Jordan Holmes and Dan Friesen dissect Alex Jones’ October 4–8, 2024 segments, mocking his unhinged claims—like Democrats seizing InfoWars assets via a Texas Supreme Court "receiver" scheme (debunked as an auction process) and hurricanes being manipulated by governments, citing discredited sources like Ben Livingston (a Navy weather scientist whose 1945 typhoon flight was actually a 1943 drunk dare). Jones also falsely ties U.N. treaties to weather control, conflates outdated NOAA flights with "weather wars," and pivots to promoting CMOS sea moss as a health cure while avoiding evidence. Their critique highlights Jones’ reliance on recycled conspiracy tropes, sensationalism, and desperate sponsorship shifts, revealing a pattern of performative outrage over substance—ultimately exposing him as a profit-driven demagogue with no credible case. [Automatically generated summary]
We have so much massive news on this live Friday, October 4th, 2024 transmission.
But I learned...
At 7 a.m. this morning from my lawyers, and I have all the documents and filings right here, that the Democrat deep state has gone next level.
They literally, and this has been adjudicated to the Supreme Court, the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, all of it, are saying they own my name and own me.
And that, like I'm a corporation, they want a receiver appointed that owns me forever.
That's why they didn't want to settle.
They wanted it to be non-dischargeable.
And when they shut down Infowars and they're successful, it doesn't matter.
Anything but a billion and a half dollars, they say they own me.
Now, the courts have all ruled you can't do this.
It's cut and dry.
But they don't care because they believe they control the courts in Travis County.
Which they're now filing in.
The Democratic Party has officially.
Now, I can show you the headlines where they say they want to own the name Alex Jones.
They want to own real Alex Jones on X. They admit they want to set that precedent.
And they say they own everything I do and anything I ever say.
Now, that's not true.
That's a fraud.
But as I've said to you, they want me off the air when President Trump is president-elect.
And they're moving to shut us down now on October 17th.
So what's going on here is when you have your shit auctioned off, generally speaking, there'll be a receiver that takes ownership of that in the interim time.
So it's also really funny how Alex kept pretending that he was concerned about people like Jack Dorsey being too political while they were running websites that are essentially the public square.
But now Elon is a comical level of political and Alex can't get enough of it.
He's fighting 100% for team humanity.
Oh, fuck yourself.
This is a great illustration of how Alex uses fake positions to try to reach more people.
His problem was never that someone like Jack or Zuckerberg was too political.
It's that they were saying political stuff he didn't like.
That's a pretty weak argument to try to make, and you're not going to win many people over with it, so opposing any politicization of people who run social media sites is a much stronger way to present yourself.
At the time, this was pretty safe because all the heads of social media who were relevant public figures were presentable as globalists.
This is a place where you can secretly hold a pretty partisan position, but pretend you're coming from this place of, like, your principles.
Then, when Musk comes along and is the most embarrassingly political person you could imagine as the head of a social media company, but he's supporting Trump, this is no longer a principle thing.
Because it never was.
It was a trick that Alex was pulling on the audience.
People who run social media platforms have an outsized influence and should have some measure of neutrality is a compelling position that a lot of people can get behind.
Conversely, people who run social media platforms have an outsized level of influence and should have some measure of neutrality unless they're on my side is less so.
That is less convincing, but that's what Alex is embodying, and it's sad.
I understand people being fans of the home team, but if you went out to watch a football game and one of the teams was forced to be inside of the ground, dead, it would not be an interesting game.
Also, John Stossel's put out a great report that Elon reposted, but he doesn't go all the way.
And I want to play this report about Native Americans and then give you the rest of the story.
And I'm not attacking Native Americans.
I'm a little bit Native American myself.
My great-grandmother was half Native American.
My dad's grandmother.
And I respect Native Americans, but that said, the way they push them like they were these little angel cakes and perfect is pure crap.
And if you understand that lie, they push all the other lies that are going on and unfolding.
So we're going to hit that as well.
But right as I was going live, I learned of an emergency today that could potentially shut us down.
That's how crazy this is.
And I'm just very calmly handling it all.
I was already planning to play some excerpts of Saturday's Incredible Rally when Trump returned to Butler, and I was already planning to get to that later, but I'm going to have to go deal with this for a few minutes.
It's so funny to sit back and realize that what Alex is saying is that part of the devil's plan that involves celestial warfare over all of human history is nefarious, the tempting of man's soul.
A lot of it hinges on Alex keeping his Twitter password.
I'm an expert on weather control and weather modification because I've been on air for years.
And I've interviewed.
The father of the weather weapons, when that was declassified, I've interviewed.
The pilots that run the operations, the ground control, radar installations, they tell you're for Doppler radar.
That's only one use.
It's for weather control.
That's all declassified.
And I see a lot of interest now.
Everything we do on the subject, it's 5, 10 million views on X. And then I see the public finally understanding this is real.
There are world treaties, UN treaties.
The CIA admits they're involved in it with the Department of Energy.
Other governments are involved.
And so I'm not going to do it today, but I am collating a bunch of the history of it and a bunch of the real information on it from meteorologists and others.
And in the next few days, I'm going to do in-depth reports with the latest info on it for you.
But the fact is, since 1967, the government certified At the Pentagon through Stanford Research Institute, a 30-year program and certified they can create hurricanes even not in hurricane season.
They can steer them, control them, make them stronger, make them weaker, and they can easily make them die in the ocean and dump their water.
So, bare minimum, they're not blocking these hurricanes.
So, obviously, when Alex is saying, like, we're getting a lot of traffic on these hurricane weather weapons videos, it's because there's deeply traumatic hurricanes that are going on right now, and there's an increased interest in this, and people looking for pulp bullshit entertainment that Alex can provide.
And so he sees more traffic from this, and he responds to it by creating more content like this, and making sensational claims that he cannot back up in any way.
John Brennan admits total weather control by the CIA.
Or 2018.
Excuse me, I was misreading the notes.
Was that 18 or 16?
Oh, the clip was from 16, but they updated it on 18. I guess they got their archives updated.
There you go.
So, and he talks about like we're idiots, like they're at the big table at Thanksgiving, we're at the little table, and he just says, and we keep this from the public because it might upset them, but we have weather control, and we control the weather, and it's a nice weapon as well.
And so the reason I harp on that, pun intended, is bottom line, bare minimum.
They could kill every hurricane coming into the United States or weaken it, but they don't.
Instead, they do things, since they started recording the activity of hurricanes, that hurricanes have never done.
And then they tell you it's your fault because you've got a car or a house or a range stove that's gas-powered.
That it's your fault, and you've got to pay them carbon taxes and lower your standard of living and not have children.
So obviously Brennan didn't say the stuff in the clip that Alex is talking about.
It's just his imagination being projected onto what Alex has made appear to be a primary source.
But bigger picture, this seems like a bad narrative road to go down.
If the standard is that all natural disasters are avertible and only happening because the globalists are letting them happen, then Trump's responsible for all of the disasters that happened when he was in office.
And if he gets in again, or anyone Alex supports does, any tornado or hurricane that happens on their watch is their fault.
Alex is, in essence, promising a future.
without any threat from the weather if his side gets in charge, and that's something they obviously can't deliver.
This is the sort of narrative that will end up requiring there to always be a rogue set of globalists controlling the weather devices no matter who gets elected.
So you've got to understand the steps that are going to take place.
Now, once the FedNow system goes in place, it's supposed to go online July 1st.
That's the infrastructure that allows the CBDC to work.
Now, they're saying the cover story, if you Google what that is, it says it's a payment processing, point-to-point, so it's instantaneous.
That's all bullshit.
That's the cover story.
Because if they told you this is the infrastructure for what's going to make you a slave from now on, nobody would go for it.
Like, they would revolt.
You have to put a cover story out about what it is so that you'll allow it to go in place.
So just know that that story is bull.
Once that's in place, you'll watch the markets start to decline because now they're set up and they need to crash the markets, cut off the supply of money, which is already happening in other countries.
If you've not seen the videos, because they only last a few minutes when people post them before they take them down, of the riots going on and the banks being burnt to the ground.
in other countries right now because they've already seized their money.
He rants about various right-wing culture war-type issues wearing a silly Indiana Jones-type hat while sitting in what's meant to look like a very rich person's study.
Alex may know the name Michael Gibson as an economist because a different Michael Gibson is on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve System.
That guy is a respected economist with a PhD from MIT, but it should be stressed, this is a different person.
The Michael Gibson that Alex is covering is an entrepreneur-type guy with heavy scam vibes.
The guy Alex is talking about is from Kentucky, and if you poke around a little bit, you'll find out that he got divorced in 2007, and then shit got a little bit ugly.
He and his wife had a kid together, and in May 2015, she needed to pick up some soccer shoes that were at Gibson's house.
She texted him that she was at the house, and he replied that if she came back, she, quote, would be treated as a hostile trespasser, and that he would protect his property with all the force allowed under Kentucky Castle law.
The court found that based upon his mention of the Castle Doctrine, it was clear to the family court that Michael intended to warn Shelby that he would shoot her if she came onto his property again and that no other meaning could be taken from his statements.
From the court document rejecting his request to dismiss a domestic violence case, Shelby testified that she's afraid Michael might kill her.
Upon questioning, Shelby explained that Kimberly Gibson, Michael's ex-wife, told her that Michael was going to put a bomb under her car.
Ms. Gibson also told her that Michael had researched an acid he could put on her skin so that her body would not be recognized.
So Alex is mad about something that Ursula von der Leyen said recently, so he's ranting about his extensive knowledge about how the EU works.
But unfortunately, he's got really basic details wrong.
Herman von Rumpi was the president of the European Council from 2009 to 2014.
It is.
who Alex thinks he's talking about with all this stuff about Nazis and Luxembourg, but he's really just rattling off half-remembered details and making up a fun story to tell the audience.
Junker doesn't own Luxembourg, and I still think that Alex might think that's part of France.
And it doesn't matter how indirectly this all is still elected by the people in these countries.
You know, like a lot of it, there's...
People on the European Commission are selected by people who are in the European Council, but the European Council is the elected leaders of the countries that are in the EU, and the people who are up to be in the European Commission are members of the European Parliament, which are elected by the member states.
All the things I talk about are really going on in a breakaway civilization is when we live at one technological level, like Hunger Games, and then the elites have their high-tech system that's broken away from us that we're kept out of.
And they already have live extension technologies.
Where people can easily live, if they start the programs early, to 150.
Then they believe if you can live that long, they'll have immortality.
And they don't want the general public to have that.
So this clip of Vander Leiden is from a conference called Beyond Growth from 2023.
It cuts off kind of abruptly there because Alex probably didn't want to play too much of her discussing how the Limits to Growth report was an imperfect assessment that was of its time 50 years ago.
He wants the audience to think that she's up there preaching this as an infallible religious text, and he accidentally played a little too much of it as is.
He had to spin the part where she calls the report controversial, which, when added to the fact that this is a year-old clip, it leads me to believe that he didn't watch this before the show.
I think he just saw this in a meme and is now covering it, much like Indiana Jones hat economist.
How did all these Republicans publicly announce that they're voting for Kamala Harris?
If you told me 10 years ago that Bill Kristol, who I spent five and a half years working for, Dick Cheney, who I knew, his creepy little daughter, who I knew very well, Mike Pence, all these people, they're all voting for Kamala Harris.
The Bushes, all voting for Kamala Harris.
George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, voting for Kamala Harris.
They're mad that Trump might have one fewer war over the next four years.
And that's like, it really, it's a clarifying moment.
And I think this very often.
I'm really grateful for how clear things are now.
It's really obvious who's on whose side.
And all I care about is preserving the country that I grew up in for my kids.
That's not too much to ask.
I don't want it to change radically.
I don't want it to become much worse.
Economic cycles come and go.
But a culture, a people, that's permanent.
That's permanent.
I'd do 10 years of recession.
I'd sell my house in exchange for not having a society completely transformed by foreigners.
Okay, that's the truth.
By not...
I mean it.
And there's no Republican who will say that.
It's all about GDP and growth and whatever.
It's like, what you're saying bears no resemblance to what I want, which is a stable, happy country.
That's what I want.
A stable, happy country.
And I lived in one.
I know it's possible.
You destabilized it with your stupid wars.
And last thing I'll say, no, I'm totally out of control.
But these people should all have to answer for their foreign policy in the last 20 years.
I covered that stuff.
I was on the first plane out of D.C. to the Middle East after...
September 11th.
So I'm not an expert, I've never pretended to be one, but I've been to all their wars, I've watched all this stuff, and I don't understand how the people who planned all that are still making the decisions, and no one's ever had to apologize.
It's pretty clear that the priority of Tucker Carlson's political ideology is maintaining the power balance where straight, white, Christian men are the ones in charge of society, and everything else is just kind of downstream from there.
Happy, stable...
Yeah, yeah.
I do agree with him, though, that shit has gotten pretty clear, and it's way easier to see who's on which side than it was in the past.
And not for nothing, but what did Tucker do after he came back from that trip overseas after 9-11?
Was he fundamentally moved to be anti-war after what he saw?
Or did he forge a career as a bow-tie-wearing, Iraq-war-promoting, Muslim-bashing cable news hack?
That people like Dick Cheney shouldn't be listened to now and should be seen as historical monsters.
He's totally right, and I understand why the audience would appreciate hearing that message.
But Tucker should, too.
He's one of them.
He's one of the people who shouldn't be taken seriously and should be cast aside to the waste bin of opinions because of how he comported himself during the Iraq War.
Underneath whatever the happy, stable society they're trying to signal towards, it goes further, but it harkens to the 50s and the image that you have in your head.
If my kids get a B in English class, they have to apologize.
Because that's what, that's what, that's the difference between a human being and a sociopath.
A human being grows by admitting fault.
It's called repentance.
And it's absolutely essential.
There's no sin that I personally will not forgive.
I mean it.
And there's no sin that I would not personally forgive another person if that person was contrite and asked for forgiveness.
Because that's what my religion demands.
But if you're not even forced to apologize or express contrition, and instead you continue to rule my country, misrule it, we have a system that's so far out of whack that I'm surprised we haven't had some kind of revolution, because it's crazy.
I kind of think that most of these people are full of shit most of the time, and a lot of the things they say can just be taken with a grain of salt, but this hits different.
When Tucker says that the folks at January 6th were normal people because no one had guns and they had pocket constitutions, he's engaging in a rhetoric trick, and he knows what he's doing.
It's a verbal distraction tactic, and it's a little bit boring.
But I believe him when he says that his children need to apologize if they get B's in a class.
His mind was looking for examples of sins, because all sins can be forgiven.
He can forgive John Bolton for doing the Iraq war if he apologizes sincerely, just like he can forgive his kids for getting a B. This is heartbreaking, because it really does reveal a bit of how Tucker thinks.
His children's grades are a reflection of himself.
If they don't get A's, they need to apologize to him for what they did.
I know some people whose parents kinda had that perspective, and none of them are better off for it.
But even beyond that twisted unwillingness to see your child as its own separate person, this comment reveals two things that I think are subtly in the background of what he's saying, and I find them awful.
The first is that his children deserve A's.
No matter what the assignment, no matter what the subject, they should have A's.
A grade is purely a reflection of how much effort you put in, so anything less than the top score is a moral failing on your children's part.
And I think that that's probably a dangerous perspective.
Maybe a little bit.
The second is that you have to conform.
A grade isn't inherent.
It's at the discretion of a teacher.
Everyone knows that.
And in order to always get A's, you need to have a really keen sense of what each teacher wants and what each class is about, and then do that.
This view leaves no space for creativity and taking risks.
Some of the most rewarding experiences from school in my life were projects that I did where I did not get good grades.
But the act of doing the project taught me something new and maybe expanded what I felt I could do.
And sometimes it was a failure, but you learn through that.
The way Tucker views his children's education is a method of control.
And that's a real bummer.
Everything about him is a strange new type of bummer, actually.
And I find that to be just like, oh, you're on stage talking about how your kids need to apologize for getting bees.
I was watching your show, and you gave me strong vibes of someone who would make their kids apologize for getting a B, but now it turns out that's because you are that guy.
He's so strange because he vibrates back and forth from getting exactly what it is that drives these people and then going right back to being like, you're an out-of-touch rich weirdo who has no idea what humanity is.
And I think that edited in studio or even in his facsimile of a studio that looks like a folksy cabin, that kind of presentation is so much the part that you're talking about where he gets exactly what they want.
And then the part where he has to exist on a stage where things aren't really going that great.
He's not really that good at being on a stage in front of a large crowd.
unidentified
I think that's the part that's like, whew, I like that.
I don't know if Alex could be more clear that his plan is just to spend as much money as he can kicking the can down the road with frivolous legal challenges in order to delay the inevitable.
If the audience keeps giving him money, he can keep being an asshole.
But if they don't pay for his lawyers, Alex can't be an asshole through the courts anymore.
He might also be indicating that if things go particularly bad, he might intend to flee the country to try and avoid the bankruptcy, which I don't think works and isn't cool.
I did a lot of research and a lot of preparation in the last 30 years.
For what I'm going to be covering today, and I've sent the crew over 20 clips, and I've got over 100 documents right here, and coming up at the bottom of the hour, I'm going to do a big presentation for everybody on what's really going on with weather weapons.
Well, if you've got a local fire department and there's, say, a 10-story building on fire, and the fire department just decides to not respond, they made the decision to let it burn, and they controlled the situation by deciding to let it burn.
So they have the power certified easily with just five or six big aircraft, and that's the old technology, not the lasers that are all certified, and the Doppler radar they also have on ships and large oil drilling platforms that they've launched.
They can totally just make this thing stop and dump the water in the ocean.
And on 9-11, a hurricane was going to hit, remember, in 2001, but that meteorologist never saw anything like it.
It just turned away from the coast and went away because I was going to get in the way of some of the stuff that deep state was doing.
So Alex is talking about there at the end Hurricane Aaron, which threatened Bermuda and made its way through the Atlantic before dissipating.
In the process, if you look at the trail of the storm, it really does look like it's making its way towards the east coast of the United States and then it turns away.
Devoid of context, it might look like this is a crazy thing to happen and it's a clear signal of manipulation, but it turns out that's common.
If you see this storm path and someone tells you that it was controlled by the globalists, you can kind of see what they mean.
There's a turn the storm seems to make, so it's easy to write that story and apply it to what you're looking at.
And then there's the whole idea of it getting in the way of 9-11, so now you have a motive and you're cooking with conspiracy gas.
So it works.
The problem is that if you look at a bunch of hurricane paths, you'll see that they don't always go in a predictable path and they turn pretty regularly.
When I was a kid, we lived in Hawaii, and Hurricane Iniki hit in 92. If you look at the path that storm took, it looks like the capital L, the letter L, but being written from the bottom.
We lived on Oahu, and we thought we were going to get hit based on the projections, but it ended up missing us and hitting Kauai.
So maybe hurricanes are somewhat erratic by nature.
Or maybe the globalists knew that one day I would start a podcast attacking Alex Jones so they spared my family from the hurricane by diverting it at the last second.
One of those two things is true, maybe.
And, oh, it happened on September 11, 1992, so maybe it is proof that it's the latter.
So Alex says 1967 because he's referencing Project Popeye, which was a Vietnam War-era plan to create more rain over the country to flood roads the enemy would need to get around.
Maybe it created more rain, but you'd have a tough time proving the extent to which it did.
That's a real difficult question to answer.
Cloud seeding is a real technology that exists, but there's no evidence of the capabilities that Alex is describing.
Just annoying.
You know what?
This would be so exciting if he hadn't done this exact same thing like four times.
He's a small government, states' rights kind of guy, but also he thinks that the federal government has an affirmative responsibility to control the weather.
He shouldn't believe that.
This also introduces an unsolvable problem, which is how much should the government control the weather?
If everything Alex is saying is true, then every adverse weather event is the government's fault, because they could have done something about it.
So maybe you want to get rid of hurricanes and tornadoes, because they're really destructive.
But what about a simple thunderstorm?
Do they have to go?
Like, I enjoy a nice thunderstorm, but uh-oh, about 20 people die from getting struck by lightning every year.
The government is to blame for these deaths, because they could have stopped the lightning.
Every death from heat or cold is the government's fault.
Every flood only happened because they didn't care enough to stop it.
What's going on here is that Alex is desperate for attention, and he wants to get it by exploiting the tragedy of these recent hurricanes.
He knows fully well that he can't prove anyone made these hurricanes, but he also knows that no one can prove that Harris didn't stop them.
It's usually almost impossible to prove a negative, so Alex is positioning himself in such a way that he can profit off sensationalism about the hurricanes and force people responding to him to take on a position that they can't demonstrably prove, Stop these hurricanes from hitting.
Well, but it gets back to that complication aspect of if it is as complicated and impossible to predict as naturally occurring weather, then functionally I don't think there's any difference to me.
Like, going throughout the day, whether or not it is the natural magnetic sphere of making blah, blah, blah happen, or if it's a bunch of dudes in a room, like, no, I want to go golfing!
I'm going to show you the CIA director admitting it all on C-SPAN.
And then you're going to read articles everywhere today and tomorrow.
Jones blames the hurricanes on the Biden-Harris administration.
And, I mean, they're in control.
They're not blocking it.
They could have, according to Ben Livingston, with old technology, 1960s technology, Five big aircraft, and they can go to the biggest hurricane, and he's flown into typhoons, by the way.
So the CIA director clip Alex is talking about is a clip of John Brennan that he lies about all the time, which will be a cornerstone of this big breakdown.
But also, he brings up that interview with Ben Livingston.
Interestingly, if you go back and you look at Alex's early interviews with this guy, Ben Livingston, they start in 2005, right after Katrina.
That makes sense from Alex's perspective.
That would be about when you'd really want to ramp up the weather control storylines and all that.
But, if you go back to those interviews, you also learn that Ben is a nickname that Livingston had, and his real name is Waylon Livingston.
This becomes relevant when you learn that he had a self-published sci-fi book in December 2004 called Dr. Lively's Ultimatum, Cloud Seeding Stops Destruction from Drought and Asteroid Fallout.
Weirdly, that book is about a, quote, decorated weather controller during the Vietnam War, who's called upon by the president to end a drought with some rain, which is actually cover for him to destroy an asteroid that's going to hit the Earth.
So strange that this is absent from the resume that Alex always gives him.
The fact that he wrote a sci-fi novel and then kind of started...
Being presented as the protagonist of it on Alex's show.
I do believe that Livingston was in the Navy and he had a degree in weather science, but I also have reason to suspect that Alex might be doing a little bit of overselling this source for clear reasons.
And you can go search anything you see here, and you can go read the reports on the U.S. government's own websites, on the U.N.'s website, and you can look at it with your own eyeballs.
They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the Earth.
That Earth would be this paradise if only the humans weren't here.
And some people actually say this explicitly.
There's the extinctionist society.
Literally, this guy who was the head of the Extinction Society, who was on the front page of the New York Times, quoted as saying, there are 8 billion people in the world, it would be better if there were none.
So there's some people who actually say that explicitly, which isn't completely insane.
He's advocating a Holocaust war of humanity.
To utter madness, he should be condemned for such a statement, but he wasn't for some reason.
You know, it is fascinating to me that on one episode we can have the people who are from America first are fucking monsters and then the no one else should ever come to America in the same...
Now I'm going to state a fact, and then I'm going to lay it out.
The U.S. government, secretly by 65, had certified that they had total control of hurricanes and typhoons.
By 67, the Pentagon confirmed it and certified it, and in 69, the program was taken from...
Ben Livingston, who we're going to show you clips of, that I interviewed first, he's been on Fox News, you name it, running weather operations in World War II at the end, right through Vietnam and being a consultant into his 90s for the Pentagon.
So this isn't true, but this is apparently the premise for this entire argument, which is a justification for Alex posting sensationalist headlines accusing Harris of not stopping these hurricanes.
The government didn't certify that they can control hurricanes and typhoons in the 60s.
To the extent that there's anything proven, it's that they may be able to cause a little extra precipitation, but even nailing down the specific precise details on that is pretty difficult.
If, if, okay, if we're so technologically advanced that we're controlling the weather in the mid-60s with punch card computers, why is it that AI is only really able to kind of handle customer service programs?
I think he was an old fucking man who Alex talked to, and now Alex has built a myth off of, who also wrote a sci-fi book about the stuff that Alex is...
So the first time Alex interviewed Livingston was on October 13, 2005.
So if I understand this timeline, a week after that, he's supposed to have gotten threatened and never did interviews again.
Except that he was a guest on Coast to Coast AM on October 24, 2005.
And then Alex had him back in the studio on January 18, 2006.
And again on January 26, 2006.
What's going on here is that Ben Livingston isn't as good a source of information as he is a legend.
Alex doesn't remember what Livingston said or how any of this went, but he's made the interview an important piece of Infowars lore, and he's strategically built it up to serve that purpose.
Pretending that he got threatened a week after coming on the show makes it sound like the information was super dangerous and Alex got a scoop.
The illusion is threatened by the reality that he came back on the show three months later, twice, and was on Coast to Coast AM, so that history is rewritten.
Figures in this world of media are really more useful as ideas than as actual people.
Ben Livingston isn't a source, he's a prop that Alex can use however he wants to build narratives.
And Alex should really reflect on how much better his story would sound if Ben died in 2005.
Then he should start reflecting a little on how he's being used as a prop by all of the ascendant figures in the new shithead media.
And maybe his relationship is, his usefulness is as much as Ben Livingston.
It is a fact the U.S. government can create hurricanes, kill hurricanes, make them bigger, make them smaller, make them turn left, make them turn right, make them stop, make them, they can control them like a joystick.
And we have the confirmed flights by the Department of Energy who's over this.
NOAA just monitors the weather.
Department of Energy with the Pentagon runs the programs.
I'll show you all the documents.
Since the 40s.
And they're in control.
Whether they're messing with it or not, they can kill it.
And the power to kill something is the power to control it.
The first thing I want to play, and you ought to go to the C-SPAN archives and watch the whole thing.
This is 1995 Robert Fletcher.
Who did a great job coalescing the public documents then and warning the public and state legislatures, and they were demonizing him in Congress.
They were speechless when he brought up the U.S. Senate report that I have a copy of here from decades before.
I also have the head of the Defense Department, William Cohen, in 1997, in a briefing at the Pentagon that was public, picked up by AP and Reuters, admitting the U.S. government controls the weather and has weather weapons and earthquake weapons.
All right, here is Robert Fletcher in front of Congress.
unidentified
Another question on the interview with the Los Angeles Times on April 21st.
You said that the, you told the Associated Press that the American government has created weather tampering techniques so that the new world order will be able to starve millions of Americans and to control the rest.
And, of course, he then delivered to them, as he did on my show back then in studio and as he did to the legislatures, huge binders with all the documents.
That's how I learned about all this when I was first getting on air in 1994-95.
Fletcher came to town, came on my Access TV show, came on my local radio show, and he gave me huge binders that are somewhere.
But I've got the documents now because the internet didn't have all these on it then.
It has got to be, and I think it's a learned skill, but when you can learn to parent Michael Jordan levels, the ability to never go like, whoa, did I really just say that?
Because sometimes when you say stuff, even now, you're like, boof, I can't believe that happened.
So Alex just has a headline there, but he doesn't realize that this is a comptroller report about how there's a need to centralize weather research because there could be overlapping studies being done by different agencies, and that was just wasteful.
This report has nothing to do with weather research as being new.
In fact, it says that the budget for this across the government was $3 million in 1959.
That report from 1974 that Alex, someone has accidentally flashed up on screen, also says, quote, science lacks the knowledge to answer many of the questions on weather modification.
For example, a thorough understanding of how clouds create rain and snow has not been obtained.
If weather modification research, which is primarily federally supported, proves successful, it may be possible in the future years to alleviate drought, reduce the destructive forces of hurricanes, suppress lightning and damaging hail, and disappear.
This proves nothing other than that Alex is unprepared.
There was a Nobel Prize won in 92. That Bill Gates has now picked up on, he bought the company, to, quote, spray the atmosphere, to, quote, give the Earth sunscreen to stop global warming.
They just add nuclei, barium saltium dioxide, different forms of silver oxide into the fuel, then the jet engines put out the...
nuclei causing particles and they go oh that's just ice crystals.
Well I remember before the mid 90s a plane would fly by high and you'd see the crystals form So this is just old nonsense chemtrail narratives about Bill Gates wanting to block out the sun, and I guess it has to do with someone who won a Nobel Prize in 92. This is just a bunch of conspiracy word salad, and it does nothing to prove that the government can control hurricanes, which is supposed to be the premise that we're building on.
He's just...
Touching all these waypoints that he can, and it's just, ugh.
The results from the Hurricane Debbie experiment seemed so positive that many individuals believe the project should go operational, seeding major hurricanes that threaten land.
A team of scientists at Stanford Research Institute at Stanford University did a decision analysis on all past seeding events.
Including, they asked her, that's a 1961 and 1963 experiment.
Dr. James Madison of that group, reflecting their views, stated, we claim they should consider seeding now if a big hurricane comes straight from Miami.
These scientists said the government may have to accept responsibility for not seeding and thereby exposing the public to higher probabilities.
So Livingston is discussing, you can't really tell because of the way that this is cut, but he is discussing experimentation that was done on Hurricane Debbie in 1969 as part of Project Storm Fury.
They believed that they could seed clouds in the hurricane that would make it weaker, and they got encouraging results initially.
At first, it looked like their actions led to decreased wind speed, but after more research, That went on well after when Livingston would have retired.
They determined that there was a natural explanation for the results they got, and it was likely that they didn't have any effect on the hurricane.
They just had a very limited data set.
This experiment was really exciting, though, and it gave a bit of outsized appearances to the ability to affect hurricanes.
You know, I don't think that what he's talking about is necessarily insane, but it's outdated.
And one of the issues that they ran into with this Project Storm Fury was that, ethically speaking, there were so few hurricanes that they could try this on.
Because it had to be hurricanes that were very, very unlikely to make landfall somewhere, so they couldn't exacerbate something that would hurt people.
Because it's advantageous for me right now to hold this position.
So, I think that Ben Livingston, for the most part, especially the clips that Alex is playing in his treaties here, I think that a lot of it is explainable by him being an old man who was around in the late 60s, and then retired, and doesn't have Access to or involvement in updates.
Then we have the aircraft going in, and I have countless of these videos, by meteorologists, by scientists, and by lay folks, who see the planes take off, they go in and do the classic weather modification maneuvers.
They can go in and knock the damn things down and dump it in the ocean.
But they don't.
They use the excuse of liability.
But they are controlling.
And that's the whole history of this corrupt government.
And other governments are doing it.
And there's a U.N. treaty, 77 and 78. Two treaties against it.
I'll show you those.
That CIA director talks about those treaties in a moment.
But first, let's play one of the clips.
And I looked this up myself.
It's accurate.
They're not even hiding these Department of Energy aircraft.
Working with the Pentagon, the Navy, and the Air Force doing this, here's a clip.
unidentified
I'm not saying that the government created Hurricane Helene.
What I am saying is that the government has been manipulating the weather since 1947.
What first caught my attention with Helene was the shift in the storm's projected path.
One day, it looked like it would hit my town.
The next day, it had shifted east.
I then noticed an odd flight path of NOAA 42. The aircraft being flown?
a Lockheed Martin Orion P3.
This prompted me to look at previous uses for the P3, where I discovered that they were used in the 1960s to manipulate Hurricane Camille in a, quote, "weather war" on Cuba.
Now, I know this sounds out there, but as we begin to see more and more Is it so far-fetched?
Whoever created the precedent for this type of narration over this type of music, and it wasn't Alex, but he was somebody who engaged in it in a horrible way.
So if Alex had a strong case, there's no need to play this video.
He's supposed to have all the documents, but all this is just misrepresentations of things that Ben Livingston told him two decades ago in meme bait trash.
If Alex could make a strong, persuasive, compelling case about the government having weather weapons that they've been able to use to stop and control and joystick control hurricanes since the 60s.
out in a compelling and interesting way with the documents with dry ass source material.