All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2022 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
31:22
I DEBATED A NY TIMES REPORTER! Throwback 09/14/21

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more https://redvoicemedia.net/jason https://rumble.com/c/c-1647952 https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas https://theinfowarrior.podbean.com/ https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior https://twitter.com/JasonBermas PayPal [email protected] #BermasBrigade Show less

|

Time Text
United Flight 93 Conspiracy 00:14:43
Hey everybody, Jason Burmes here, and normally I don't have any issues and we'd be triple streaming, but for some reason over at Twitter didn't go through and I'm not sure if we're streaming on Rothfin or not.
Looks like I'm getting an error message.
Who knows?
We're definitely live on YouTube and we'll be putting this up in other arenas as well.
Now, as a lot of you guys know, there was recently not only a New York Times piece featuring loose change, but there was also a podcast called The Daily.
Everybody knows that I don't do these things with mainstream media unless they allow me to tape the interviews.
And I keep my word and hold those interviews if they come on the show.
And Kevin Roos of the New York Times has agreed to come on the show.
I am excited to spend the next half hour discussing a number of issues, both about 9-11 and outside of that with him.
But I would say this, obviously, with the title of this, I do believe he supports a corporate media narrative.
I've looked at some of his other work.
Quote-unquote conspiracies seem to be a highlight of things that he talks about.
But if you want mom and pop shop media, I would encourage people to check out the Quad Cities reader right here, River Cities Reader, where they featured an actual story on 9-11 and not a bunch of hyperbole about how we are the godfathers of QAnon.
Now, Kevin, I do appreciate you coming on, brother.
Out of the gates.
Thanks for having me.
Out of the gates, I'd say that our interview wasn't really one where we discussed the facts of 9-11, correct?
Right.
I mean, that's one thing I wanted to make very clear to you when we started is that I was not there to debate you about this.
My article was, it was really more of an analysis of the legacy of loose change and how it sort of paved the way for a new generation of online media makers to make films that resemble it and a sort of look back at what loose change looks like 15 years later on the on the 20th anniversary of 9-11.
So yeah, I hope I didn't come across to you like I was going to try to debate you on the facts about 9-11 because that was not my intent at all.
No, not at all.
And listen, you were very, very upfront about that.
But where, you know, obviously I would take concern is the fact that like, for instance, you say I'm completely wrong.
Okay, but then you don't want to debate the facts.
If you look at the subtitle of this, how we basically created the template for the current age of disinformation, a legacy that I don't think that we share, of course.
But then you're allowed to make those kind of statements and then we don't debate the facts at all.
And we have to go to authoritative sources like James Meggs of Popular Mechanics, who's constantly used, who I saw appear again and again in the last week or so, with these same debunked talking points they've been giving for 15 years.
You know, I do remember there were two questions outside of 9-11, one that you actually put on the podcast that I'd like to ask you, one of those questions, and then kind of a side question to it.
One, you didn't put this in the podcast, but you asked me, were there questions that we should not ask?
And I kind of reversed it.
I asked you the same question.
You kind of reversed it back on me.
I gave my answer.
What is your answer to that?
Are there questions as a society that we should not ask, Kevin?
I think asking questions is great.
That's part of why I became a journalist because I like asking questions.
I think it's a useful exercise.
I think that where it starts to Become problematic for me is when you have real harms that are resulting from coordinated misinformation campaigns.
I think we're seeing this, you know, we've seen this a lot with, you know, with COVID.
I think that you and I would probably disagree about a lot of the facts there.
But I think, you know, I'm not concerned if people believe in Bigfoot or UFOs.
Yeah, but this isn't about Bigfoot.
These are about issues that are real policy.
For instance, when you say I'm completely wrong, am I completely wrong that Pakistan and the ISI had a role in 9-11, Kevin?
Well, just to back up, I want to just make clear that I don't think we're at total odds about everything here.
I mean, one thing that I wanted to do in the podcast and in the story was to really put Lose Change back in its original context, which, you know, now it's been 15 or 20 years, people forget.
But at the time Lose Change came out, there was a lot of reason to suspect that we weren't getting the whole truth about any number of official sort of narratives.
The Bush administration was lying about weapons of mass destruction.
I talk in the podcast about how there was sort of this atmosphere of mistrust that Lose Change entered into.
And so I don't think, put it this way, I don't think Lose Change came out of left field.
I think it was in some sense the product of its time.
And I'm curious what you think about that.
Well, I would say this, Kevin.
Obviously, I don't believe I'm completely wrong.
And I think those kind of blanket assertions give this air, especially when in your article you talk about things like the protocols of Zion, which obviously go to a racist motive.
I'm not a bigot.
When you talk about QAnon, I didn't say you were.
I know, but again, there's that relation there.
And then, again, QAnon four times.
I couldn't have spoken out more about QAnon.
Now, if we want to talk about questions, you know, is it okay to, you know, look at a Time magazine article from 11 days after and say, wow, these guys said that they found weapons on four separate flights, on Delta flights, on an unnamed flight?
Should I be able to ask the question why United 52 also had people get off it and their luggage the same?
Should I be able to ask the question why, you know, and I played this yesterday, the coroner 20 years later says there were no plane parts at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, along with four FBI agents that were there, you know, on the official FBI thing.
I mean, am I allowed to say that when they say that?
When an FBI agent literally says, I looked to the left and right of me and there was absolutely no evidence of a plane, should I question that?
Because you, you know, ultimately did highlight Flight 93 and the Cleveland scenario.
And, you know, right now, if I'm to pull up.
You want to just remind people what that was?
Because I think it's actually a good example of where we would disagree about methods and approach.
So just so for those, no, no, absolutely.
You know, absolutely.
So for those that don't know, that haven't seen my recent videos, and let me see if we can bring this up.
I've been focusing on Shanksville especially because you basically made the assertion that because I believe something else happened and because Loose Change 2nd Edition had a part of it where there was a theory where United Flight 93 had actually been landed at Cleveland airport as they were landing other, I believe, Delta 1989, I'm a little rusty, was one of the flights that was grounded there.
And that was one that had been reported to have a bomb on it.
Now, the Cleveland thing got us in trouble with a bunch of people.
But as I'm about to show everybody here, this is the official investigation video put out by the PR department at the FBI.
Anybody can go look this up.
And this is basically one of the first FBI agents.
And this isn't even where we get into all four of them saying they saw no plane there.
But the first thing he says is they thought it was coming out of Cleveland.
Got a call about another plane potentially coming all the way that was in distress.
They believed that it was coming from Cleveland and that it may need a land, crash, land at our airport here in Johnstown.
So again, you know, that's kind of one of the pieces of evidence where that stemmed from.
We could get into the ghost planes, the drills, the hijackings that weren't the fact that Cheyenne Mountain did not stop those drills.
Okay, but especially when we talk about Cleveland, maybe, maybe, and again, I had these moments with Dylan.
We shouldn't have included that landing, and certainly I didn't want to.
But when you look at these people, again, what do they say?
Finally arrived out of the scene between two and three o'clock that afternoon.
The plane crashed shortly after 10 a.m.
So we had an NRA out near that site, and they responded initially.
We would have been the first because it's 20 minutes from the office as we drove that day.
I expected to see fuselage, remnants of a plane, which I didn't see anything but pretty much smoke and some fires.
I saw absolutely no signs that an airplane was present, no matter what direction I looked.
You didn't know that a plane had crashed there.
You had a crater, and the initial crater was probably 15 feet deep, but we didn't have big plane parts lying everywhere.
So, you know, to kind of move this along, you know, there's another account, of course.
But go ahead.
Go ahead, Kevin.
No, I want to give you the floor.
No, I don't want to interrupt you.
It's your show.
So, well, I appreciate that.
But for instance, you know, one of my big arguments, and the debunkers always say, well, the debris field was only a mile and a half long, right?
Well, that's the red bandana they found out.
People, this is eight miles away over a new mountain ridge at New Baltimore.
This is one woman that found debris there.
This is a father and his son.
Anybody can look this stuff up.
In fact, CNN reported on it.
This is a map.
Over here, let's bring it up so people can actually see it.
Is the crash and the engine over on this side?
Here's where debris is in Indian Lake.
And the debunkers just go to Indian Lake and say that at the time, Google Maps was an eight-mile drive.
No, the debris I was just showing you was at New Baltimore over here.
So obviously, I do think something else happened there.
I don't think it's disrespectful to ask that question.
But yet, go ahead.
Go ahead, Kevin.
Well, I would agree that knowing what we can about major world events is a useful exercise, and also that details often change as we learn more about what happened.
Eyewitness accounts are often made by people in extreme panic, trying to make sense of something that's just happened to them.
Not often the most reliable.
One of my colleagues actually just wrote a great story for The Times a few days ago about people who had basically invented memories of being in the towers on 9-11.
People have sort of reconstructed memories, memories fallible.
So I think it's good to ask these questions.
The point I wanted to raise by bringing up the Cleveland thing, though, is I think there's a difference in approach between what you guys were doing with the movie and what I and my colleagues do.
You know, you admitted that you thought that the Cleveland theory was wrong and that you didn't want it in the movie, but that it made the movie anyway.
I wouldn't say wrong, but I wasn't comfortable with putting it in for any for any reason.
You know what I mean?
Plausible, maybe?
Sure.
Sure.
But I think now that's been, I mean, I don't know the exact details, but I think that's been pretty conclusively debunked.
I don't see a lot of people claiming that that's the case today.
And so.
But hold on.
Has it been debunked that that plane was possibly shot down?
Because although Spike Lee just recently edited out the architects and engineers in his piece, remember, New York Times did an article on Spike Lee and his documentary series.
And because of that article, he got pressure re-edited the fourth episode.
In the third episode, he talks to one of the flight attendants that knew many of the people that worked there on Flight 93 and is asked outright the question whether or not he believed they overtook the cockpit, basically the Paul Greengrass United 93 version movie.
In fact, the only evidence that we have of these ideas.
The claim was not that it was shot down, right?
It was that the claim in the movie was that it had landed safely in Cleveland.
Correct, but I'm saying that in this article, he was asked outright whether he thought it was shot down or whether they overtook it.
And this flight attendant said shot down.
I mean, is that okay?
Is that okay to say that?
So all I'm trying to say is that I think that, you know, once we know that something like that is not true, you know, as journalists, I get things wrong all the time.
Every day, the New York Times prints a list of corrections for things that we got wrong the day before.
And so that's the journalistic way of responding when you make a mistake is to go back and say, oops, I was wrong.
That was incorrect.
Here's the better information.
To my knowledge, you guys didn't do that.
Well, I would certainly say we did.
For instance, you revised the movie and you edited certain things out, but is there a cut somewhere that says we were wrong about this thing?
Well, I mean, we went on a media tour where we talked about all those things.
And certainly, I've talked about the Pentagon ad nauseum.
I've talked about United 93 ad nauseum as far as the first version.
Obviously, I've talked about some of the other video anomalies ad nauseum.
And again, I always tell people, go to the final cut.
I think it's about as airtight as we can get.
You know, obviously, I stepped away from loose change after that to make a whole nother film where I could go into the international intelligence operation that I thought that was, that was beyond those physical anomalies.
But I'm sorry when the coroner tells me that they didn't recover the vast majority of those bodies in an open field where they didn't find plane wreckage, but they found this bandana.
Okay.
And he says that it's literally a mass graveyard that they basically put topsoil over.
I don't buy that.
Like, how does this survive?
How do the passports survive?
I'm not going to debate you on it.
I frankly don't know enough to debate you on this.
You know a lot more about these things than I do.
I'm just a tech reporter.
So my.
But Kevin, you're not just a tech reporter.
Like, a lot of your stuff encompasses the algorithm of what you believe to be perceived truth.
Sure.
I think, you know, I definitely have a view on whether these things are true or not.
But what I tried to do in the piece is not just look at rehashing all the debates about it, but to look at the broader impact.
And that's where I think we can, you know, agree on some things.
I mean, I really liked your point that you made in the podcast where you said that, you know, one of the outcomes of Loose Change, one of the pieces of legacy there was that it got people questioning authority.
And I, you know, I think there's a fairly direct line from the kind of do your own research.
Do your own research is like the QAnon motto.
Why One Person Legitimately Believes 00:07:00
See, again, that kills me because how is that?
How is something like do your own research, something basic we've told people for decades when we, when, especially when the internet first came out, you know what I mean?
That people now had this ability to go into archives.
In fact, one of the reasons I've been able to find so much archival footage is the Vanderbilt archive, right?
I would go in there and I'd be able to find, at the time, 70 years of mainstream media and go through that.
The C-SPAN archive is another tool of mine.
What is the difference between me going in and watching a three-hour symposium or being there as a reporter?
I don't see much difference.
So I think the different, one of the pieces of difference is what we just talked about about what happens when you make a mistake.
Do you go back and correct it and say, I was wrong, here's the real information, or do you just sort of edit it out of the next version?
That to me feels like a pretty major distinction.
And I'm not sure if I'm not sure.
Hold on, hold on.
I want to challenge that distinction right now because you've also said, you know, COVID conspiracies are on my page.
The only stuff that's ever been censored in me getting a strike for COVID were the hearings in the Senate with Dr. Pierre Corey on a drug called ivermectin.
Now, I have to be very careful because we're on YouTube about talking about that drug because, again, those are where the strikes come from.
But when we're talking about corrections in media, obviously we had that viral story about gunshot wound victims not getting treated.
Now, very few in the mainstream media that reported on that retracted.
The Rolling Stone did, but people like Rachel Maddow didn't.
You know, they're not getting banned.
They're not getting demonetized.
So, this idea that somehow the mainstream media always corrects their stories, I think, is a false narrative as well, Kevin.
Sometimes they do.
And just like I try to correct my mistakes, I'm not perfect.
I didn't think that Joe Biden was going to be the nominee.
I thought that was far-fetched.
And that kind of brings me to my next question outside of 9-11, because you did feature this in there.
I'm happy to talk about whatever you're talking about.
No, I know.
I'm not at 9-11.
We can talk about other things.
Brother, I appreciate you coming on.
You've been very open.
I hope I'm not coming across as a guy who just wants to debate you because I'm genuinely interested in having a conversation.
As am I.
I mean, again, I'd rather have these conversations.
I don't want to talk to people that agree with me all the time, right?
Okay, that's not how you make any progress.
That's echo chambers.
And unfortunately, I think a lot of mainstream media are echo chambers.
Now, when we talk about Biden, for instance, you asked me whether or not I thought that the election was rigged because we had a discussion about January 6th.
I think right now the narrative that's being built with, you know, January 6th and domestic terror and all these things is very dangerous.
You just saw Bush reiterate that at the 9-11 anniversary.
That's kind of how these things intertwine.
But I said, absolutely, I think that the election was rigged.
Now, I've been talking about election fraud and voting machines since 2004.
I believe, again, Kerry beat Bush.
I don't like Diebold.
I believe in one person, one vote.
I don't like fractional voting.
Now, aside from all that, I want to know: do you think Joe Biden runs the country?
Yes.
Oh, my God, Kevin.
I mean, what is literally the president of the United States?
I don't know what you want me to say.
I mean, if that is your truthful answer, no controversial opinion there.
I think that would be a controversial opinion with most Americans, no matter how they vote.
I think I have yet to have one person legitimately tell me they believe that Joe Biden runs the country.
I wouldn't put Joe Biden as my shift manager in a fast food chain to run anything.
He couldn't.
So, I mean, you don't think that that alone as a New York Times writer lends almost zero credibility to anything you would say politically that you think Joe Biden runs the country?
I'm not exactly sure what point you're contesting me on.
Joe Biden is a dementia-ridden puppet, man.
I mean, that's what I'm trying to say.
You think he actually runs policy?
So, are you saying that he's not the president?
No, no, no.
He has that moniker.
I'm telling you that he basically signs off on whatever he's told.
He is not running the country.
I don't think that President Trump, by the way, was quote unquote running the country all the way around.
There were many people around him that were lying to him about Afghanistan, about Assange in particular.
There's another interesting aspect to that.
I think he very much failed on that.
On many things.
I mean, the Soleimani thing, I was against that drone bombing.
Many things that I don't think he was really in charge of.
However, as far as the president of the United States was able to get us out of the Paris Climate Accords, was able to get basically tax cuts for everybody, especially the rich.
I'm not naive on that front.
He had some moniker of running the country outside of, say, the media military industrial complex or the predator class, whatever I would call them.
The conspiracy theorists.
Is there a question in here?
Yeah, I mean, I am shocked that you're legitimately going to tell me you think that Joe Biden runs this country.
He's literally the president of the United States.
What does that mean?
I mean, do you think he's awake?
I'm not saying he's, you know, I would never claim that he or any other president is the only person making decisions that impact federal policy.
But I would say that about any president.
I don't know what you're asking me here.
I mean, I just find it just incredible to think that this guy runs anything.
I mean, do you think he has dementia?
I don't know.
And I'm not an expert on him.
Again, I'm a tech columnist.
You have to have an opinion about that, Kevin.
Come on, man.
You can't.
That's not what I'm talking about here.
I understand that you have a lot of theories about Joe Biden that I'm happy to just sit here and listen while you spool them out.
Is there a question?
I mean, I guess you answered it.
I guess you answered it.
You answered that you believe that Joe Biden runs the country.
And I just think that's more bizarre than what you started the podcast with in your end with lizard people and COVID hoaxes.
Listen, lizard people, very bizarre, Kevin.
No doubt about it.
Not something I ascribe to.
But the idea.
But a lot of people do.
I mean, it's not, you know, it's fringe, but it's not.
You can definitely find all kinds of videos on YouTube about shapeshifting into a lizard, apparently.
But I mean, don't you think a lot of that is exacerbated by pop culture and the history channel and ancient aliens and that type of culture?
Like when you hear that kind of aspect of quote-unquote conspiracy theories of blood-drinking lizard people, right?
I know that's something that you might maybe equate with like Sandy Hook and Pizzagate, because again, those things make it in to the podcast.
That's why I mentioned them.
Mainstream Media Myths 00:08:14
But don't you think that a lot of that is because of the promotion of like the sci-fi culture and this ancient aliens world?
There are all kinds of conspiracy theories in the mainstream media.
Look, I am not defending the entire mainstream media.
I think, you know, we are, you know, saying I don't really know who you mean when you say the media.
Is it just the New York Times?
Well, I mean, I wouldn't say the New York Times at all.
When I'm saying the media, well, when I'm saying the media is the coverage even of the ATIP program in the past few years and these videos that are going to turn on the sci-fi channel, and sometimes I do this when I'm out of town, I don't have cable, but when I'm out of town and I'm staying at a hotel, sometimes I'll turn on like the sci-fi channel, their history channel.
And yeah, they're talking about the Bermuda Triangle or, you know, the disappearance of some jet or the, you know, or ancient aliens.
And like that stuff to me is a little nuts.
And I wish that it weren't being presented as fact.
But I'm, you know, I would say that certain segments of the mainstream media do a very good job of vetting information and certain don't.
It's not a monolith.
Well, I mean, I don't know about when you say that, like you have these leviathans in media that maybe are, you know, whether it's Fox News or MSNBC or CNN, but they're all kind of flavors of the same thing.
There's not much difference.
There's maybe some pundits that stick out here and there.
You know, I would argue that the pundit that stuck out the most during the Bush administration would have been someone like Keith Olberman, right?
I mean, would you disagree with that?
Olbermann was probably the most outspoken against the Bush administration and what was going on there.
And he didn't really reflect much of what the mainstream media.
And I, unfortunately, would put Tucker Carlson in that very retrograde opposite now.
And that doesn't mean he's perfect or Olbermann was perfect then.
I don't know that it's like, when I talk about the media, I mean, I do see very much a very specific narrative.
Like, I don't think it's, I don't think it's.
I'm just, I'm, I would love to define, and I have to go in a few minutes.
I beg your apologies in advance, but I'm just, I'm always curious about how people define the media because it seems kind of arbitrary.
And like, someone will say that, you know, Alex Jones is not the media.
He's, you know, he's the alternative media, and yet he's got a bigger audience or did at his peak than a lot of newspapers and magazines.
Sure.
So you're not just talking about size, you're talking about sort of some degree of corporate oversight.
You're talking about how I would say yes.
Well, all right, when I'm talking media, for the most part, I'm talking about the blue check marks, the people that have the check marks on YouTube, the ones that don't get demonetized no matter what they report on or deplatformed.
You know, I think that the way that you abate bad speech is with better speech, right?
That you don't just take it away, you don't just silence it.
And we've seen kind of this concerted effort where even mainstream media every once in a while now, forget about the demonetization, but they have taken down some of Tucker Carlson's videos.
You know, that is a real thing.
That's more than alarming.
But for the most part, when I talk about the media, I talk about a structure that's almost unquestionable at this point.
Now, Alex.
I think it gets questioned all the time.
There are YouTube channels that are basically entirely devoted to questioning that.
You can only question certain things before they get restricted.
Like that, that's not a fair dialogue.
Like doctors are being taken off these platforms.
You know, it's not, again, it's not a mistake.
How do I say this?
When I see a concerted effort from Esquire Magazine, Vice, the New York Times, to continually try to make 9-11 truth into the and Loose Change into the birth of QAnon, which was people posting on message boards like super secret decoder messages and talking about white hats.
There's just so much disconnect on that that it makes me think that there is a concerted effort to demonize those that would question what I call mainstream media narratives, Kevin.
Is that fair?
You are allowed to think it, and I am allowed to think something different.
And I think that, you know, what I was trying to say, get across with the comparison between Loose Change and QAnon is not to say that those things are equivalent, that the same people who believed in, you know, that 9-11 was an inside job also believe that, you know, Q is posting on 8chan.
Like, that's not the comparison I was trying to draw.
All I'm saying is that I think the style is fairly similar.
How are we?
How is the style?
See, this is my problem.
The style of what?
The style of, again, we have like word messages that is like a soliloquy compared to a guy like me that sat here and played you coroners and FBI agents and showed you evidence.
And I'm not asking you to trust a plan or to go to White Hats.
I'm asking you to look at that information that in many cases is actually provided by either government source or the mainstream media.
I know you have to go.
Kevin, you know, I wish I could do this for hours.
Unfortunately, I have to go tape another podcast, but I really appreciate your willingness to have me a dreaded representative of the mainstream media.
Well, listen, man, I want to do an hour or two with you.
You know, again, you seem fun.
I don't know if you'll ever give me this opportunity again, but you can ask.
I bet I can ask.
But once again, man, I think that this outright disconnect between what you would call the mainstream or the alternative or people questioning things is the fact that we're constantly being demonized, marginalized, and in many ways dehumanized when we dare to ask big questions that actually affect all of our lives.
Yeah, I guess I would just say as sort of a parting thought that I think that inquiry is good.
I think critical thinking is great.
I try to do some of it every day.
I think where we sort of part ways is that I think that there are other people on the other side of these theories that are hurt by it.
So with something like Sandy Hook, and I know that was not, you know, primarily your doing, but that resulted in, you know, I know that that was not your doing, but that did result in real harm to parents of murdered children who had to move because they were being harassed so badly by people who believed that they were crisis actors.
These things are not victimless.
And so I guess I'm just, I would urge you to sort of consider who's on the other side of these theories.
But again, those theories and crisis actors, and they're not things that I've ever endorsed or promoted.
I know.
And I feel like I guess all I'm saying is I think that, you know, what do they say about like free speech ends at the, you know, at the tip of someone else's nose?
Like that's, that's sort of a principle that's been talked about a lot is that, you know, we don't have, we have limits on what you can say in this country.
You can't, you know, you can't cause harm, imminent harm to other people.
And so I think that's where you're seeing a lot of the pushback is, you know, I don't, again, I don't care if people believe in Bigfoot or UFOs or lizard people or whatever, but if you're causing harm to people, if people are being harassed or hurt or are, you know, dying of COVID as a result of, you know, of some theory that's out there, I think that's where the restrictions start to make a little more sense.
Well, I got to tell you, at the very end there, I just argued.
I know I lost you.
Well, no, you didn't lose me.
When you start talking about COVID, I mean, the restrictions are killing people, Kevin.
They are killing people, actually.
And we would agree with that.
I'd agree with that statement, but probably in a total reverse manner that somehow the mainstream media has our best interests at heart on COVID.
Listen, again, I thank you for the time for doing this, my friend.
Thank you for having me.
Listen, New York Times reporter blue check mark, Kevin Roos.
You can find him at Kevin Roos on Twitter.
Dylan's Unspeakable Film 00:01:10
Thank you, man.
I hope to do it again.
I don't expect to.
All right.
Take care of yourself.
Bye.
So there he was, guys.
Yeah.
I mean, what do you say about that?
Pretty much what I expected.
Article was pretty much what I expected.
How do you think he did?
Like, again, he believes that Joe Biden runs the country.
I don't believe that at all.
He also believes that obviously Biden won the election.
I don't believe that at all.
He did the shell, right?
And even when I was trying to show evidence, obviously he didn't want to debate about 9-11 Shanksville.
He tried to bring up these like powerful false memory stuff.
That's stuff that didn't even make the films because it wasn't around, right?
I wish I could have got him on so many other things.
You know, as far as being like disrespectful or hurting people, Dylan just released a film called Unspeakable where he sat down with 9-11 family members.
So you guys know the drill.
Thumbs the video up, subscribe, and share.
Rock Finn, Rockfin, Rockfin for all the premium content.
Guys, I couldn't do it without you.
Export Selection