Today, Dan and Jordan wrap up their look at Alex's activities from September 11, 2001 by looking at his evening broadcast. Does Alex still think the EU was probably behind 9/11? Can Alex be any more disrespectful than he was that morning? Does Alex get into a fight with a special celebrity guest? Citations Dreamy Creamy Fundraiser
It is fun that sometimes you can really take a step back and think, you know, I bet a long time ago somebody just threw a potato and then a bunch of potatoes grew wherever it landed.
Whenever the land was filled with nothing, you just threw a potato and potatoes would show up.
I was thinking about it after we left, after we were done recording, and I'm just like, in my head, I really don't believe if you had told me 20 years ago, if you had...
So, look, I decided that if I was going to do this episode here covering Alex's shows on 9-11, it would be important that it not just be the only way that I experience the tragedy.
I was alive when this happened, of course, but it's been 21 years and some of the memories have faded.
It'd be wildly incomplete for me to approach this and just rely on my own memories and Alex's bullshit.
It's not fair.
I can read documents and reports, but those are a little bit sterile and unfeeling.
And one of the unexpected things about Alex's morning show that we covered on our last episode was that he didn't seem to have a human response to the attack.
Though he said it was the most important day in like a century, the show didn't have a feeling that conveyed the gravity of what people were experiencing.
He took calls and people were crafting conspiracies out of bizarre numerology.
He had guests, but they were people who, you know, weren't that affected or they were trying to sell gold.
This all felt like a huge disrespect to the people who were living through hell, pushing their experience to the side in order to use it for your own purposes.
And I wanted to make sure that I held on to a little bit of the severity of the subject we're covering.
This is a show that's meant to be funny and entertaining, so it's easy to put on that facade of not taking things too seriously and being, like, glib.
In order to make sure I held on to some semblance of perspective, as I dealt with Alex, I decided that it would be helpful to also watch various news outlets' live coverage of the tragedy.
So I watched hours and hours of live CBS, local Fox affiliate, CNN coverage of the day.
Some of that will inform some of the stuff that we get into today, but I'll give you the CliffsNotes version of this.
Alex's show is really bad.
It's terrible.
We rightly criticize the media for a lot of sensationalism, and there are tons of other problems with the big networks, but for the most part, and I'm not vouching for anything they did on September 12th, but they seem to handle a lot of that coverage fairly well.
I was pretty impressed.
By the coverage as events were unfolding.
There was a respect for what was happening.
There was a restraint in leaping to conclusions.
The CBS one was the first one I watched.
And they took forever to even admit that it wasn't an accident.
There's a Palestinian group that took responsibility for it initially, and that was a lot of the conversation of, like, is this a credible taking responsibility for this?
Yeah, and I think that a large amount of the coverage that you find...
or that I was watching had to do with more with that human end of it than the who did this although as the day went on certainly there was some conversation of Who did this?
And the thing that I found more interesting was that that was part of Alex's response as well, because he likes to pretend that he's above that kind of emotional response, and he's into peace, and he doesn't want to expand wars.
The idea of nuking some fucking country, you can't possibly be in favor of that.
Even if you prove that their government did 9-11, you're just going to kill so many civilians.
I have the latest developments and news and information and an eyewitness joining us live from a mile and a half away from the collapsed World Trade Centers and World Trade Center number seven.
A total of five buildings that have collapsed total.
Wrong song for that.
wrong song involved so we get back i'm gonna go back to april twenty-fourth and at the baltimore sunday book and i think that's just light on secret u_s_ terror plan called human invasion pretext they said it had to be left dead people in u_s_ newspapers without a helpful way with indignation This is important information.
So local and national news outlets were definitely not reporting that shape charges were used to demolish the building.
That is just made up.
I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that five buildings had fallen, partially because I just don't know what the definitions we're using are.
World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 definitely fully collapsed, and the falling debris essentially destroyed the smaller buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. But also, there were many non-World Trade Center complex buildings that were destroyed in the attack, and it seems difficult to precisely quantify that.
For instance, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was destroyed by falling debris.
I don't know if this is counted in Alex's factoring.
His number is higher than a lot of the numbers that were being thrown around in other news outlets, but I understand that feeling, and I understand that sense of, like I said...
You look at something like that and you can't imagine it not killing a million people.
I'm not here to be like, ha ha, you got this wrong, because I could if I wanted to with that, but I would much rather spend my time on stuff like this.
So you can see here already that Alex is claiming that he had a structural engineer on his show this morning who said it was a demolition, when in reality he had a friend of his on who had studied some engineering in college but now worked in a financial sector job.
The way Alex is seeking to solidify this talking point is for the perception to be that the guest he had on was a person who worked professionally as a structural engineer because that perception strengthens the illusion of his claims, whereas presenting his guest accurately would reveal how flimsy his shit is.
Also, this article in the Chicago Tribune, you can find it, it has the headline, quote, engineers shocked by towers collapse.
And nowhere in the article does this supposed co-designer claim that the way that the buildings collapsed was impossible.
The article discusses how Les Robertson, one of the structural engineers of the Trade Center, had given a talk in Frankfurt, Germany, a week before the attacks, and had brought up that the buildings were designed to withstand The article literally says,
quote, Burns said Robertson did not elaborate on the remark.
The buildings were designed to withstand a crash from smaller planes, like a personal plane, or even up to a 707, but the jets on 9-11 were bigger and modern.
I think one of the reasons Alex is doing this is because he's not very creative.
This game isn't creative.
We can see in present day, every single mass shooting is basically the same thing.
They want your guns, the guy's on psych meds, he's an incel, there's basically just bullet points that he applies to each new shooting, regardless of the actual details.
of the real situation.
This kind of feels similar.
He did the controlled demolition secret bombs in the building conspiracy with Oklahoma City, and now, here, he has another situation where buildings were destroyed that he needs to turn into a conspiracy.
It only seems natural that he would do the same thing over again.
It's so much easier for him, particularly because whenever he's making any kind of argument, he can just say, like they did in OKC, and the audience is primed to lend whatever Alex is saying more credibility.
Looking at Alex's behavior here on 9-11, I really don't feel like he's doing anything different from what he always does.
He's got a conspiracy archetype that he's working with, and he's applying it to the current hot topic.
He has a guest whose expertise is being exaggerated in order to bolster their claims, and he's got headlines that don't say what he reports they do.
It's kind of dark, but I mean, I don't really get the sense that this is much more than another day at the office for him.
Yeah, it's like when somebody's an expert on MSNBC and then a few years later they show up on Fox Business with a completely different specialty and you're like, what are you fucking doing?
And I was actually listening to local KLBJ radio when they had another structural engineer on from Texas A&M who did part of the analysis back in 1993 for the first World Trade Center momming, saying that this wouldn't happen.
And then the host, Jeff Ward, said, yeah, I was watching local news this morning right when it happened.
And then about 20 minutes later, 30 minutes later, when the first tower collapsed, the reporters were panicking, saying there had been a giant explosion on the bottom floor.
And the sounds are picked up by the audio tape.
But the spin machine is in overdrive, just like an Oklahoma City telling us a truck bomb outside blows out columns further back and blast them off cleanly at the bottom, making rebar and concrete disappear.
So you can see from that clip what I mean about the OKC stuff.
Alex wants to wrap up his talking points and references to OKC, so in order to even address any of his points, it feels like you have to completely re-litigate all of his conspiracies about the Murrah building bombing before you do so.
And I'm here to say that you don't have to do that.
This is a distraction tactic that Alex is employing, and it's totally okay to just ignore it for now.
It's not relevant to the question of whether or not bombs took down the world Right.
So I want to track this story here that Alex is telling and illustrate to you how pathetic the level of sourcing he's using is to make this point.
Alex was listening to a local show on KLBJ where the host said that he had watched an unspecified local news show where they were saying that there was a giant explosion at the bottom floor of the World Trade Center that was caught on the audio tape and now they're scrambling because there's a cover-up because it got caught to the sound.
Even if you wanted to check on this claim, what would you do?
So we know that Jeff Ward is the KLBJ host in question, but what local TV station was he watching?
Wouldn't pretty much every local news station be running national coverage since so many of them are NBC or ABC or Fox or CBS affiliates?
Like, I watched a fair amount of the news coverage from that day, and this doesn't ring true to me at all.
But because of the vagueness of this claim, no matter what I say, Alex could just retreat to the claim that I just didn't watch the right videos.
It must have been on another channel.
I can definitely say that reporters were freaked out when the buildings collapsed.
That was because two giant skyscrapers were falling and dust clouds were racing down the streets towards them, and everyone was essentially running for their lives, having difficulty breathing in thick air.
Here, actually, is Alex's nemesis, one of his many nemeses, Mika Brzezinski, who is reporting live from New York, and she had actually taken up shelter in a school running from the buildings falling.
It's near the scene of the now collapse of what we believe to be the tower number one of the World Trade Center.
I was standing with CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts.
We were coordinating our crews in a crowd of people near the corner of Murray Avenue and the West Side Highway when the collapse occurred and literally plumes of smoke.
And gases, as the collapse happened, I'm sure you're seeing in the video, began to roll our way.
And that is when the crowd went wild.
People just began to run.
Our live trucks shut down.
Crews were running.
Reporters were running.
People were running.
And the cops literally were just waving their arms saying, go, go, go.
We are inside this school right now, actually inside a small room, trying to stay clear of the crowds that are trying to get out of the way and also the evacuation of this school.
School officials here are trying to get everybody out of the building in an orderly fashion as quickly as possible.
But again, there is so much confusion out on the street.
It is literally chaos out there.
We've got a short timeline here.
The school right now is now putting on the intercom where kids need to go to assemble classes.
Near Chambers Street, they're trying to organize the classes and get these kids out of here as safely as possible.
Right now we're dealing with the air because of the plumes of smoke and gas.
As Byron pointed out to me, we needed to move quickly because the smoke that was rolling our way and the debris as well was very thick and it could be very dangerous.
It was already a chaotic situation before the collapse happened and this is just piling more danger and damage on top of what was already a very chaotic situation.
I'm not sure any of the reporters were too concerned with the bullshit games Alex plays, considering many of them were huddling in a classroom where kids were trying to figure out how to reunite with their families, and everyone was worried about poison air.
So, the part about the engineer from Texas A&M presents the same problem as Alex's other sourcing issues.
The details provided cannot possibly be sufficient to trace down this claim.
I went to the Texas A&M Structural Engineering Department website, and they have 15 faculty members listed.
But you can see how we're no closer to knowing anything.
I could go through all of these professors' resumes and find nothing, and well, what if the person Alex was talking about is retired or died?
Hey, guess what?
There are multiple reports and official reports that have been made about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
I can go and find them, and I have found many of them.
Yeah, you really dropped the ball on this one, Dan.
There are a lot of built-in loopholes to the details that Alex rattles off to make them more protected from debunking.
He attempts to make people prove a negative, like that no Texas A&M professor said this, or that the local news clip he claims he heard a local radio host talk about doesn't exist.
And he does that because he couldn't do anything else.
He has to force you to do something impossible to prove him wrong, because if you were forced to establish and defend his own claims, he will fail every time.
And if you get him to stay on that, he'll be like, ah, but what about the Oklahoma City bombing?
And that will try and get you to start arguing about the OKC bombing, so then you're already forgetting what you were supposed to be arguing about, which was 9-11 in the first place.
Or if this was actually Osama bin Laden, I want to know why our government funded him throughout the 80s and early 90s, why his family still builds our military bases in Saudi Arabia and around the Middle East, why their family sits on the board of directors of Iridium Satellite.
I want to know why we didn't take Saddam out in 1991, 50 miles from downtown Baghdad.
It's just people who are doing business who happen to be related to a terrorist and aren't terrorists themselves.
In order to claim that this is nefarious or any of this stuff is nefarious, you need to provide some information other than say, like, oh, look, they're cousins!
So, I keep coming back to this because it seems bizarre to me.
Alex seems to have no idea about anything about Operation Northwoods except for a blurb from this Baltimore Sun article that is about James Bamford who wrote this book that includes mentions of Operation Northwoods.
This is from the Baltimore Sun, posted since April on Infowars.com.
We have interviewed James Bamford, former 2020 executive, best-selling author on The Puzzle Palace on the NSA, and of course his new best-selling book, still on the New York Times bestseller list since April, Body of Secrets, a 900-page book that I've already read half of.
U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist attacks against Americans and blame Cuba.
To create a pretext for invasion and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book about the National Security Agency.
Now, do I support that filth bag, that Communist murder Fidel?
No, but I don't support becoming Fidel to fight Fidel.
And the main headline is a new book on NSA sheds lights on a secret U.S. terror plan called Human Invasion Pretext.
Now this is from the NSA documents, confirmed by the New York Times.
In the U.S., newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation.
And then they admit that we could sink a passenger ship, we could blow up airliners, we could attack Guantanamo Bay and the Marines there using Army dressed up as Cubans.
I mean, they're here in this article, quotes from the documents confirmed, wanting to blow up airliners.
Now, it was signed on to...
The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to do it.
The Secretary of Defense wanted to do it.
And Kennedy, despite all his evils, God bless his soul, became a leader there at the end and said, no way.
And whatever ill feelings you might have about him for blaming his audience for not calling senators, they are a pittance compared to what's about to happen.
So Alex has caught wind of the fact that the people on board had box cutters, the hijackers.
But we've seen this in schools when people pull guns.
Teachers tackle them.
You got pilots in a plane full of people.
They supposedly had box cutters.
How do we know this?
One of the former Clinton administration people was on board.
Solicitor General's wife was on board that aircraft and called from one of the phones a cell phone.
And if you believe that no one on a plane was man enough that those pilots would give control over to a plane because somebody had a box cutter, or you believe that they would fly it in at 500 miles an hour, that thing was moving, both those planes, into that building, I got a bridge I want to sell you.
So the story we're getting there is bunk.
I can't believe that you had hundreds of sheep on those planes.
You pull a box cutter on me, you can't kill me with it!
Go ahead and cut me!
I'm coming in.
Maybe a double-edged stiletto-style dagger might be more deadly if the person was good with a knife, but still, I'm coming at you.
So there's a lot of uncertainty in terms of the details of exactly how these hijackings went, so I'm not going to dip too far into that pool, but there's something I think it's important to point out.
On the evening of 9-11, Alex is getting on his nationally syndicated radio show and arguing that the people who died on those hijacked planes were cowards and not big strong boys like him.
Look, I've never been in a hijacking situation, but I think I can imagine some scenarios where you wouldn't think it was a good idea to attack the terrorists who have taken over the plane.
For one thing, it's unlikely that you'd think that they were going to crash the plane into a building.
A lot of hijackings are done to hold hostages for financial gains or to spread political messages, and I can see thinking that you might survive the ordeal, like they might just land in Cuba or something.
I mean, if you have a knowledge of plane history over time, you're like, oh shit, there were actually a lot of hijackings for a while, and most everybody lived!
It's easy to see how the people on those planes were essentially doomed, but it seems so unfair and disrespectful to take this kind of a tone, particularly less than 24 hours after the attacks.
Well, your gut level from all the evidence we brought here out on the air before this happened, predicting it, and all the evidence we've been collating, who do you think's behind this?
unidentified
Oh, well.
It could be Hussein, but the people that probably had most of the money and could have pulled it off would be probably Iran.
So Alex, earlier in the day, had Jim Wright, his buddy, who was in a tower nearby and had witnessed the attack, who may have studied engineering in college.
Now, Jimmy, you have a degree in engineering, and without me even prompting you, your wife called me here at home, and we have the interview of that post on the website right now, and said, you know, Alex, Jimmy was there.
And then she gave us her cell phone number.
We got in touch with you as you were literally walking amongst the charred bodies that were piling up.
You, on your own accord, said that it was the most beautifully done demolition job you've ever seen.
Now I'm hearing it on local and national radio, and we've heard reports that this morning there was a reporter out front as one building was smoking and the other one was smoking, that as the first one collapsed, there was an explosion, a huge explosion at the bottom.
The reporter jumped for cover.
The structural engineer who designed the building is in the Chicago Tribune, just out on InfoWars.com, and the viewers, the listeners would like to see that, saying there's no way this could happen.
He designed it to take the 777 hit.
I mean, that plane wasn't out at the time, but it would take, you know, bigger than any plane that's been designed at this time.
It might even chop the top of the building off, but those things are very strong buildings.
Instead, you see a perfect falling, and then as the top is disturbed, some sloughing off.
What were your comments there as a degreed person in structural engineering?
Well, both myself and actually one of my colleagues who's also in construction engineering, we watched it, and both of our comments was that the building fell so perfectly.
So we listened to the morning show, and at no point during those interviews was Jim walking through burning corpses that were piling up.
That's a disgusting, grotesque, and exploitative image that Alex is painting, and he should be ashamed that that was his instinct, to do something like that.
But in this clip, you can see the larger game that Alex is playing.
He's got his structural engineering expert back on so he can lay out this new bombing evidence for him and hopefully get a more full-throated endorsement of the conspiracy ideas that Alex is pushing.
You can tell so clearly how Alex is listing this stuff off for Jim as if to explain for him what he wants Jim to say in response.
Alex is essentially trying to exploit his family friend here and he's doing it using intentional misrepresentations of sources and meaningless Yeah.
a local radio guy say about a local news piece that he allegedly saw yeah it It's ridiculous.
So, I mentioned that there was a little bit of a repeated thing about the idea that bodies were burning and flaming and people were jumping on fire and stuff in the morning show.
And he's still on that tip.
And I think that there's something admirable, knowing nothing else about Jim Wright, in that he does try and moderate this a little bit.
A secret government agency takes control of an airplane, my computer, and tries to crash it into the world.
Trade Center.
Because just like Governor Keating's brother writing that book, Final Jihad, three years before the Oklahoma City bombing, where he mentions Mr. McVeigh and the Alford P. Federal Building, they like to brag, don't they?
unidentified
Yes, the technology's there, the satellites are in place.
Kevin Booth's brother-in-law, who I know very well, who is an investment guy that works in the financial tower, said that explosions obviously did go off.
He was an eyewitness several hundred yards away from it.
You simply would not act like this if you were a sincere person acting with honest motives.
If your goal was to deliver the facts or even the facts as you see them, you would not mess around and fake your sources like this.
This isn't sloppiness.
This can only really be the product of intentional deception.
There are two giant manipulations that Alex is trying to pull off in that clip.
The first is the way he discusses the Chicago Tribune article.
The engineers who designed the World Trade Center didn't say that this was impossible, but now Alex is saying that and adding in language that makes it sound like this source included them saying that only shaped charges could do this.
He includes that as an extension of his sentence where he's relaying the alleged comments from this engineer, so anyone listening would obviously think this was Alex continuing to convey what was in this Tribune article, when in reality it's just Alex making shit up.
Yeah, if you read it, then there would be quotation marks around a certain spot, and then it would be a comma, and then his editorializing would continue.
But if you're listening to it, you don't know where those scare quotes are, and there you go.
It's to make his shit talk appear like it's reporting that's based on something.
The second thing that Alex is doing is the way he's characterizing his interview with Jim Wright.
You can see in that 40-second clip, he mentions talking to Jim twice, but he's trying to make it seem like these mentions are about two different people that he's interviewed.
One mention is of a family friend who was a first-hand witness to the attack, and the other is a structural engineer.
If you were just trying to recap for anyone tuning in, you wouldn't present things this way.
He mentions a structural engineer that he had on, then lies about the Tribune article, then talks about his friend who's an investment banker and first-hand witness.
of Jim's interview are separated because Alex is hoping to disconnect these ideas in his listener's mind in order to make the narrative stick easier.
Right.
unidentified
The first hand witness, Jim Wright, who's an investment banker and friend of Alex's, should be something interesting that happened on the show but ultimately it should be forgotten.
All Alex wants the audience to remember is that there was a seemingly very knowledgeable structural engineer whose name doesn't really matter who was on Alex's show on the day of 9-11 who said that the building had to have had explore Yeah.
Alex does this kind of shit all the time.
In his deposition for the Texas Sandy Hook case, there was a particularly good illustration of this same behavior.
This is one of Alex's very common tactics where he'll take one piece of information, obscure it, and then multiply it into a bunch of different places and pieces of information in order to create the appearance that he has so much more evidence than he actually does.
In that clip from his deposition, he knew that if he just said that Wolfgang Halbig had been threatened, it would seem like a very specific incident that relates to one person who was also harassing victims' family members.
But through Alex's rhetorical magic, you now have the specter of state police, school investigation experts, and school safety experts that had been threatened, and this creates the appearance of a giant coordinated effort to intimidate the people who would be in a position to challenge the official narrative of what happened at Sandy Hook.
This is an effective tool to use because if you aren't paying close attention or if you haven't listened to the episode where various things are alleged to have happened, you may just passively accept that Alex has a ton of details that he's working off of when that's definitely not the case.
You assume that he has this structural engineer, professional, and a friend who's a first-hand witness.
We're the same person, and he's not a structural engineer.
It helps that you're listening to it on the radio.
Otherwise, you would have to...
Like, if you were seeing this in real life, his friend would be wearing a nice suit, investment bankery, and then he's like, ah, the structural engineer, and his friend would go behind the curtain, put a little cap on and a mustache, and be like, ah, I'm the structural engineer friend!
Yeah, on the radio, you get away with that a lot easier.
No, this is one of the things that I think is probably the most common and maybe useful tool of media literacy at all is just understanding what people are saying when they say experts.
You know, like you read any number of different things about any number of different things and they're quoting experts and the people who are there quoting...
Here to give us the Hollywood perspective is my good buddy who knows all about the globalists, Joe Rogan.
He, of course, was one of the top guys on the popular syndicated show, News Radio, and now the host of Fear Factor, with all the stunts, number one rated show on television.
And I was honored with Kevin Booth, making a film with Joe, told us he wanted to come on.
I am just really excited about having Joe Rogan on.
I don't want to sound like a dick, because I love news radio, and I think Rogan was great in his role, but you're kidding yourself if you say he was one of the top guys on that show.
No, I think Rogan was used exactly the right amount, because any more and he would be exactly like Rogan, which is annoying and really bothersome to me.
Well, you know, you do predict that the government is doing these things, but I mean, you don't believe that there's people in other countries that hate us?
Well, I mean, he supposedly had CIA ties when he was working for the CIA, but that doesn't mean that he didn't, like, get angry when he was working with the CIA and decided that that's when he decided to hate America.
So, if I had a ton more time to prepare this episode, I would have made a supercut of every time Alex reads that headline about Bin Laden coming home to roost.
It's been probably a hundred times he's used it, and he's never actually discussed the content of the article or how, you know, he glosses over about how it's about the 1993 bombing.
He's got the headline, and optically, that's as good as any evidence, so whatever.
Alex throws that headline at Joe, who has the most common-sense reply that Bin Laden Bin Laden may have been working with the CIA in the past, but to think that he still is would be ridiculous.
Alex should disagree with this, but he can't really support his own argument, so he just gives up on that point to Joe, who essentially wins.
And then he moves on to his next talking point about how he should have killed Saddam and taken over Baghdad in the last Gulf War.
What's going on is that Alex has a few conversation paths as options, and he went down one with Joe, which turned out to be a dead end.
To distract the audience from realizing that it is a dead end and Alex has nothing to say about this article that he's constantly bringing up, he pivots to a completely different subject.
This is disorienting if you're taking the conversation seriously and think there's a coherent point going on here.
Alex is saying that he's been predicting this and that the government...
uses these kinds of events to accrue power, which Rogan agrees with.
At this point in the day, there's already some talk about bin Laden being responsible going on, so Alex trots out this article from 1998 to demonstrate that he's correct and that even if bin Laden did it, it was still the government.
Joe points out that this doesn't prove that bin Laden is working with the CIA now, which is at the crux of what Alex is suggesting by bringing up that article, and then Alex completely crumbles and starts talking about Saddam.
This is not a normal or rational conversation or interview path, because it's neither of these things.
It's an attempt to get Joe to mirror Alex's talking points, which failed in its first attempt, so Alex tried another road.
It is funny because the way Alex talks makes you feel like he's going down in this hedge maze, you know, where he's turning down this corner and he's like, well, nothing there, so I'm going to go back around that.
But if you listen to the totality, it's more like...
We're in the hedge maze.
And he's just creating bullshit as you go along, and you're trying to get to a conversation, and there's nowhere to go.
People assume that everybody of Middle Eastern descent is responsible for this, and you hear a lot of racial slurs, and you hear it everywhere from all sorts of different people.
You know, everything is about currency speculation.
A lot of the evidence I'm getting from my sources say this could be an EU move, and look how they attacked our very financial center to destroy the dollar.
You know, I don't think colleges tell you communists are cool.
I think they tell you that the idea of socialism is cool because socialism is what, you know, a lot of, you know, educational people want.
They want us to share wealth and share, you know, I think it's ridiculous, but I think it's the ideal that they support not communists itself and not, you know, ruthless communist dictatorships and what they do to their people.
And I'm going to say the number one drug that would cause something like this is surrounding yourself with yes men and people like Alex Jones who will consistently reinforce your position regardless of whatever it is that you are saying, thus leading you down to a lazy thought pattern because you never have to try.
Also, cultivating a fan base full of people who don't challenge you in terms of staying on some kind of a critical path, I think, is probably corrosive.
So Alex has already realized that Joe is clearly not in favor of declaring that the globalists or the EU did 9-11, and Alex has no argument to make that they did, so he's in a tough position.
He knows that Joe isn't a pushover in 2001 and that he has his own celebrity and he isn't 100% bought into Alex's shit like the other guests Alex has had on 9-11.
That's tough because if he starts asking too many questions about why Alex believes the things he's saying or what proof he has to base his claims on, it might become clear that Alex is just making shit up.
So Alex goes on offense.
This clip is him putting Joe in a completely unfair and unwinnable situation.
Joe has expressed that he doesn't think the government necessarily did this and questions Alex's idea about a possible motive.
So instead of arguing that point, Alex throws Operation Northwoods at him.
Joe doesn't know about this document.
He's never read it.
So this conversation has to happen entirely on Alex's terms or not at all.
Joe has to accept Alex's framing and details or say, I haven't read that, so I can't have this conversation.
The latter option is more responsible, but also isn't super productive in a radio interview setting.
Plus, if you know Alex, you know he's not going to respect that.
He's just going to have the conversation anyway.
Alex is forcing Joe to engage with something he knows nothing about, which supposedly proves that the government had plans approved to do a 9-11 back in the 60s.
So from an optics standpoint, Alex is making it Joe's responsibility to debunk this document before they can even really begin to talk about the actual matter at hand, which is impossible.
This is, what Alex is doing, is in essence the same thing he does in terms of using OKC as cover for the 9-11 bomb theories.
It's an attempt to force someone to complete some other task before you get to the real issue that you're supposed to be talking about.
It's like Alex is an NPC in a video game sending you on a fetch quest in the middle of the main mission, but it's a poorly designed game, so you kind of know that once you finish that side quest, they're just going to send you on another.
It's going to be a long time until you get to the main mission.
It's going to take a lot of patience to have any actual conversation with Alex.
It's just going to keep throwing out, oh no, I need an amulet if we're going to go into this cave or whatever the fuck.
Yeah, no, everybody thinks that it should be really, really hard to assassinate the president of South.
But if you look back at assassinations that worked and didn't work, all you really need is the chutzpah to try, and maybe the chips will fall where they may.
I highly doubt the Army tells them what to do and what to take out.
I think they do probably tell them that they can't have the Army or the military viewed in a poor way, like displayed in a poor way.
But I highly doubt they give them money.
For them, it's also good publicity, though.
You have to realize, I mean, for recruitment...
To watch a movie like Pearl Harbor where the kids join the Navy and become heroes, you know, for an impressionable young kid, now that might be just the push that they need to get them into the armed services.
And as soon as it falters in any way, shape, or form, they will adjust it and correct it and put it back in a position to make money.
Whether that means hiring attractive people to work as news anchors or sprucing up the soundtrack or doing whatever the hell they have to do, they're there to get ratings.
Now, look at what's going on with shark attacks.
There's less shark attacks this year than any other year before, but they've locked onto it as a point of focus, and now they talk about it constantly.
The idea that people have that the media is controlled by some secret government agencies and it's all just propaganda to ensure that people get conformed to the police state, that's ridiculous.
I know all the people behind these shows.
They don't care about anything but funny.
They want ratings.
They want 18 to 49. That's what they want.
People who are 18 years old to 49. And whatever gets them, that's what will be on.
But, yeah, I think that there's something really interesting going on here, and that is that because Alex can't really fight with him all that much without risking the friendship of a really famous guy.
pushes back in the most like obvious way yeah alex has no rebuttals for this anything is his arguments are flimsy and paper thin he's making up these people who are controlling things and going to Bilderberg yeah and all this stuff and because of that He just has to give up on all these points.
He can't keep arguing without revealing that he doesn't have a second step to this argument.
Well, I mean, I feel like you'd have to be really bizarrely disconnected from how humans work in order to be like, why is everyone talking about terrorist attacks today?
So, Alex, really, if he knew what he was doing at all, he would just bail on talking about anything that has to do with the media or the entertainment industry, but he can't.
I mean, what he's, what Rogan is not allowing for is the possibility that the government was writing these scripts because W had a particular thing that he liked Law and Order to do.
You know?
Listen, we find out now every day more of what the Queen is doing extrajudicially.
She's influencing laws and shit.
They're getting away with murdering animals on their shit, doing all that.
Why couldn't W be like, hey, listen, I want the next storyline for Law& Order to be.
Again, we're in this situation where I can point that out, and Alex can say, like, oh, it must have been on another channel, and we're back where we started.
I'm telling you, Hollywood is not about misinformation.
Hollywood is about tricking you.
Hollywood is about misinformation when it comes to relationships, like how rosy and perfect they are for Father Knows Best people.
Do you know why?
Because when people come home from a day that sucks, when they work a hard day's work and they come home and they have a beer, they don't want to see depressing things.
All I can say to all of this is, I know you're a smart guy.
I know you know about the New World Order.
You're doing very well in this whole system, and I'm not even saying, you know, your show is bad compared to all the rest, and it's your First Amendment right, people's right to watch it or turn it off.
So I don't get into all of that stuff, but you don't have to defend this system that is trying to trample our rights.
He's very, very Joe Rogan-y as opposed to We're walking a very slippery slope with trying to protect ourselves and trying to make sure that the government doesn't take personal freedoms away from us while we're protecting ourselves.
I don't know what that story's about, but what does that have to do with, you know, the government taking away our liberties by blowing up gigantic buildings and killing possibly tens of thousands?
I'm not totally sure what this has to do with the larger topic or what that response even was, but it makes sense that Joe's confused by Alex throwing this new story into the mix because it's a total nonstop.
Alex is lying about that situation that occurred in Santa Clarita.
Police arrived to search the home of a guy named James Allen Beck, who was a felon that the authorities had learned from neighbors who were worried that he was stockpiling weapons and ammo, which he can't do.
And there were some reports that he was going around impersonating a police officer.
From the LA Times, quote, Deputy Hagop, also nicknamed Jake Kurdesian, was among scores of officers who flocked to the scene.
He was shot and killed within minutes of arriving.
Alex says to Joe that the police shot their own officer and then framed Beck, which was reported in the LA Times, which is an absolute lie.
And it's a necessary lie, because if Alex discussed the situation in its real form, it wouldn't be so black and white, and it would become much harder for Alex to use for his talking points.
Beck opened fire on the officers and killed this sheriff's deputy, which led to the police returning fire.
They were a bit unprepared for this turn of events and shot a number of rounds into the adjoining house, though no one was killed.
The people whose house was shot into, they sued and they were awarded $200,000 eventually, so they got some restitution.
Through it all, Beck continued shooting probably thousands of rounds.
He had a huge cache of weapons, so he was even firing at news helicopters, and it was just a huge mess.
But because of this baseline similarity that the situation has to Waco, conspiracy theorists latched onto the event as being the same thing all over again.
It got a fair amount of news coverage, but really wasn't that big of a story outside of this extreme right-wing media circle like Alex, and it's mostly just because they used it as a reminiscent thing of Waco.
And that's why Joe has no idea what he's talking about, but to Alex this seems like a giant.
Dan, might you even be saying that perhaps it is war itself that led Osama bin Laden to committing these terrorist acts in the first place, thereby meaning that if we were to start another war, only guaranteeing that yet another Osama bin Laden in several years will come by and blow up something else?
Are you saying that maybe this is a cycle that happens over and over and over again that people stupid like Joe Rogan and the motherfuckers say?
I appreciate that all of Joe Rogan's criticisms about the media in response to Alex saying that the media is doing something are criticisms of Alex's media.
We have Alex eventually become this guy who's like anti-Iraq war and all that becomes such a piece of his identity and he's really very much like maybe that's the option.
It does appear that the only thing stopping Alex from being the cause of all the things he complains about is that He wasn't there to make the decision.
Like, if he was there to...
He can't complain about the Iraq War.
If he was there to make the decision, he would have bombed him.
He can't complain about this.
If he was there to make the decision, he would have done that.
He can't complain about the power grid because if he was there, he would have done, you know?
So I think if he were in a position of power, he could very easily prove whatever he wanted to prove if it was expedient towards whatever he wanted to do.
Also, to Joe's credit, he doesn't seem to like the Constitution much.
unidentified
They're going to take whoever it is, Osama bin Laden or whoever it is, they're going to put them under the International Criminal Court, and all the people in the United States of America are going to say, oh, isn't this wonderful?
Look, I don't support the Constitution as it stands right now.
I think the Constitution should reflect the will of the people.
And because it's a piece of paper that was printed a long time ago, I think there's certain things that our forefathers wanted to put in the Constitution, and they didn't.
Like, they wanted to put a 2% tax ceiling.
That would be 2% would be the highest tax you have to pay.
But they didn't put it in there because they could never conceive of it getting that high.
There's a lot of things that are in our Constitution.
What our Constitution reflects is it should reflect the will of the people.
Let me finish and tell you where I'm going with this.
And I've had the neuroscientist, the brain surgeon on, to cover it.
I've read about how they're putting cancer viruses in the vaccines across the board.
Why cancer is exploding.
I've gone right down the line on all of this.
We evidence it ad nauseam.
So to just sit there and say, I claim I have all the answers.
I know gun control is wrong.
I know SWAT teams are raiding innocent people's houses.
I know the military's hitting whole neighborhoods here in Texas searching for drugs that the government ships in, and that's been proven even in Esquire magazine.
I've interviewed former CIA officers that shipped it in.
I don't make any of this stuff.
Joe, I have the newscast of Oklahoma City with them bringing the unexploded bombs out of a building.
I've had the former head of Air Force Weapons Development on this show to say that building was blown out, not in.
When I'm not making this stuff up, Joe, you just can't admit how far we've slipped down into it, so you're telling me I'm doing a disservice, and it's not true.
I think you're doing yourself a disservice, and I think a lot of things that you do are fantastic.
I think you've got a huge heart.
I think you're a really, really competent guy, and you've got a lot of balls, and that's what this country needs, is someone who will stand in front of Janet Rito and question her on what happened at Waco.
I agree with you on that.
I agree with you on when you have proof, the way you have conviction, the way you have courage, and you go after it.
I think everybody admires that.
I think it's a fantastic thing that you do.
when I think you lose me is when I think you use something that's based on speculation you do use something that may or may not be true you stated as an absolute and a fact when any intelligent person listening Okay, Joe, I'll tell you this.
But the problem that I have is when you limit it to speculation and things that you aren't fully convinced of because he's straight up lying and making things up.
Well, I got a Washington Post word from three weeks ago under the U.N. gavel admitting they claim they run our courts and are going to get rid of juries.
And the National Bar Association in Chicago, Chicago Tribune, agrees.
He's throwing out these things all over the place that you can't possibly have any idea what he's talking about in order to fluster you so you look less grounded in the criticisms that you're making.
It's basically like you're having an argument with.
someone you're talking about uh i don't know uh interest rates sure and then they're i don't know they're like did you know that mice are actually little people yeah i know that this is in the baltimore sun i can prove it right what sure okay Did you know the UN has 70% of America's land?
Because Joe's making a fine point and bringing back up the, like, why are you saying that this terrorist attack is the result of us not punishing other terrorists in the past when, first of all, you think all of those past terrorist events are fake.
Every time I come back to the thought like, oh, Dan, you know what we do?
And have done for a long time.
Surprise!
Joe Rogan and Alex Jones got into a fight on 9-11.
Surprise!
You know how we've done this thing for five years and the only thing that I could say that would really make you go, that's probably not ever possible, is Joe Rogan and Alex Jones got into a fight on 9-11.
You know, I sit there and I watch this and it's the same thing with our public.
There are a lot of good people out there, a lot of good police, a lot of good military, a lot of good, you know, number one TV host, but they just can't face the system.
And, you know, going out to dinner with Joe and stuff, he'll sit there, and I know Joe's going to hear this tape later, or he's listening live right now, because I know Kevin's going to post on his website, and Joe just kept saying at dinner and stuff, man, I know it's an act, I know you don't totally believe all this, come on, tell me it's an act.
I'm like, no, this stuff's real, Joe.
Here's the evidence, here's the evidence.
He agrees with a lot of it, but he just can't go all the way, and that's the problem.
I mean, look, I used to, back when I was in college and such, I used to hang out with some people that maybe, eh, they were a little bit annoying, but they usually had weed.
Hey, Joe, our relationship is successful because you have just created an image of what I do in your head based on what you want it to be, and I don't penetrate that reality.
Can you imagine if Alex had come back with, Joe, you do yourself a disservice by creating fantastic versions of the people around you, giving them a higher sense of value towards yourself and generosity from their spirit.
Look, all I know is Joe Rogan called Kevin Booth, my buddy, and called me and said, I want to come on, and this guy's number one host on television, and he tells me he agrees with a lot of the stuff I say.
We're friends.
You know, Joe listens to the show.
He just can't believe all this stuff.
He believes a lot of it.
The Second Amendment's good.
The feds killed Kennedy.
Stuff like that.
He just can't go all the way.
He doesn't want to admit that his picturesque Hollywood life is in jeopardy.
The top executives are the people doing the thing, and we know that Joe knows those people, and now you are saying that he is too much of a coward to stand up to them.
Why aren't you just taking the step and going, he's part of the system.
And you see these pieces, these disparate pieces coming together that you know five years later are going to be presented not as what they are, but as like...
The world's top structural engineer came on and gave me a schematic, a breakdown with all of the equations about how this was impossible.
The chemical testing, you know, all of this.
And yeah, it's going, it's like, this is what Alex's conspiracies are.