Thank you for (finally) addressing my actual argument, @michaelshermer. Unfortunately, your response is more like an example of my thesis (advancing fallacious arguments to resolve cognitive dissonance) than it is a refutation of any premise. I proposed the existence of a powerful force (PF) that appears to act with impunity within the U.S. You demand that I name names, and you suggest I would be laughed out of the Grand Jury chamber if I refused. What a strange leap. I’m making a logical argument for seeking to identify perpetrators. You want to impose a legal standard from the stage when *the state* has not only identified suspects, but believes it has a strong enough case to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You’re a smart man. You know that doesn’t make sense. Many crimes are evident before perpetrators can be identified, let alone prosecuted. That’s why we have investigations. Obviously.

This presentation is pivotal, but not in a good way. It would appear the fix is in. Dissident doctors, scientists and journalists pulled the curtain all the way back during Covid, each at spectacular personal cost. Meanwhile, those in power destroyed their credibility. It would be natural for the dissidents to lead any true Covid investigation. But power has other plans. If power is to survive an exploration of the Covid catastrophe, it must prevent the vindication of the dissidents. Instead power will promote its friends to scold them *and* the dissidents equally, so we can have an empty catharsis and get back to business as usual—without any meaningful change. This is the process that ensures no one is held accountable. I call it the Middle Ground Scramble. The important slide is at 25:00. Make no mistake, #Drastic# is there only to give the slide gravitas. Your new heroines are nominated at the top of the screen. They are the rocks. And Bill Gurley, it seems, is the Siren.

Thesis: 1. A powerful force (PF) acts with impunity inside the U.S. (examples: JFK, RFK, MLK, 9/11, Las Vegas, Covid, J6, Butler, CK) 2. Official investigations (conducted by captured agencies) actively avoid revealing the PF. 3. Cover stories for crimes committed by the PF are reflexively validated and become mainstream narratives. 4. Domain experts are intimidated and punished by the PF for exploring anomalies in official narratives. 5. Domain experts who do respond to these social threats end up fooling themselves in order to resolve their cognitive dissonance, rationalizing official explanations and "debunking" credible hypotheses about the activity of the PF. 6. Dissident, non-conforming experts are ridiculed, leaving them socially and professionally outcast. 7. Because the social and career costs are extreme for those who question official narratives, a market for sophistry emerges--Experts and laypeople alike seek to rationalize their own complacency against the PF.

Thesis: 1. A powerful force (PF) acts with impunity inside the U.S. (examples: JFK, RFK, MLK, 9/11, Las Vegas, Covid, J6, Butler, CK) 2. Official investigations (conducted by captured agencies) actively avoid revealing the PF. 3. Cover stories for crimes committed by the PF are reflexively validated and become mainstream narratives. 4. Domain experts are intimidated and punished by the PF for exploring anomalies in official narratives. 5. Domain experts who do respond to these social threats end up fooling themselves in order to resolve their cognitive dissonance, rationalizing official explanations and "debunking" credible hypotheses about the activity of the PF. 6. Dissident, non-conforming experts are ridiculed, leaving them socially and professionally outcast. 7. Because the social and career costs are extreme for those who question official narratives, a market for sophistry emerges--Experts and laypeople alike seek to rationalize their own complacency against the PF.

FROM 9/11 TO OCTOBER 7, MAJOR OFFICIAL NARRATIVES ARE COLLAPSING IN REAL TIME. 9/11 reshaped America. It launched wars, expanded government power, and stripped away civil liberties in the name of safety. But for many people, it also planted the first major doubt: can official narratives be trusted? That doubt often starts with Building 7. Its collapse raised questions about the structural explanation that remain unanswered. Once people question Building 7, they begin asking a larger question. Was 9/11 really carried out solely by 19 men with box cutters and Al-Qaeda? @BretWeinstein has examined these questions and the wider debate around how the buildings fell. He joins me to discuss why the financial crimes surrounding 9/11 were never investigated, and the evidence of prior knowledge. The skepticism did not stop with 9/11. COVID, foreign wars, the JFK assassination, and October 7 have all intensified public distrust in government and official institutions. The assassination of Charlie Kirk has added another event where the unanswered questions and loopholes appear to be growing. What changed is the speed. It took nearly 25 years for widespread public skepticism around 9/11 to take hold. With October 7, many reached similar doubts in less than a year. Those in power can no longer shape public perception as easily as they once did. That is why scrutiny matters now, especially as governments push central bank digital currencies, Flock cameras, and digital IDs to reshape society and humanity.

Bret is atheist adjacent and Joel is a creationist, yet the agree on this: WEINSTEIN: I've been thinking that there's something actually incorrect about the religious stories, the way we're passing them down, that has us misunderstanding the problems. And I'm very interested in fixing that puzzle if it's fixable, because I don't think we can afford to misunderstand these problems. We have to address them, because they're going to be fatal. So they come down to issues of free will, the question of evil, and the question of dominion. This is the third one on that list. And the idea that we have dominion over the earth, because of the way it's interpreted, I think is a very destructive idea. SALATIN: Couldn't agree more. When those conquistadors came in and murdered civilizations and exploited the resources in the name of God and the queen, the crusades — the fact is that a lot has been done wrong in the name of God, or any religion for that matter. And certainly not just God. Name your divinity. Plenty has gone wrong in that. And so it is a right understanding, I think, of our role as stewards, as caretakers of something ultimately that is not ours. That is kind of a starting point across religions, across all beliefs. That is where you start. You don't start with "I'm in control." You start with "I'm a seeker and a learner. Teach me what I need to do to help." That's a very different thing than saying, "I'm going to come in and do this, this, and this, and it's going to do this, this, and this for me."

@michaelshermer Dear Michael, I appreciate that you disagree without innuendo or name calling--rare amongst adherents to the official explanation of 9/11 In this case, however, you have misunderstood my thesis, causing you to present refutations that are anticipated by it. Please review it. ~B

"You can't fool a domain expert. What you do instead is you get them to fool themselves." Bret Weinstein at the Turning the Tide 9/11 Conference, speaking the evening of September 10th. WEINSTEIN: "I think we have a dynamic in the community of people that takes the question of conspiracy seriously, where we know the stories backwards and forwards. We know the evidence that makes it impossible to believe the official narrative, and we are stuck again and again in conversations that just don't function normally. You say something about what's obviously true, and it just does not have the impact on the person you're talking to that it should. And so I want to talk about why that is and what effect it has on our own psychology and our own ability to make progress going forward." @BretWeinstein, PhD, “Forensic Science and Conspiracy: How to Be Rigorous When Deception Is Built In”

There is a terrible gap between when it becomes obvious that we are being lied to, and when one can finally speak openly about it without being ostracized. Let’s call it The Overton Hold. It’s very sad that Charlie Kirk didn’t live to see the end of that period for 10/7, a subject on which he was fearless. We are still in that period with respect to his murder.

There is a terrible gap between when it becomes obvious that we are being lied to, and when one can finally speak openly about it without being ostracized. Let’s call it The Overton Hold. It’s very sad that Charlie Kirk didn’t live to see the end of that period for 10/7, a subject on which he was fearless. We are still in that period with respect to his murder.

Does anybody remember when @efenigson and I were unthinkably terrible people for raising questions about how October 7th could possibly have happened? Hint: the state of the West is so broken that there is now a long waiting period before the obvious can be openly discussed.

"Grief is the downside of love, and we mean that very, very literally. You love something and then it becomes enmeshed in who you are. And at the point that you lose that something, untangling it is not a simple process. Tears are basically your brain going offline to do difficult work." Bret Weinstein shares his thoughts on grief in Episode 341 of The Evolutionary Lens, "Lives Well Lived:"

[RG911Team] @BretWeinstein Ph.D. has something to say about 9/11 that our government doesn’t want to hear. He has been on the forefront of challenging corruption for over a decade, including defending freedom of speech as a university professor and calling out the government lies related to COVID-19. Weinstein will speak at Turning the Tide in NYC on Sept 10, 2026. Also speaking are @rogerwaters, @jimmy_dore, @JasonBermas, @Dennis_Kucinich, James Corbett, and more. Learn more and get single day or multi-day tickets now at