the fact that they're all different from each other, it's weird.
	Everybody knows where they were on 9-11.
	It's like, oh, we were on the East Side Highway.
	Oh, I didn't get to work until this time.
	Oh, we didn't go there until 10 o'clock.
	You're there at Doric Towers based on the Your own photographs from your own camera that was seized in the van, so they know.
	Now, they did change the clock on that by 14 hours, but they were able to tell by seeing a helicopter over the Hudson River and some other things approximately 9 or 8.59 or something like that.
	Let me summarize it.
	Bottom line, there were a group of Israelis that had ties back to Israeli intelligence that were celebrating when the planes hit the towers.
	When the FBI did an investigation and interviewed these people, there were questionable references with their timelines that didn't match up.
	They all gave conflicting stories.
	The CIA records check showed that I think two of them were tied back to the Jewish agency, and then they all had Israeli passports, and they were determined to be leaving the United States shortly after 9-11.
	And then when they went ahead and did a search warrant at the Transfer Moving Systems, sorry, it's called Transfer Moving Systems.
	No, there's Urban Moving Systems.
	They did a search warrant over there.
	When they executed, they found a bunch of computers that didn't necessarily coincide with a moving company.
	And the person that owned it was a guy named Dominic Suter.
	Dominic Suter fled the United States.
	He's officially a suspect in 9-11 by our own FBI, Dominic Suter was.
	That's the summarized version.
	It gets worse, though, because they've got a notepad of these other moving companies.
	There's six of them.
	One of them is classic international movers.
	The Moshe Movers, White Glove, doesn't matter.
	But the Miami field office contacted the Newark office saying that...
	Classic international movers had given logistical support to a 9-11 hijacker.
	I believe it was Omar.
	He was in the ATM photo of Muhammad Atta.
	I got ready to say Omar Bayoumi because I'm tired, but it's a similar name.
	Who's the guy?
	Let's give Destiny a chance.
	That's the summary.
	Destiny, would you have anything to review that?
	So then the argument is that, do you think that these guys knew about the bombings in advance?
	It's not bombings.
	The 9-11 attacks in advance, the plane crash.
	Yes, they knew the terrorist plot in advance.
	So then there's a group of five Israelis that have ties to the Mossad that knew the 9-11 attacks were going to happen.
	And then these guys go out onto a roof.
	Well, we don't know that it's Mossad.
	Israeli intelligence, whoever they are, they're well connected.
	These guys decide to go onto a roof and have a party.
	Knowing everything they know in New York City after the 9-11 attacks, and then that's how we get some key insight that Israel must have been involved beforehand.
	Like, I know that you present the other story that it's so wacky that this guy had $4,700 in cash, and one of these guys fled to Israel, and that is pretty wacky.
	There's some wacky stuff.
	But I feel like none of that is remotely as wacky as the idea that these guys all knew this was going to happen.
	They were like, we should go up and throw a party on the rooftop where anybody can see us.
	They weren't.
	People call them rooftop Israelis.
	But Doric Tower is on a ledge in New Jersey where you can see.
	So they're just in the parking lot.
	And it's hidden.
	There's these buildings and stuff and like a swimming pool and just like a fence and a parking lot.
	Have you ever been to like Hoboken, New Jersey?
	Probably.
	I don't know the building names.
	There's some cities in New Jersey where you can clearly see the New York skyline.
	Sure.
	But my understanding is originally that's where they were seen.
	Weren't they filming on the rooftop?
	No, there's no rooftop.
	So what it is is Maybe it's not a rooftop, but it was an area that could be seen by other people in the city.
	It's like Donut with the Doric Tower, so only people in Doric Tower would be able to see them, and people in Doric Tower did see them.
	Wouldn't that be really stupid?
	Yes, it is.
	Wouldn't it be crazy if the largest espionage act and maybe all of human history was exposed because those guys were doing that?
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's the thing.
	Most people kept their composure and didn't get caught on film, and they almost got away with it.
	If that woman had not called the cops, no one would have known.
	The other people that saw them came forward.
	Yeah, I saw the van there early.
	I thought it was weird because it was parked diagonally.
	It was just facing the World Trade Center.
	It wasn't even parked.
	And they weren't moving anyone out of the tower either.
	Yeah.
	Highlighted maps of Doric and the World Trade Center is also in the van.
	None of the timelines match up, but they thought early in the morning everybody's looking at the towers.
	But these idiots were like high-fiving and it's only three of them, not five.
	The other two get picked up later.
	Do you believe these were the individuals that you also said had put truck bombs at the bottom of the towers?
	I couldn't find anything on that.
	I couldn't put anything on that.
	The evidence on that is...
	Have you heard this?
	The truck bombs at the bottom of the tower?
	I don't think these people had anything.
	I don't think these are crack Mossad or anything because of the way they screwed up.
	It's just...
	They had a party September 10th.
	These people were in their 20s, right?
	You're not going to use young people like that.
	But you had...
	Moving companies had been used to spy on Arab terrorists.
	And art students I can explain later.
	Sure, sure.
	They knew what was going down.
	Something big is going to happen today.
	They're there.
	They had planned where to park, where to view.
	Foolishly enough, they gave each other high fives and flicked lighters and got back and left.
	People saw them do it.
	Wouldn't it be the case that, like, so in this industry, like, two people can know something, four people can know something, but ten people can't know a secret.
	Because if ten people know a secret, everybody knows it.
	This is true in the YouTube world and it's true in the stream world, and everybody will tell you.
	If the 9-11 plot I mean, do we have, like, the occupation of Palestine is not a secret whatsoever, and they openly bulldoze down homes and squat in someone's living room?
	Is it ever on the news?
	Yeah, Palestine shows up on the news all the time.
	The Al-Aqsa Mosque is like, yeah, of course.
	So number one, that is true.
	Number two, that's different.
	These are openly warring.
	If you can hide an ongoing military occupation and annexation and colonization of people, because that's never explained on TV. Wait, wait, wait.
	Who's hiding it?
	Everybody knows about settlements in the West Bank.
	No, they don't.
	They ought to.
	Ask around in the United States.
	If they don't know it, it's because of ignorance.
	Not because of lack of reporting.
	Every time Israel has gone in and shot missiles into Syria, it'll be in the written news.
	It's never on TV. There's never a talking head that said, yeah, they just attacked.
	We're getting lost.
	I'm not talking about what an average person that only browses Facebook sees.
	I'm talking about how many people and how hidden is a particular thing.
	Would you agree that the settlements in the West Bank aren't hidden?
	That's not hidden.
	You can't hide the settlements in the West Bank any better than they're hiding it.
	If they go down and smash a few houses today, it's not going to be on TV. If they shoot a missile into Syria tomorrow, it's not going to be on TV. If Syria shot a missile into Israel, it would be on TV. But can we agree that the media is controlled on some level?
	No.
	And they don't want to show this?
	Not like this, no.
	But I'm saying that there's something fundamentally different between nobody knowing about the West Bank and nobody knowing about the largest conspiracy theory of all time.
	No, look, you'd think, I wish I could believe that, but...
	Like I said in the beginning with the anthrax, they lied and said Iraqis gave anthrax to Al-Qaeda.
	They never came back later, clearly, and said, yeah, that wasn't true.
	And William Sapphire's report on the chemical weapons under the palace, that wasn't true.
	The yellow cake uranium from Niger, that wasn't true.
	All the different lies they used about weapons of mass destruction, they never came out.
	They said, oh, we didn't lie.
	We just made a whole bunch of mistakes.
	I think, no, you lied.
	And the Nazir forgeries is a good one, because that's not something you can blame on a screw-up, because you have to have someone's signature who was no longer there, obsolete military SEALs, messed up the dates, and Gor Bonifar and Michael Ledeen come up with this crap.
	But all the rhetoric about Iraq was on TV, all the propaganda was on TV, all the lies were there.
	Yeah, but that's also one of the most, that's like the worst example because now everybody in the world talks about the monumental failure of the United States government manufacturing reasons to go into Iraq.
	We all know about the Office of Special Plans.
	We all know that we didn't find WMDs.
	I wish they all knew about the OSP. No, no, no, stop.
	You're dancing around that.
	Not at all.
	People know that there weren't WMDs in Iraq because they couldn't go there and say, look, we found them, here's the WMDs.
	They don't know the history of the Office of Special Plans.
	Sure, they might not know, but I can go on Wikipedia and look it up.
	It's not a secret.
	I can go on Google and Google it and find 52 websites that are talking about it.
	You can Google about the anthrax and know that that didn't happen either.
	But I can't Google about the 9-11 plan that was so wide open that even random 20-something surveillance people in the United States knew about it and then were caught because they were throwing a party that they planned in advance.
	That, like, the level of coordination and the tendrils that must have been flowing to so many different people for these three to five guys to know about this plan, for them to know about it, and nobody else to have come out or said anything?
	Say it to who?
	To leak to have another party.
	I don't know, to leak it to a friend, to tell a wife or a husband to come out and be a whistleblower, to have it revealed in some other intelligence, to have it leaked or hacked by Iran that's engaged in cyberterrorism.
	Iran would have a big incentive to reveal this.
	Russia would have a big incentive to reveal this.
	China.
	So many people would be invested in exposing this very real conspiracy that was so widespread.
	Even these random 20-something-year-olds knew about it.
	I just can't.
	That's so hard to believe.
	Yeah, it's hard to believe, but that's how it was with Iran-Contra.
	That's how it was with a lot of conspiracies.
	That's how it was when Israel stole uranium from the United States.
	I mean, you had an ally steal nuclear material.
	Hardly anybody knows that happened.
	Was it really stealing?
	Yes.
	You're talking about Los Alamos or you're talking about in 67?
	No, I'm talking about NUMAC in Apollo, Pennsylvania, where they took highly enriched uranium and sent it to Israel.
	Damn.
	Do you have anything else?
	Israel constantly can do almost anything in the United States.
	They spied on Donald Trump with stingrays.
	No, no, no.
	You're conflating a lot of different things, okay?
	We have to look at where the incentives are and how people would act.
	Israel stealing nuclear secrets from the United States is not good, but the United States is probably going to feel a lot different about that than Israel being complicit in a terror attack on U.S. citizens.
	Those are two very different things.
	I am talking about the coverage of it.
	I mean, if anybody else has stolen nuclear material from the United States, it wouldn't stand.
	That's probably true.
	But again, I'm saying where the incentives lie, it's obvious that even if it's a bad thing, why the United States wouldn't attack arguably its most treasured ally in the Middle East, we can understand that without there needing to be a nefarious explanation of the U.S. side.
	And we can understand why Israel would probably want to acquire nukes as well, given how...
	I'm saying that for Israel to have knowledge and to be basically complicit in a terror attack on U.S. citizens for so many people in intelligence to know that and nobody has leaked or whistleblown, nobody's known about that?
	That's impossible.
	Well, it's not nobody.
	I mean, they just classify all the information.
	It was hard for me to get the information that I got.
	It took almost 15 years.
	Damn.
	They're not forthcoming with this kind of stuff.
	But we wouldn't rely on the government.
	We would rely on a leaker or a whistleblower or somebody.
	Because you acknowledge this would be the grandest plot in probably all of human history.
	I think...
	Well, we did get whistleblowers and leakers.
	Like I was saying with Private Manning, that's how we learned that the CIA did know that they bet KSM. Like, they were hiding that until then.
	Yeah, but we didn't get any nefarious leaks, right?
	An error in intel probably occurs more than anybody, or maybe you might know about it, but probably more than any of us know there are errors in intel.
	But that's not a nefarious plot.
	And even at the beginning of this, you said it might be that maybe the FBI and the CIA dropped the ball and they screwed up on some things.
	So your stance is you don't think Israel was involved because it would have been too much of a ridiculous task to be able to keep that a secret that they were involved in the worst terrorist attack.
	It wouldn't, like, just on its face from what I know of 9-11.
	If somebody were to say that there were some people in the Israeli intelligence that might've had an inkling that something was coming and they decided not to share it or whatever, I might be able to believe that.
	But if you're gonna tell me that so many people in Israeli intelligence knew that it had gotten to random 20 something year olds in the United States, by that point, everybody would know.
	All of US intelligence and all of Five Eyes would know.
	Who knows who else in the Middle East would have an idea.
	There's no way that these guys would know that everybody else would know. - And it's just like saying, well, you know, Al Qaeda did this 20 guys and kept it secret Nobody else knew.
	A lot of them did know.
	There was a lot of information that showed that this plot was coming and nothing was done about it.
	And after the fact, they don't want to embarrass an ally.
	I mean, Israel...
	Has the ability to intercept telecommunications.
	They were following the hijackers around.
	They claimed that they did warn the United States and nothing was done about it.
	There's the O2Go Messenger, this Israeli messenger, where people were warned not to go to work in the World Trade Center before and came forward and did tell the authorities, hey, I got messages telling me not to go to the World Trade Center from this Israeli messaging app.
	It's kind of like AIM back in the day.
	And people did say all these things.
	It didn't matter.
	They wanted war of the rock.
	And where did the bogus intel come out saying they met in Prague?
	It came from the Israelis.
	Israeli security forces said they witnessed a transfer of anthrax to Mohammed Atta from senior Iraqi officials.
	They couldn't have because there was no meeting in Prague.
	And then the notes said, death to America, death to Israel.
	And it all gets blamed on Stephen Hatfield for a while and then Bruce Ivins that he killed himself or was suicided before there was ever a trial.
	And no one seems to be interested in saying, well, aren't you mad that the Israelis and Czechs said that they witnessed this meeting when there was no meeting and Al Qaeda didn't have anthrax?
	And turns out Iraq didn't have it either.
	But that dovetailed with another lie about mobile weapons labs from Judith Miller, who that's the one making this stuff.
	And Colin Powell goes to the UN and says, well, they're in violation of UN Resolution 1441, superlates a can of WMDs.
	He holds up a vial of anthrax.
	Like, the whole case came down to this bogus intel from the Israelis.
	Now, we all know today that Iraq didn't have WMDs, but you know what people think?
	They think, oh, they just lied about WMDs because they want to go to Iraq and get the oil.
	They do not say that the Israelis lied to us about anthrax and da da da da.
	Just a couple things.
	First thing is the whole idea of Bradley Manning.
	You call him Private Manning.
	I know why.
	It was Bradley Manning when the leaks were made.
	I was in the military when it happened.
	This is not my podcast, so I'm...
	No, no, you understand.
	So just for those of you who don't know, Bradley Manning is now Chelsea Manning.
	It used to be private Manning.
	That's the reason why the Cipronet computers in the SCIFs all over our country and our bases don't have USB ports anymore specifically.
	Yeah, but just to keep things focused, do you guys have a disagreement with anything he just said?
	As far as he listed a bunch of things.
	The coincidences as to why there was...
	Foreign involvement from Israel.
	This actually is my point.
	My point was it's hard to keep a secret.
	Bradley Manning is proof of that.
	Julian Assange is proof of that.
	So that goes kind of towards his point.
	It's like once you have, it becomes exponentially harder to keep the secret the more people there are.
	I agree.
	It is hard to keep a secret and it wasn't kept a secret and it doesn't matter.
	It didn't matter about the WMDs either.
	Lots of people, I was saying they don't have WMDs because if they did, they would provide evidence for it.
	They never did.
	Also, I think there's a big problem where, and this is always, it's really hard to keep up.
	It's always been my criticism of Ryan is that there's like five or ten different things we have brought up, but all of them are kind of half true.
	So that is really a messaging app that you brought up.
	People weren't told not to go into the World Trade Center.
	There were a couple Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv that got anonymous messages two hours before the terror attack saying a terror attack would happen somewhere.
	They didn't even report that to their employer until the terrorist attack in 9-11 actually happened.
	So it's not like all these Israeli people got messages on their cell phones saying, don't go to work.
	So that was completely not true.
	No, there were people in New York.
	Now there might be others, but I think that specifically we just made is totally not true.
	I don't know every single other claim they've made.
	I mean, they just made up a claim and then attacked the straw man.
	I'm about to talk about people in Tel Aviv and talking about people in New York.
	Yeah, but you mentioned that Israeli messaging app.
	The two messages that came to the Israeli messaging app, they had an anti-Semitic slur, they were in English, and they were delivered to two men in Tel Aviv.
	And they didn't even report that message to their employer.
	And that's a story you just looked up right now on your phone.
	As opposed to a story that you just made up that has no source for it.
	The fact is a fact.
	I know you can be upset that I can fact check you, but it's just not true.
	You said it's a lie.
	It is true.
	I'm not lying.
	Why would I look it up if I were to look for that story?
	Hold on.
	Okay, so...
	Sorry, Ryan.
	Go ahead and rebut back to that.
	I mean, I think we should just get rid of the damn phones.
	It's like...
	I'm fine with that.
	There's gonna be...
	I mean, he doesn't have a point.
	He doesn't have a point.
	Wait, why would you say that?
	I mean...
	If he wants to look anything up about Ukraine, Russia, or whatever, you feel free to.
	At the end of the day, we should only be here in service of the facts.
	We want to debate our egos.
	I mean, like, we can...
	No, I don't have...
	Memorize, like, the most conspiracy theories.
	But, I mean, you spent, like, 20 years working on this.
	You should be, like...
	Because I came here from Asia.
	My phone doesn't work in the United States.
	You can use mine.
	You can look up something.
	It just becomes a war of Googling.
	Wait, why would a war of Googling matter if the facts are on your side?
	Because it's not.
	You could say there's a whole bunch of...
	Apologists make excuses.
	And I'm just going to spend the whole day going, yep, I've heard that.
	No.
	I know exactly what you're going to say.
	Same thing with the whole Israeli-Palestine conflict.
	They go, oh yeah, well, we're the only democracy.
	They have all this Frank Luntz talking points and stuff.
	And it's like, what I'm saying doesn't hinge on what you think it hinges on.
	What it ultimately ends up hinging on is 15 loosely connected stories that when you start to look at every single one, it's like, this is probably a coincidence.
	This is probably bullshit.
	This is only half true.
	This didn't happen at all.
	It's like the 2007 crisis where you've created these CDOs out of all these bullshit investments, but somehow you think it's a really good one because you've got a lot of them together.
	If we were to ask for, what is the smoking gun for the 9-11 attacks for Israel knowing about that?
	What is the smoking gun evidence?
	Or is it just like there were guys dancing, there was messages on an app, some guys didn't go into work?
	Because this is the evidence for the largest conspiracy of all of human history.
	The biggest one.
	Not the biggest one.
	I'm just trying to make sure that we...
	So you're saying that there was a messaging app that notified people that were in New York that terrorist attacks were looming.
	Destiny's disagreeing with that.
	That's just extra evidence.
	Like I said, the more hard-hitting things is...
	Our own FBI saying that this moving company with people celebrating and they're all Israeli and it's run company and their timelines don't match up.
	If they were just dancing, you could chalk that up to immaturity or something.
	But when you've got five different timelines of them all lying about where they were when the attacks took place, denying that they were there, then it starts getting, ah, your story's not adding up.
	Then when you find out from the FBI saying, yeah, did you know one of these moving companies actually took a hijacker from Florida to New York?
	That's pretty bad.
	So it keeps adding up.
	Well, I guess it's probably not true.
	It is true.
	But if I look it up, he's going to get triggered, so I don't want to...
	I showed the FOIA report on his show in Highlighter.
	To summarize, FBI Miami had information that one of the hijackers utilized the moving service, the same moving service that these guys were caught working for, the dancing Israelis.
	It was the same moving service.
	And that alone is like, well...
	And I saw the 302, the FBI report on that.
	Can we try something where the two of them could kind of come together?
	It was the idea that this was a preemption by Israel for us to invade Iraq.
	I mean, I don't have a stake in it.
	Israel's guilty of so many things, you don't have to start making stuff up.
	I'm mad that they lied about Iraq.
	That alone, if you think all the 9-11 stuff, whatever.
	I've got to answer your question about the truck thing.
	All the 9-11 stuff aside, I still think the anthrax attack is part of 9-11 because it says death to America, death to Israel, and 9-11 is on the bottom and so on.
	They straight up lied about that being tied to Saddam Hussein.
	We went to war with Iraq, killed probably 100,000 people or more, and Military occupation for years and longer.
	It was a horrible, horrible foreign policy move, and the Bush administration was hell-bent on it and didn't seem to care.
	They just wanted an excuse, like, give me some pretext to go into Iraq.
	Tie it to 9-11 somehow.
	Didn't really look at it.
	It's not that they made it up.
	But they're like, fabricate, stretch, cherry-pick, but give us a pretext.
	We want to get rid of Saddam.
	But could have the Bush administration wanted to do it and not necessarily had their arms twisted by Jews to make them do it?
	Hey, I didn't say Jews twisted their arms.
	The Bush did want to go to...
	My point is, because this is what I've heard before, and I'm just kidding.
	Let me go back to that.
	Listen, the Office of Special Plan or the Weekly Standard for PNAC, when you go back to like Robert Kagan and William Crystal and stuff, yeah, they're all Jewish neocons.
	Ding!
	Yeah, exactly.
	But here's my issue, right?
	So at the time, we can look at 1990 and 2003.
	Israel, for a lot of people who haven't seen the map, does not border Iraq.
	And Israel didn't make, unless I'm wrong here, did not make Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait.
	When we invade, when we evade Iraq.
	Who did he shoot SCUD missiles at in the first Gulf War?
	Oh, thanks.
	No, he, maybe he did, but my point is.
	Shot him to Israel in an attempt to bring Israel into the conflict.
	Yeah, but my point is, my point is, if you want to talk about, so it goes back to the thing we're talking about with Ukraine.
	They don't have, they had a huge army in Iraq in 1990, but they didn't have a deployable army.
	That's why they could out-muster Kuwait and possibly at the time invade Saudi Arabia.
	My whole thing was, one of the pretexts for us invading, I believed, was not necessarily for us to steal the oil, because you pointed out before we didn't steal the oil, but the idea of one megalomaniac controlling all the oil fields in Iraq and all the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, that would cause massive destabilization.
	Yeah, some on the tap, some on the tap.
	It's a Chomsky argument.
	But that would cause massive destabilization for the country, our country, that is more dependent on petroleum than any other country in the world in 1990.
	And so my issue is, doesn't it feel like us invading Iraq benefits Saudi Arabia, who couldn't defend themselves, and Kuwait, who clearly couldn't defend themselves, as opposed to a country with M1 Bradley tanks, F-15s, F-16s, and a nuclear arsenal that doesn't even border Iraq?
	Do you see what I'm saying?
	That's my issue.
	Saudi Arabia, absolutely.
	It benefited with the war in Iraq, too.
	And Saudi Arabia's fingerprints are also all over 9-11.
	But I'm saying, okay, so if you want to say that, that's fine.
	But what I'm saying is, maybe you're not making this argument, but the idea that the pretext for us to go to war was something, was an Israeli plot to make us go to war and that we wouldn't have gone anyway.
	That's the only question I'm asking.
	One of the pretexts for the legal reason for the invasion of Iraq was that they were in violation of a UN resolution.
	Mm-hmm.
	And one of the WMDs that they supposedly possessed was anthrax.
	We gave them something.
	I'm genuinely asking this question.
	We gave them certain weapons, right?
	When they were fighting with Iran.
	Well, we gave them agricultural pesticides.
	Okay.
	But yes, we gave them mustard gas.
	Okay.
	So if we gave them mustard gas, what I'm saying is then they would have had a weapon of mass destruction that we gave them.
	And I think part of the issue too was, wasn't Saddam Hussein not allowing investigators to come into the country to actually verify whether they had disabled weapons or not?
	They did have WMDs prior to the first Gulf War.
	So they had the stuff we gave them, but they lost that war.
	And the weapons inspectors did go in and did verify that they did not have WMDs, specifically anthrax and mobile weapons labs.
	We know that's not true.
	And the Israelis said they witnessed this transfer anyway.
	And then when the notes said death to America and Israel, just added that in there.
	And it's from whoever did it, knew the location.
	They made a very bad screw-up because, and I'm not going to, I don't want to steamroll this.
	If you look at the timeline for the anthrax, There's notes in there that said, death to America, death to Israel, get penicillin now, whatever.
	There was also hoax anthrax sent to Judith Miller, who's a W&D architect.
	She said 1993 bombing was a rock.
	She said Oklahoma City was a rock.
	She's a rock, a rock, a rock.
	She's dating Louis Leibowitz, was a lawyer for the Mossad, Chinese chief of staff, da-da-da-da.
	Very tightly, tight relationship, Zionist.
	She gets hoax anthrax, and the note in her anthrax was the same as the note sent in real anthrax to Tom Brokaw.
	They sent two letters to him.
	They also sent Patrick Leahy, who had the Leahy Amendment, which would forbid military aid to Israel, and to Daschle.
	But anyway, they said, oh no, that's a copycat attack.
	Whoever sent this hoax anthrax to Howard Roxler and Judith Miller, that's just, they saw the news and copied it.
	The problem is that it was mailed before there was any reporting of the other letter being opened.
	The other letter wasn't opened as quickly as maybe as soon because all the planes got grounded on 9-12 and then mail was hectic as hell and mixed in bags and so on.
	And so they're both mailed on September 18th.
	One doesn't get, they don't get opened until October, but it could not have been a copycat letter because they would not have been able to know what the contents of that mail was until after it was opened.
	So why would Al-Qaeda send Judith Miller fake anthrax and send, who's once wore the rock and all that, and send real accelerated anthrax?
	It had a, um, A catalyst on it.
	What I'm curious is, Destiny, do you believe the anthrax part of the story that it came from Al-Qaeda?
	I don't know enough about the origination of anthrax.
	The government doesn't say it's from Al-Qaeda.
	They said it was from Al-Qaeda in the beginning.
	But then when it got genetically traced back to U.S. labs, they don't think Al-Qaeda stole it from the labs.
	They blamed it on a worker named Bruce Ivins.
	Okay.
	He dies, Tylenol overdose or something, kills himself, they say.
	Maybe.
	Maybe he got Epstein, who knows.
	Yep.
	But After he died, post-mortem, they showed he didn't have the equipment to do the gain-of-function research on anthrax.
	What's really weird is missing samples of anthrax from Fort Detrick were taken in the 90s, in December 92, January 93, somewhere in there.
	That lab had a click in there of...
	Zionists.
	Who were attacking a co-worker named Ayat Assad from Egypt.
	And ridiculous stuff.
	They put a blow-up camel with a dildo in his locker and just racist stuff and stupid things.
	Somebody sent a letter to the Justice Department while these antifax letters were being sent around blaming Assad again.
	Going, oh, that's that guy.
	That guy wasn't even working there anymore.
	And they cleared him.
	But he said from the details of his life and stuff in the letter, this is from this group that used to harass me.
	One of the guys in that Camel Club harassment clique was named Philip Sack.
	He had been fired from the lab from all his antics.
	However, this is mind-blowing.
	He was allowed back in.
	He would go in at night.
	Miriam Ripley, he's a Confederate, let him in the lab and do gain-of-function research on anthrax.
	The guy who's been fired from the lab continues to come back to the lab and do this work that's now illegal.
	And yet, and then there's 23 missing samples of anthrax.
	And they didn't go and question him first.
	Hey, you got caught on camera entering the lab when you're not supposed to.
	Somebody took anthrax, probably the guy...
	How did they know they were missing anthrax samples?
	Because the administration changed, and I forget the person's name now, but the new head of that kind of security goes through and did an audit of the things they're doing gain-of-function research on, and they have these missing samples of anthrax.
	If there was a group of people in there that were letting him in to do research, ostensibly for a future terror attack, why wouldn't they just delete the records?
	Well, I don't know how many records they would have deleted or not, but they can't reproduce anthrax.
	Like, if anthrax is stolen, then they'd have to go get other anthrax from somewhere else to replace it.
	They did not know that the new head was coming in.
	They did not know that.
	It seemed like after 93, there was supposed to be a follow-up biological attack, just like 9-11.
	But the 1993 troll-titter bombing was so screwed up that Van was in the wrong place.
	It didn't do the effect.
	I mean, it killed people.
	It was awful, but it didn't knock one tower into the other, which was the plan.
	But a lot of the people involved escaped.
	Ramzi Yousef doesn't get caught until the following year from any attack planes in the Philippines.
	His uncle is the main plotter of September 11th.
	And after the American shooting, they found documents in plain Arabic, not even in code or something.
	And it's like no one read them.
	Everything was there, the names.
	They couldn't have gotten everybody right away.
	So this is why I think, again, I was like, well, maybe it could be.
	Maybe they are that incompetent.
	It's totally possible.
	It's also possible that he already knew.
	And they didn't have to look through all those.
	And they screwed up.
	They botched the attack.
	And so they let them, or somehow they got at large.
	That's when he tried to bomb a plane in Japan.
	He gets caught.
	But they had the bajinka plot there.
	Ramzi Youssef had a plan for New Year's.
	To take 16 airliners and ram them into targets all over.
	And 9-11 almost had five planes.
	One of them got grounded.
	Flight 23 was grounded that day.
	And the people somehow escaped through the police, tried again on the 13th, and 10 of them got arrested.
	So there was going to be some other target.
	Destiny, do you have anything for that?
	Because I know you're giving the whole kind of background.
	I don't know, like, the uncles of the guys that ran an anthrax lab.
	I don't know.
	I mean, it's really hard.
	Okay, so the guy that blew up a rider truck in the World Trade Center in 1993, his name's Ramsay Youssef.
	His uncle is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
	Okay.
	That's the partner of Osama bin Laden.
	Okay.
	That orchestrated the 9-11 attacks.
	Do you have, just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with the invasion of Afghanistan to try to get Saddam Hussein?
	I'm sorry, to try to get Osama bin Laden.
	He sounded like George Bush there for a second.
	I apologize.
	I am from Texas.
	Yes.
	I don't have a problem with getting Osama bin Laden, but I question the motives if that's really all they're doing there.
	There's a lot of opium and Other incentives for Afghanistan.
	And when they get him, 2011?
	Yeah, that's right.
	It would have been, hold on.
	2011, 2012.
	March, April, I think April of 2011.
	We stayed an awfully long time afterward.
	It obviously didn't...
	The coalition building didn't work out too well.
	I think that's why we stayed a little...
	Because nobody wanted to be the one to pull the trigger and then see the whole thing collapse.
	I think that's probably why it happened.
	I think Biden screwed up on the pullout, too, because he should have done it in the winter.
	We didn't finish that.
	So, Destiny, you think it's just coincidences that...
	Maybe some people were in certain places and it's just a coincidence, but you don't think necessarily that...
	I mean, I don't have the greatest history, but I think generally when you're reading about these things, I think usually the sources are better than a guy that worked at a lab that was laying in at night.
	I don't know.
	Usually what happens is anytime there's a loose string of people, when you start to dig in, you find that the timelines don't actually match up like they did or that the mail wasn't as grounded.
	But I don't know the specifics around anthrax now.
	Okay, so you disagree with the Israeli portion.
	Do you disagree that Saudi Arabia was involved?
	I mean, a lot of the funding sources for al-Qaeda ran back to Saudi Arabia, right?
	That's my understanding.
	So if there was a conspiracy that Saudi Arabia was involved, I think that immediately starts off a lot more credible.
	But I mean, like, obviously you still have to build out and get some facts.
	Okay, and then what about as far as, like, American government being involved?
	I super don't.
	It seems impossible.
	So you disagree.
	So you think potentially Saudis, you don't think Israel, and then you think the U.S. government not involved.
	You align more with the official narrative.
	Yeah, I think there's a real incentive for Israel to be involved.
	Like, I'm not going to deny that.
	Like, even if there isn't a shared border, fucking every country in the Middle East is shipping shit to fucking either Hamas or Ezebub that wants to see Israel destroyed.
	So, like, I can understand that, like, Israel has an incentive to, you know, say, fuck Iraq.
	But I think it has to be built from something.
	Ryan, do you have anything for that?
	I mean, he did give some examples of why.
	Well, they clearly wanted war with Iraq.
	I mean, if you trace back each of these lies, it's not coming from oil companies or any of that.
	It's specifically coming from a bunch of Zionist neocons.
	And they're going off the Oded Yanan paper, which wrote all this out.
	And then later, Richard Perl and company come up with the clean break paper.
	And Perl, you know, he's never...
	Like the office special plans, he's the real master of that, not Doug Feith.
	But officially it's in Feith's office, whatever.
	And Pearl was caught as a spy for Israel in the 70s.
	But if you look at each pre-war lie specifically, Anthrax goes back to Israelis.
	The lies about each one of these WMDs are being republished by the Weekly Standard from the Project for a New American Century.
	And then it gets regurgitated in the New York Times by people like Judith Miller.
	It's like a triangle.
	They're the ones that set up Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National Congress.
	So they would pretty much leak their own propaganda, get it published in the Times, and then quote the Times, which is just their own bullshit, to get over the rock.
	I don't know anything about anthrax, so I can't comment.
	Alright.
	Alright.
	So, what's the conclusion here?
	So, you don't agree that the government was involved?
	I've never seen anything.
	He's never looked at the anthrax, so he can't comment.
	Well, the anthrax is the silver bullet for the 9-11 terror attacks.
	I mean, you're already on huge problems there, epistemically.
	But, I mean, what'll happen is I'll probably dig into the anthrax stuff tonight or tomorrow, and then I'll find out that a lot of what you're saying is half-true, or the timelines don't add up when we are.
	Or maybe they will, and maybe I'll change my mind on some of the anthrax stuff.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I just, I think that, again, this is a huge, we're alleging a huge conspiracy.
	I don't mean conspiracy in the kooky way.
	I mean, in terms of like a big plot.
	And to allege a conspiracy like that, I think there has to be some really compelling evidence.
	It can't be like a few people were in the right place at the right time.
	What about Dick Cheney not saying, don't shoot down the plane?
	Yeah, all of that is bullshit.
	That's bullshit?
	All of that is bullshit.
	Yeah.
	Ron, you have anything for that?
	Norman Mineta testified and others that he was in a POC bunker and did refuse to shoot down the plane.
	But I think Rice and Cheney, his book said he was talking about Flight 93 in Shanksville that the passengers took down before anybody could get there anyway.
	But Mineta and others clearly were saying, no, this is Flight 77 that did hit the Pentagon.
	It was an airplane.
	Thank you.
	It's the degree of a plane in the building.
	We should just do an hour on that, man.
	Dude, I could.
	That would be hilarious.
	This is good, by the way.
	I don't want to get up to pee.
	Can I get another Gorilla Mine?
	Can I get another Gorilla Mine?
	Yeah, we can.
	We don't have this.
	We've got to wrap up here in a little bit, guys.
	It's clear he was talking about Flight 77 because Haji Andro did two passes.
	He came out at too high in altitude.
	And so I had to loop around.
	And everyone said it was some corkscrew maneuver, top gun.
	No, it wasn't.
	It's just a nice, long, miles-long loop so they could get in lower.
	It's not hard to hit the first floor of a building.
	It's just like landing a plane on a runway, except you don't put the wheels down and you don't slow down.
	Yeah, you don't put the flaps down.
	And there's a giant hole in the Pentagon.
	But everybody other than Cheney is saying, no, that was Flight 77.
	And maybe Cheney just Nervous because, you know, they couldn't find rummy bushes.
	To my understanding, they actually did scramble a flight of F-16s that did not have munitions on there, and the intention was if they got close to a building that they were going to ram the airplane.
	I'm talking about Flight 93.
	That's what I understood.
	Well, you know, people think that was shot down, too.
	Look, the passengers took that down, and they should be heroicized.
	Of course, agreed.
	And they're just...
	they're all over them.
	And we, we recovered more from that plane than any of the others.
	We got the black box, which is important because that transcript, you can read it from the Moussaoui trial, the 20th hijacker shows that, uh, Zaid Al Jara was not the pilot, the hijacker pilot of that plane.
	According to the other hijackers, they're using, um, different name.
	And this guy has two first cousins caught working for Israeli intelligence, one of whom, Ali al-Jara, had been spying on Hezbollah since its inception in the 80s.
	And there's Yousef al-Jara as well.
	So it's a weird coincidence that a 9-11 hijacker has family working for Israeli intelligence.
	Can I say, wait, real quick, when you say working for Israeli intelligence, what does that mean?
	He's employed by them, or he was an informant?
	He was an espionage on Hezbollah.
	Was he an informant, or was he an actual member of Israeli intelligence, like a formal...
	He was...
	Ali al-Jara was an actual agent of Israeli intelligence spying on Hezbollah.
	And Yusef...
	I don't know if he was an informant or whatever.
	This has been 20 years.
	So...
	But...
	That's just strange.
	And it's not like he had 200 cousins or something.
	I mean, this isn't 33rd degree cousin.
	Alex Jones would say, this is his father's brother's kids.
	I think we're probably 33rd cousins.
	And he was planning a wedding.
	It's odd, but they did find his passport, so he was definitely on the plane.
	Can I bring up just one thing?
	Because we talked about this before.
	We talk about the Saudi Arabian stuff.
	One of the things about Saudi Arabia is because they don't elect their officials.
	You have a lot of single points of failure and you have a large family and people in the family that spur off have hundreds of millions or billions of dollars individually can travel the world.
	And there's no oversight over them.
	Is it a possibility that this may be included with a member of the royal family and not necessarily intelligence?
	Do you understand what I'm saying?
	Just a spoiled nephew who's like, fuck America.
	It seemed to be Bandar Bush.
	is the one but i mean he's he was the former head of the equivalent of their cia okay so it's not just some pissed off prince or something okay all right But yeah, it could have been, but that's not what happened.
	I was saying there's a lot more single points of failure in that country with multiple billionaires with no oversight.
	I mean, not to say that we have no oversight in this country as well.
	That's why Saudi Arabia is used as a proxy to finance terrorists.
	The U.S. Congress is not going to say, hey, we have a billion dollars to finance Al-Qaeda.
	You can't do that.
	You can launder money through BCCI. You can use Pakistani or Saudi proxies and have them.
	You can set up these attack-free madrasas all over and brainwash people and do this.
	And I understand Al-Qaeda's point of view.
	Watching Iraqi children starve to death, bombing of Beirut and all this.
	I understand why they hate the United States.
	I understand why they hate the Israelis.
	I get it.
	You can't just blow up civilians in New York, obviously.
	But I get how they get to that point.
	I understand it.
	but Saudi Arabia is not financing terrorists with the U.S. just has no idea that's happening.
	There's a bit of collusion there where they, you know, it's okay to finance terrorists in Chechnya or somewhere like if it's within U.S. interests.
	It's okay to finance terrorists or assassinate nuclear scientists in Iran.
	It's okay to release Stuxnet.
	That's an act of terrorism too.
	The U.S. uses terrorism, but they do proxies.
	They used to do it in Latin America, just straight up, very few intermediaries.
	They've got Iran-Contra.
	Oh, I mean, Iran-Contra involved Israel, too.
	And they were selling contraband, but they also used profits from narcotics.
	They were training pilots in Medina.
	And there, again, they screwed up because people got convicted of conspiracy.
	And Anthony Poindexter convicted.
	Ali North got convicted and then started working for Fox News.
	But George Bush Sr.
	commuted a lot of their sentences.
	He was just like...
	Well, yeah, we had this big operation, so what?
	But if you look at the Somoza dynasty that had been diverting weapons to Israel, two in a row, and then supposedly, it's very similar to Syria.
	Publicly, we're against the Contras fighting the Santinistas.
	Privately, it's the opposite.
	They were aiding the Contras.
	You had something, Dustin?
	I understand, to some extent, it's probably hard for us to wag our fingers, or that's all we can do, if other people are funding groups that we don't like.
	I don't even know what recourse we could take against Saudi Arabia for moving money in the way they do without...
	As much as we might not like that they do it.
	They want you to sanction their oil and cut off your own foot or something.
	But it's worse than that because they were brought into a group called the Safari Club.
	After the Yom Kippur War in 1973, they realized OPEC has this oil weapon.
	It's a cartel.
	Saudi Arabia has the most...
	And like you were saying, the light crude, the best kind of oil to use.
	Iraq was number two.
	And there were huge gas lines in the 70s.
	They realized, well, they can't match us economically.
	They can't match us militarily.
	But if this cartel produces production of oil...
	A, it helped the Soviet Union, because then they get to sell more at a higher price.
	And B, you know, we don't have, we were not, like now, where we only get about 12% of our oil from overseas, mostly from Canada, Mexico, and ourselves.
	But not at that time.
	And so, they brought the Saudis in.
	And the Israeli-US nexus already existed.
	They bring the Saudis into the Safari Club.
	They work with Saudi intelligence.
	They help create the freedom fighters in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
	So it wasn't like, Saudi Arabia's just doing stuff and there's nothing we can do about it.
	Although I agree, if they did, there's little we could do.
	But they were working with them.
	They consciously worked with Saudi Arabia to send diaspora fighters into Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, the base, just meant database, to fight Soviet Union.
	And that relationship didn't just disappear when the Soviet Union fell.
	And so they do covert operations all over the place.
	Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, a lot of these things are financed through Saudis and Saudi proxies.
	Now, a new king or a new crown prince could get in and just 180 everything.
	That's how fragile Saudi Arabia is.
	But, you know, when people look at this war in the Middle East as a conflict between Jews and Arabs or Judaism and Islam, it isn't.
	Most of the Sunni states are with it, with the Israelis.
	It's the Shia.
	They want Iran.
	They want Syria.
	They want Lebanon.
	Saddam had the Ba'athist movement, a pan-Arabism.
	That was a huge threat to Israel.
	And like you said, they'll claim Kuwait was angle drilling and da-da-da-da, but there's no way they can allow anybody to arise and break the hegemony that Israel currently has.
	So they were working with the Saudis.
	In the 80s.
	They were working with the Saudis after 9-11 in Syria.
	Everybody knew the GCC was financing Al-Nusr Front, which is now HDS, and Aral al-Sham.
	Now, Hillary and Obama Biden would say, oh no, it's the moderate rebels, the FSA, that's all.
	But the evidence on the ground just shows otherwise.
	With all these brand new Toyota trucks with new paint and We're good to go.
	Okay.
	Let's do some Rumble Rants.
	Yeah, I could read the rants and then we'll go ahead and segue into the next show because we got the guests here.
	We got here...
	And shout out to you guys, man.
	We had over about 20,000 of y'all in here.
	22, 23k around there.
	Do me a favor, guys.
	Follow the channel if you haven't already.
	And everyone on there.
	Okay.
	And all their links are below.
	Ryan Dawson, Destiny, and obviously Mark Sertain.
	Destiny probably thinks it's Oswald acting alone.
	Sartain is a mainstream regurgitator slash CIA, this info specialist.
	This is like forcing the lion to debate the tiger and the donkey.
	Give, send, go.com slash 9-11.
	Yes, guys, go fund the project to get the 9-11 Empire Enmasked documentary.
	Tell me a little bit.
	Mujahar goes, Stephen has never sincerely asked a pro-Pali expert on their position.
	Instead, he asked his Zionist orbiters what the pro-Pali stance is.
	That's why this debate is like Goku Ryan versus Yamcha Steven.
	No.
	I'll talk to anybody.
	I think most of the people that come on my chat tend to be pro-Palestinian because every time I talk to any of these guys that come on, I get a whole bunch of emails from my Jewish fans that get really upset.
	But I don't know.
	Maybe that guy feels like they're not pro-Palestinian enough.
	I'm not sure.
	Okay.
	Hearing Destin make the argument that the CIA couldn't piece together a conspiracy because the people involved had long Arab names is the single most retarded debate moment I've ever seen in my life.
	I think something that I've heard, I feel more confident of this because I've gotten so much feedback.
	And I think most of us here agree with this.
	I think you and you agree with this.
	People have this idea that intelligence, even the name, you've got like 150 IQ guys that are speaking at least three languages that are clocking in in the morning for their like three hours of intense special ops training.
	And then they go like, the reality is a lot of the guys that work in intelligence are super average people.
	They're not, I'm not saying they're stupid, but it's not like these are all crack team intelligent people.
	And there are a lot of intelligence failures that happen sometimes.
	That's true.
	And the idea that there's this massive level of coordination.
	Part of the reason why the Department of Homeland Security is now the large department that took on a bunch of other, is an umbrella for a bunch of other agencies now, right?
	The reason why I believe that organization was created was to foster this more interagency communication.
	That the FBI, the CIA, the NSA all realized we do a really bad job at coordinating with each other.
	That's like a well-known phenomenon.
	And yeah, the idea that like, even people will say like, even the term, as a civilian, it sounds like, oh, the FBI knows this.
	The FBI doesn't know anything.
	Sometimes leadership at the FBI might know, or a certain department might know, just because one guy in the FBI knows somebody doesn't mean it's instantaneously transmitted to every other agent.
	A lot of intel dies on people's desks or on the floors because it's either hard to corroborate, they can't get good information.
	It's a really complicated, shitty, non-perfect process.
	If you work for any military body or intelligence body in the United States, you can get daily warnings on places they think might be safe, might not be safe.
	It's not like a terrorist attack is always happening.
	There's just so much intel and so much information being vetted at any point in time.
	Okay.
	They follow Osama bin Laden and KSM pretty closely.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, but it sounds like it's not long to get him, right?
	same result equal W Dawson.
	Destiny has no inner monologue, so he has to repeat media on his phone and can't understand multi-point conclusions.
	True.
	Okay.
	Send Destiny to the other room with his dick-shaped pillow.
	What the fuck?
	That's in reference to a spoof commercial that Donald Trump handled the media and told MSN to go cry on their dick-shaped pillow.
	Army officer here.
	Just got back from Eastern Europe.
	Sartain, you've lost all credibility.
	You're wrong about a lot.
	I leave it at that.
	That's incredible evidence that you supported there.
	You probably should leave it at that.
	This is the lion entertaining the tiger and the donkey.
	Interesting, man.
	The chat has different opinions.
	Some guys take Ryan's perspective, some guys take Destiny's perspective, Sartain's perspective.
	We need Jimmy Dore and Max Blumenthal in on this discussion.
	Max is an investigative journalist.
	Jimmy has been right on every political issue since 2014 and is a Tucker Carlson contributor.
	Okay?
	And then we got that from Emmanuel.
	Then Altitude goes.
	Destiny is severely out of his depth here.
	Actually do research before getting body next time.
	Okay?
	And then we got Sean F. Long.
	Castle, no phone, no debate.
	Lestiny?
	He has a three or four of the mind.
	Take away the makeup, or in this case, the phone, and it's all clammy, skinny, fat, saline, sweaty, under, tit.
	What the fuck?
	The hell?
	Jesus.
	Okay.
	All right, guys.
	We're going to be back with some lovely ladies here.
	Chris, call it?
	1030.
	1030.
	Cool.
	We'll be back, guys, in about an hour.
	We'll catch you.
	Peace.
	Peace.

▲