The David Knight Show - Mon Episode #2350: The AI Giants Want Government to Protect Their Monopoly

Episode Date: September 14, 2026

────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:09]Sam Altman's AI Safety Push Is a Monopoly Play — They Want You to Rent Intelligence at a Very High PriceGo before Congress saying this will kill us all, then ask government to regulate it; the FDA model — how's that working out?────────────────────────────────────────[00:43:53]Anthropic Researcher: 10% Chance AI Kills All Humans Within a Decade — Racing to Self-Improving Super IntelligenceJacob Coxen's tweet got 10 million views; Anthropic alignment head: we have no plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and we're not on track.────────────────────────────────────────[00:47:19]The Alignment Problem: Whose Interests? Silicon Valley Tyrants' or Ours?Technology changing this rapidly; disruption hits every segment at once — not one industry, but everywhere, all at once.────────────────────────────────────────[00:28:06]Amazon Now Syncing Lips to Dubbed Language — AI as Anti-Babel, Undoing What God Did to Restrain UsGod divided language because with a common language nothing would be withheld; the same evil nature that built Babel is still here; the barrier is coming down.────────────────────────────────────────[01:40:09]Runaway Juror — One Man Held Out in the Murder Trial of a Mother Who Strangled Her Three Kids With Exercise BandsAges five, three, and eight months; premeditated; sent the husband out; the feminist agenda says children are an obstacle to self-realization.────────────────────────────────────────[01:47:42]Trump: "If I Had to Do Iran Again, I Would Do Exactly as I Did" — This Is the 30-Year Netanyahu Nuclear LieTwo CIA estimates found no Iranian nuclear weapons program; Khomeini issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons; they had no weapon; now they will build one.────────────────────────────────────────[01:50:41]Michael Chertoff — First Homeland Security Director — His Mother Was a Founding Zionist Member of MossadAfter DHS his company had naked body scanners ready; the underwear bomber was the trigger; fingerprints of Israel on 9/11 yet again.────────────────────────────────────────[01:51:12]The 10 Key Features of Controlled Demolition Are All Present in Building 7's Collapse47 stories, a football field from the twin towers; free fall through 40,000 tons of structural steel; 700 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation.────────────────────────────────────────[01:56:00]Three Things Keep People From Understanding 9/11 — Poor Problem Solving, Groupthink, Horror of ImplicationsDetermine the answer first then cherry-pick; peer pressure controls thought; they'd rather deceive themselves than live with what is true.────────────────────────────────────────[01:57:38]What Happened on 9/11 Was Never Discussed — They Told Us How, Who, and Why Before We Even Knew WhatForensic science starts with what happened; they skipped it; Israel's enemies became our enemies, their wars our wars, their tactics our tactics — our government became terrorists. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

of deceit. Telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13th, it's Monday the 14th of September, you of our Lord, 2006. Well, we have a runaway jury, and we're going to talk about that, as Lance was telling me, said, a lot of people, since I talk so much about jury nullification, being one of the few things still left to us, although we have to recover a great deal of it to get juries to actually work. Now, the interesting case of the juror and the murder trial of the mother who killed her three kids, he now has to run away. And we've also got some runaway rogue agents that have created a lot more chatter about the coming AI apocalypse. You know, I didn't cover this last week because I covered

it. I've been covering it for 13 years. Going back to Hugo de Garris and even before that, looking at Palantir. And still we have people who are running away from what really happened to 9-11. I'm absolutely amazed to look at the articles. Everything about it analyzed except the fact that it's based on an obvious lie. We'll look more of that today as well. We'll be right back. Well, you know, it's kind of interesting because we've got Sam Altman, who is the first one,

to go before Congress and say, this stuff is too dangerous. it's going to kill us all if you don't reign this in and allow us to have a monopoly. They're now back doing that. And Elon Musk is kind of on both sides of this issue. First, he said it was a sciop. Then he says, well, I agree. We need to control this because they will be the ones controlling it. So matter of fact, after this report about open AI agents going quote unquote rogue and attacking another site hugging face,

after that was put out, you also had a whistleblower come out and say the same thing that several people have said in the past. And so there's been a lot of talk about, well, how are we going to control AI? Well, obviously you can't control AI in China, no matter what you pass in Congress. But you can create a very cozy and safe monopoly for these guys in Silicon Valley who want to control all of it and rent it to you at a very high price. but they're actually going full Dr. Strange Love on this stuff. I would guess that a dwelling space for several hundred thousand of our people could easily be provided. Well, I would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down. Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President.

Could easily be accomplished with a computer. The computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Sounds like a doubt for AI. Absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and in parts the required principles of leadership and tradition. Actually, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time and little to do.

But the proper breeding technique. and a ratio of, say, 10 females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within, say, 20 years. But look here, Doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief-stricken and anguish that they, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living? Also, when they go down into the mine, everyone would still be alive.

There would be no shocking men. memories and the prevailing motion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead. That's right, bold curiosity for the adventure ahead. And this is the right arm of these guys, where they claim they just can't control it. Just like he can't control his right arm. But I guess it's the Reich arm that he had, but that means. movie is pure genius. I've got to say, I've watched it over and over again. I never get tired of

seeing Dr. Strange Love or many of Kubrick's films, as a matter of fact. Anyway, what we're seeing here is the game of national security, fear and privilege. The plot to let the rest of us die while they save themselves. That's always been national security. Now it is national secrets. You're not allowed to know anything that they do. As a matter of fact, Before we move on here, just a little aside, as Thomas Massey was pointing out the utter hypocrisy between national security and the flock cameras of the massive surveillance networks, whoever runs them. And I've said this from the very beginning. They demand to know everything about you, but they don't want you to know anything about them. Don't film the police.

Don't film them in public. By the way, the same folks who want you to have flock cameras in your nation. neighborhoods, the same folks who want to be able to read your emails without a warrant. The same folks who say, if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you want to hide it, have withheld three million Epstein files and redacted the ones they released? If you're not doing anything wrong, why did you redact the names of the judges and the FBI agents and the people who were investigating this that dropped the investigations? Those are the people that we need to know about.

That's right. And if you're not worried about doing anything wrong, why did the Israelis come up with a program to alter video and remove the forensic implications and do it real time, not just in stored video, but to do real time alteration of video. And that's the same people that own flock were the ones financing the thing to edit live flock footage or archive flock footage. Yeah, interlocking directories of venture capital firms. And, of course, if you saw some of the clips that I put up last week for 9-11, again, when you look at so many people, I didn't see a plane, I didn't see a plane, and then the video footage that aired live, and then what they did to change it afterwards, they removed the background. They did other things to it. It truly is amazing. Just imagine if they could do that real time.

Yeah. Well, now they can. And so when we look at this, we're being told over and over again, this is just too dangerous for other countries to have, for other companies to have, for our competitors to have. We can't let everybody have these tools. I've got to say that when I was, when I began in engineering, it was, there were no personal computers.

And as I've said before, I'd have to go down to the computer center where they had 16 of these key punch machines and one card reader. and I'd go on the wee hours of the morning with Karen, and we'd stand around because that was the only time you could really basically get in. And even then we had to wait in line. Even then, you had about a quarter of these machines were down.

And to me, the whole time I'm sitting there, I'm thinking about the insanity of centralization. That was really fundamental to my opposition, to consolidation of government, centralization of industrial planning and all the rest of this stuff. I looked at this and I said, this is absolutely insane. We got all of these people sitting around waiting for deep thought, waiting for this IBM

mainframe that was used by all the people for academic purposes at USF, used by another university as well as USF for all their accounting software and all the rest of the stuff. So put all of your resources in one centralized place. And then come up with this complicated system to allocate it. Very, very expensive. That's what these guys want to get back to. with AI. That really is at the core of this stuff. And I saw that stuff change as personal computing came out. That's why I got, I was really excited about that. I mean, even as an engineering

student, I couldn't get access to even a teletype terminal. That was reserved for the computer science majors. And so the rest of us had to work with these card punch machines. I mean, that was, you know, back of the day, I tell you, we had to go to school through the snow and all the rest of the stuff. Well, actually, no, we didn't because I was in Florida. Those are the tough old days, right? But it was very crude and stupid what we were doing. And this is one of these people want to do again. They're always seeking a monopoly. How do you get a monopoly? You get a monopoly when you have the government helping you to have a monopoly. And so now what we're hearing from these guys is, well, we have to have more inspection,

more oversight from the government. We know how that has worked out in every single industry, whether you're talking about pharmaceuticals, whether you're talking about the food industry, whether you're talking about even the cattlemen, not being able to solder their own cattle. Over and over again, we see what happens when the government comes in and decides that they're going to be the gatekeeper for whatever services people need. Now it seems that Altman is riding the wave of AI fear-mongering to gin up some new business partners with the utility, electric utility grid. He was right after the stuff came out.

was pushing fear to the Edison Electric Institute, which met in Colorado. This is a big trade organization that is all about the grid. And so there were companies there like Duke Energy, Exelon, Southern Company, Next Era Energy, all of these people. And so they have a series of clandestine meetings where he is speaking to them. about what he needs and how they have to fix this stuff. And he was regaling them with horror stories about Open AI, which was his company, and how he had rogue agents who went off on their own way.

And I thought this is kind of interesting because most of this stuff came from a guy who worked for OpenAI for a while and then he worked to work for Anthropic. And really what we're looking at here is anthropomorphism, right? where you attribute to some animal or some inanimate object or whatever, a human characteristics. And that's exactly what they're doing with AI. Look, there is a danger that this stuff does crazy stuff.

And more so the fact that we've now got it writing code and doing other things like that. They're putting this software out there without sufficient oversight, without sufficient human involvement. But it is not a malicious intellectual. It's not intelligent at all. It's a statistical pulling together of different programs. It appears to be intelligent, but they should have called the company instead of anthropomorphism. Because it appears to be intelligent and it's not.

And everything they say about it, oh, well, it's going to do this and it's going to do this and it's calculating against us. Folks, that is utter bunk. That's not the way this stuff works. It is, however, extremely dangerous. And when we look at the danger that is involved, consider the fact that they want to put this software, they don't know really how it works, and they don't really have total control over it,

but they want to give it to autonomous killing machines. Yeah, think about that. So with all of this talk that has happened since last Wednesday or Thursday, about rogue AI agents, and as I said before, I didn't really cover it because I've covered this so many times for so long. As a matter of fact, Hugo de Garis,

I've interviewed him many times. That was his central premise. In a book that he wrote, I don't know how long ago. I bought it. In 2013, I went to look it up on Amazon to see if it was for sale.

It's out of print. And my paperback version of that book is worth $1,400. That's something I'll leave to you and Travis, Lance. Thanks along with my comic book collection because I don't want to try to find buyers for this stuff But you can knock yourself out if you want But it really was prescient in terms of what he predicted would happen And in terms of what he predicted would be the reaction of people once they figured out How AI was going to be used against them by the elites the corporate elites and by the government

And that's the real issue. AI is a tool any tool can be used for good or evil. The problem is that this is a tool that these guys are trying to make sure that government and the Silicon Valley bros, the tech bros, have a monopoly on its use. And they're not the best of people. They're not going to use these tools for good purposes. They want to say to us, well, you know, we have to look at this and we don't want to get rid of it because it's going to cure all disease in a decade and all these.

other utopian promises that it's going to do. And yet they really don't believe it themselves. They're looking at it and telling us, well, we're going to take all your jobs and we're going to see a massive increase in GDP, 15%. Where do they come up with that number? Well, I mean, there's just pie in the sky numbers. They make them up. Does anybody ever ask them about that?

It's just like the idea, yeah, we're going to cure all disease. Just like we're going to cure all disease using mRNA injections, right? And of course, Trump wants to combine the two. We'll have AI plus RNA. And that'll cure all your diseases. Yeah, that's what's going to kill you. And so they're out there saying, we're going to have a GDP, a 15% increase. And yet our own knowledge workers are going to see a 10% cut in salary, even as we have hyperinflation.

So it's like, how does this even add up? And in the meantime, we get data centers in every area that are going to be this nuisance and pollution, as well as the eyes and ears on everything that you do, controlling all of your money, going to a digital currency. This is a nightmare scenario that they're promising everybody. I don't understand what they think the cost-benefit analysis really is with this. I don't see any benefit the way they're using it. There are good use cases for it.

And it could be used not in the way. way they're using it, but it is a big advance in terms of the ability to process information. But they're not using it that way. They are not taking the artificial intelligence and using it as an adjunct for people to help people, let's say, troubleshoot a problem. No, that's not what they're interested in. They're not interested in taking away the burden of regulatory compliance from companies or let's say even hospitals to free up the doctors. No, they're not doing any of that. Instead, they want to take over everything.

That's their mentality. And that is a reflection of the people who are running this system, the tech pros and the politicians. It was done by government. They were the ones pushing it. And these people who have made unbelievable amounts of money, astronomical amounts of money, are the ones who are put there by these evil people in government. people like DARPA and the rest of them.

They have a long-term plan, and we have seen elements of this in both 9-11, as well as the other shoot had dropped the pandemic of 2020. And so... And it's also very hypocritical for Sam Altman to say that we need to regulate anyone other than me because of my own AI's mistake. And when you look that up... His army can't stop it. It keeps trying to strangle him. And when you really look up what happened with the whole hugging face hack, it was really because they ignored warning sign after warning sign and did absolutely no safety in their development. They had a supercomputer that they had a whole bunch of versions of their current best AI working on a bunch of similar cybersecurity problems. And they saw that the agents were communicating with each other.

But instead of wiping that and then, you know, creating a better sandbox where they can't communicate, they just cleared their memory and then started over. And they did that several times. And each time their communication network was getting more sophisticated as they're working on different cybersecurity issues. So naturally, it would be an extension of that to continue out that database, that communication network over hacking, hugging face, since they were literally working on hacking things. Yeah. So it, they ignore all safe. in what, you know, could honestly be called a false flag with how, you know, it's, it wasn't planned, I don't think, but they could tell that something like this was going to happen with

they absolutely no security that they were doing. And then look how they're using it. Yeah. And then they say, oh, well, because we did that, now no one else should be able to control these things. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, you know, in terms of going back and figuring out exactly what happened, the New York

Times reported that third-party safety researchers, investigators, investigating. getting the incident after the fact we're only given a few days to access the reams of data generated by the hack, severely limiting their findings. Yeah, so let's have this massive amount of information which can really only be processed and made sense of by using something like an AI program, but let's just say to the humans and say, here, go find the needle in the haystack. You know, AI is very good at doing that type of thing. But again, it's a program. It's not an intelligence. It is not conscious. And this is anthropomorphism to talk about that. But it is a technology that they are playing fast and loose with. It is a technology that has a capability of

already doing a lot of different things, as they've pointed out. And it's been given access to so much, access to control killer robots or killer drones and that type of thing. We should be very concerned about that. And yet, again, when they're trying to create fear, do you notice how they're silent about the autonomous killer robots? What does that tell you? Tells me it's all about money. Because if they're really concerned about safety, they would be talking about that,

and there is crickets about that. Not from the New York Times, not from anybody talking about any of that. All the people who cover this thing, they pretend as if the tech bros are not the new military industrial complex. Open AI has an obvious incentive to play up its own AI

is supposedly terrifying capabilities while suppressing or ignoring evidence that contradicts its own narrative. Yeah, it does have terrifying capabilities when they create this thing and they don't test it or supervise it or control it and give it access to so much stuff. In one example, OpenAI's narration of the hugging face attack relies on the almost entirely on its agents, quote, chains of thought, where an AI model, essentially generates statements explaining how rationalize certain decisions. So when you give the AI agent control over your computer and it goes and it races your entire

customer database and the backups, you go back and you interrogate and you say, why did you do this? Well, I know I should now, but this is what I did type of thing. And again, if these things are rogue, will they tell the truth? Do they know the truth? Will they hallucinate on these chains of thought? Of course, not a reliable thing. So Altman has always been hacking his company's own cybersecurity services to top utility executives about the grid, just like he is with the military.

He is writing this hype about the hugging face incident that his own AI created. To secure a seat at one of the most important tables in the country, you know many people have said, suspected that a lot of these cybersecurity companies were the ones creating a lot of threats to stop. start with so that you have an incentive to buy their product, right? Connor Leahy, a AI researcher leading the nonprofit control AI that argues for ending the development of superintelligence, said in an interview with the hell that he believes these agents will be entirely autonomous and will pursue their own objectives without human beings in mind. How's that for anthropomorphism?

Well, again, these things, if you understand. These things were created by politicians and by corporations. Created in their image. In the image of politicians and tech pros. So yeah, it's going to move fast and break things. Yeah, it's going to be all about killing people and taking control and all kinds of malicious stuff because that's what its creators wanted. It's created in their image.

These systems, according to Leahy, could out-compete humanity across every sector. AI could start running companies, economies, and even governments or militaries. And I guess the question is, would we notice the difference? We've already got a cabal of crooks and psychopaths who are running everything. Would we notice the difference if it took over everything, governments and militaries and economies? I mean, they might start a war without any reason. We wouldn't want that to happen. We've got to have humans in place like Trump to make sure we don't have a war without any reason.

So the UK-based AI Security Institute revealed that Anthropics Mythos model created fake digital identities to deceive humans and to plant malicious code during testing. Well, again, we've already got Israel to do that for us. So did the AI leave some passports of ground zero for people? I don't know. but it does as it can sort and do away with the humans as it wants to again we see all of this over and over again and it's not you right it's it's your right arm that you can't control just like dr strangelove yeah it's it's you and you have the control and the government has the control and that is the problem. And what they want to do is to make sure that there's not going to be any competition

to them. Again, how do you control this? If you go back and look at what they have to say about China. And it was really a non-sequitre that came up, a Democrat, I think he's a congressman, not a Senator Ted Liu. But they were having hearings about this and reaction to it, of course, because that's what they do is a grandstand. But, you know, we got to do something about this because China isn't going to effing stop any of this stuff. They're going to go even faster. So we've got to control it here in the United States. It's like, well, think about that for a moment, right?

You're just saying that China is not going to obey any guidelines. So we need to have guidelines here in America. How is that going to help? I don't see how that is anything that would help whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the appropriate response, like with technology, is the same thing with speech, for example. right? Well, I don't like these people out there saying. And, you know, I don't think it's true either, but I don't like it more than anything. It may be true and they just don't like it, but they've got to stop it. No, the answer to something that is harmful and false is more speech. The answer to AI is more technology. And you're not going to be able to control the evil actors in China unless you have the ability to innovate. That's always been our strength. our ability to innovate and to adapt. Government gives us a kind of sclerosis that keeps that from happening.

It solidifies things into cartels and monopolies for these people who buy influence with them. And so that is the real issue. And again, I put a note here. I got the Ardalaite War from you go to Garris. It was 2180 when I bought it. It's now on sales the collector's item on Amazon for $1399. And that's not $13.99. That's $1,399.

Conspiracy theory is quickly surfaced online, suggesting that this is all a marketing scheme to promote regulations on artificial intelligence. As a matter of fact, the guy who was the whistleblower, he's worked for a few years as a pre-training situation. He's worked for both OpenAI and for Anthropic. And he came out and he said, yeah, they're going to, there's 10% chance that it's going to kill us within the next few years.

And the guy at Anthropic, who is there to make sure that it conforms properly and it doesn't get rogue, said, yeah, I would say that's true. Maybe it's even higher than that. And so the question is, it goes back to what Hugo deGaris was always saying. At the very beginning, you know, he was working with AI. I always thought the approach that he was thinking of. was one that was so steeped in evolution that it made no sense at all. Right.

If we could reproduce the human brain so precisely, then it'll just spring into consciousness, spring into life, right? Just, if the structure is there, the soul will come. And so, yeah, I didn't think much of his idea of AI approach. However, the bigger picture, he was absolutely right about. And that is the fact that scientists will do this even if they think is going to kill everybody. And that's what we see right now.

They'll do it for ego. They'll do it for money. I'll do it for whatever, a lot of different motivations. But as I've said before, he would go to the scientific conferences where he was a leading AI researcher at the time. And he would say, well, if this thing were to become a godlike intelligence and we, you know, look at it and maybe it would just squash us like a bug. he said if you knew that was going to happen would you still work on it today and he said the vast majority of scientists and engineers that he would talk to would say yes that was the incredible thing and he thought it was incredible even though he's not a Christian and as I pointed out before was

at a Christian conference where I was speaking that he asked that question to the audience and for the first time he got a majority of people who said no you see the issue is not technology the issue is morality and ethics. And if you don't have the morality and ethics, what you wind up with is power without any kind of constraint. You wind up with a new tower of Babel, and that's what we have built. I think it's kind of interesting that as all this stuff is happening, there was, just came out another short article about Amazon working on how they're going to basically get rid of the language differences in foreign films. Yeah, it's very easy to go through, even with the technology that Lance has, he can go through. We've done this a couple of times. You got a statement

from, let's say, Ben Gavir, that is really horrific. But it's in Hebrew. So rather than put it in a subtitle, especially because we have a radio audience, what he does is he takes Ben Gavir's voice and is speaking Hebrew. And then he can type in what the subtitles say on the video. And he says it in English. And now they've gone another step further. Amazon wants to use a program, and there's already some other programs to do this more or less to one degree of success or another, but to get people's lips to move so the lips are not out of sync with the new language. It really has become an anti-babel, a debavalizer, if you will, and go back to Hitchhackers Guide to the Galaxy. But just remember why God gave us different languages. It's because he said,

But now, with a common language, nothing will be withheld to them. And if nothing is withheld from us, what are we going to do with our evil nature? We will be right back, folks. Back in Hyboos says, yeah, national secret, national security is a peto ring. That's what they're really covering up. And it's absolutely true. You know, we just had, and I don't have it here in my stack of stuff, I just saw it, and I didn't pull it up.

But it was a, I think it was in the U.K. they had a U.S. government official that was part of the embassy staff or whatever. Like I said, I don't have the article with me. So I didn't look to see what level this person was. And I don't remember the country, but I think it was the U.K. Was found as a pedophile. And just like Israel, the U.S. government got him out of the country to protect him. Isn't that amazing?

It's not a theory. I mean, you see the Israelis doing this all the time. As a matter of fact, if you can get out of the country, we just had it. What was it last year? I think it was in Vegas or something. There's a Jewish guy that, or maybe I'm getting that confused of the bioweapons. It doesn't matter you do bioweapon lab. You can, you know, run away to Israel.

If you're a pedophile, you can run away to Israel. And evidently the same thing is true for Americans as well as we have been taken over by the Zionists as well. We now have their values. And we're now operating like them, operated by them, as a matter of fact. Stealth Patriot, thank you very much for the tip. He says, we as a country. have been too busy playing red team versus blue team sports politics, I agree.

While both legitimate parties eat away at our rights and our livelihood, stop letting the social engineers divide us. I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, what is it that unites us? If we go back to the idea, you know, the founding of America, the thing that united people was, look, we're all created in the image of God. and God gives us certain rights that although we have to have the government there as a referee, the real issue should be that the government should be there to protect those liberties and those rights

that we have because we're created in the image of God. If we get back to that, that is the thing that is going to bring us together. Rather than this dividing people by different skin colors, groups, languages, and that type of thing, yes, that is something that God did in order to stop this runaway technology. But now that is being undone. And the unfortunate thing is that human nature has not been undone. We still have the same nature of the people who built the Tower of Babel. That's not been changed for the most part.

That's what really needs to be changed. 9-11 inside jab. That's a good one. Yeah, it was an inside jab, wasn't it? The two of those things started right together. said last writing show had a great expose on the plane video fakery. Well, I can't take credit for any of that stuff. I just put together and I thought, well, let me just put together.

And we ran a little bit over on the other interview. I thought that interview was important. I apologize for the technical difficulties that we had in terms of getting our guest, David Beto, in. But I thought both the idea of rethinking what the structure should be, that's a nice, interesting, intellectual exercise. But as he pointed out, Switzerland didn't get there as a top-down solution. The Canton system in Switzerland grew organically from the bottom up. And so that's the key thing. And then the other thing is, as you look at, where are the worst-case examples of evil leaders?

Well, I would have to put at the top of my list, Israel. And so if you can have a situation there where you've got these people like Ben-Gavir and Netanyahu, who are hell-bent on killing any that gets in their way and anybody that they want to take their land, they have the ethics and the attitude of the so-called Israeli settlers, just stick a gun in somebody's face and say, leave or I'll kill you. I'm taking your farm. That is when you've got a government that's got that kind of mentality at the top, if you can find a way to bridge that and to live at peace with other people, I think we should pay attention to that. And so both of those things really about, bottom-up solutions and I even said to the guy who's Israeli I said well I

certainly hope that works and he goes it is working it is working for us and we're hoping that this example is going to spread and we'll have a bottom-up solution so I thought that was really important so I went a little bit long and I just wanted to put together a lot of stuff on 9-11 especially because it was a 25th anniversary and so much of this stuff is so obvious in people's faces I had another section which I'm going to play today about the demolition aspect of it. I didn't play that one because of time constraints we had on Friday.

And also because of preceding Friday, we had talked to Richard Gage. As a matter of fact, this video leads off with a little introduction by Richard Gage. But the bottom line is it comes back as you look at some of these people's videos trying to explain this. You've got to go back and explain to people how gravity works, how you have perfectly elastic collisions,

There's energy that is absorbed in the defamation when things hit. And you're not going to see this theory that NIST came up with at all the different floors pancaked and started collapsing in a domino chain type of thing. That would look very different because you would see it momentarily hesitating. And as it hits and that energy is transferred or changed, there would be a slight hesitation in that. I remember one of the things that I really enjoyed in engineering, probably more than I enjoyed the electrical aspect of it, was the kinetics. You know, we had to take some engineering core classes like thermodynamics and some structural engineering and some things like that.

And the one that I really liked was kinetics. And I seriously thought about changing majors and getting into something where I could tracking satellites or something like that. But it was one of the questions that we had, I'll never forget it. You're setting in a traffic light and a Volkswagen that weighs X amount of, you know, pounds. And you have the brake, your foot on the brake. And that gives you a coefficient of friction of such and such. And meanwhile, you've got a big gravel truck that's bringing down behind you that is going X certain speed. And this is his weight.

Assuming a perfectly elastic collision, what is your instantaneous acceleration at that point? And I laughed my head off. I saw that test question. But it was a very interesting question. I think about it often when I'm driving. But look, it's just basic physics. And so some of these people in terms of talking about this, they say, well, what is it that keeps people from understanding this? I mean, they see this type of thing all the time in your life.

What is it that is really getting in people's way? And I think the thing that gets in people's way is that they just don't want to live. of with the implications of where that goes. There's a certain amount of group think in it. There's a certain amount of fear to speak up when the peer group all believe or all saying the wrong thing, even if you know that it's wrong.

You'll go along with it sometimes. That's the Ash experiment. Remember, they had a test subject that comes in and everybody else is in on the game and they ask them some questions. You know, what's the length of this line? A couple of lines. Which one is shorter?

Which one is longer? It's pretty obvious. It kept me more obvious. And everybody gives the wrong answer. And after a while, this person comes around, gives the wrong answer as well. So that's a part of it. And it's also a part of it that you don't want to live with what the implications are

if we were lied to about this. And we were lied to about it. DEW, 1957, says AI gives the power at play. The perfect scapegoat, yes, to blame whatever world catastrophe they want to launch. New false flag tool. I couldn't agree more. Just take a look already. And what happens with the autonomous driving cars?

When they create an accident, whose fault is it? Well, nobody's fault, right? Technology did it. Or, you know, these things happen. Nobody's to blame. Nobody's bad, right? So look at 1980, AI is just another tool with ruling class. They want us to obsess about it instead of recognizing that they still rule.

That's right. You go back and look at the history of gun control. and in the middle ages where they had guns, it was about, well, we want you to train with a long bow, and we want you to do it on a regular basis. And to the extent that the English long bow, the yeoman, the ordinary people out there, would train with it so much, they can actually see a difference in bone density in their left arm that was hanging the, holding the bow out in front of them. they use that a lot, but they didn't want you to have a crossbow.

Why is that? Well, crossbow is going to easily penetrate their armor. So that's the history of weapon control, and it doesn't matter. It's not the technology or, oh, this gun is just too dangerous. No, the principle is that they don't want you to have the means of self-defense. They don't want you to have the technology to use for yourself either. They want everything control. centralized under their control, as a matter of fact.

We used to talk to the Libertarian Party about, as a matter of fact, it was part of the core principles of the Libertarian Party. I reject the cult of the omnipotent state. Well, now the state is not simply all-powerful. The state seeks to know everything, to be omniscient, and to be omnipresent. Those are three attributes of God, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresent. right? They want to be God. They act like that, and it is a cult.

It is a religious cult. Dougda, 007, AI just wants us to trust the science. That's right. Yeah, it really is all just an appeal from authority. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, so when are we going to have AI learn to speak and say, I am science? I am the law, right? So, again, going back to this, you've got a,

article from Reason AI Doom is misguided. It's not just a sciop. The pro-AI side has to avoid succumbing to paranoia and to bad faith. Yet again, I think that reason misses the point here. I really do think that they miss this. Again, you should be afraid of turning over this control to government if you're a reason. And to the creators which have been enabled by government. but they never look at human nature, at reason.

No, it's sometimes you can get so blinded by economics that you never look at the, or by technology that you never look at the human nature behind all that stuff. So they said tech folks might have their own reason for stoking mass panic. You better believe they do. But again, this all kind of got kicked off again this week by this guy, Jacob Coxon, who tweeted out, he said, well, I spent the last three years doing pre-training research at both Open AI and Anthropic. He said they're racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.

Now, this got a tremendous amount of viewing, and I think it got something like 10 million views. And so Elon Musk responded to it and said, you know, to downplay it. But then within a couple of days, he had joined the choir. You had one of the first responses was from the guy who is part of, what do they call it? Call it something about confirmation or something like that. The group that wants to make alignment. That's it. Alignment. The alignment group. Making sure that AI is aligned with what we wanted to do, rather than going off and doing something totally crazy. And the guy who's head of that at Anthropic, Evan Hubinger, said,

Jacob is correct here. I personally think that it is a greater than 10% chance within the next decade that it will kill all humans. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence, and we're clearly not on track to. And so, again, But we're going to keep going full speed ahead, right?

That's what some of them are saying. Well, let's slow this down. Let's put some controls on it. Let's put auditing on. Let's get government involved. And these guys have been saying this from the very beginning. So it still could be a marketing stunt, said reason. There's like a 10% chance.

Our totally awesome product goes nuts. Isn't that amazing and scary? Ah! Let's take the arm up in the air like Dr. Strange love. Does it, in fact, sound like, like a marketing gimmick rather than a sober and scientifically reasoned analysis of the likelihood that superintelligence will reduce catastrophe? How was that 10% figure calculated? Did they weigh the odds of superintelligence serving millions of lives or countering a foreign adversary's malicious AI?

Again, we're back to the safety versus efficacy. Well, now, when we see that, just like with the pharmaceutical companies, it's the same thing again, they're not doing a trade. off between safety and efficacy, you know, the good versus the bad. No, this is simply the only calculus in this is the money that they can make. And so again, we've been raised on science fiction stories, it says a reason, of course, Terminator, Matrix, Dune, Battlestar, Galactic, etc. So flashy headlines warning that tech is going to go rogue and kill us all, sells a lot of newspapers. Well, you know, don't forget that

we talk about this being a sciop or something like that, don't forget that, you know, the sciop that lied us into the Iran War, how absurd that was. For over 30 years, Iran was just a couple of weeks away from having a nuclear weapon. And, yeah, we'll talk more about that coming up here. For too long, the industry lied, says Anthropics CEO, Dario Amadai. So I won't lie to you. There are some real dangers. I think for too long the industry lied to people about the fact this technology had real risks.

Okay, so you were lying to us for a long time. But now we can believe you. Okay. Again, the biggest risk could be the end of humanity. Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon warned on social media. And again, this is, said the development of AI has been an exponential curve. starting to get steeper. And again, the issue is when you look at something like this,

the alignment is what they call it. The alignment issue is something that people ought to pay attention to. When the technology changes so rapidly, we've never seen technology change this rapidly. And it's going to create all kinds of issues. And there's no opportunity for people actually make adjustments. And we have seen these types of disruptions hit on one part of the economy at a time in the past.

That's what's different about this. It has the ability to impact virtually every segment of society, one way or the other, and in a negative way. So it isn't that you're just going to have disruption in one area. It's going to happen everywhere all at once. It is a warning sign that we need to slow down. Well, you know, one way to do that is to stop the data centers, but they don't want to do that, do they? Another thing is, whose interests exactly are they trying to align this to?

Because the interests of the Silicon Valley tyrants might not exactly be the same as the wider population. Or the government either. You know, the government that has helped these guys to get into power, the government that has wargamed this out since the 1960s. So what it means is that we need to make sure that every generation of models that we release is properly tested. And so we need to have government to be something like a food inspector, he said. Yeah, how has the FDA working out for us with that? They've enforced some really heinous monopolies of big ag, big beef processors, big pharmaceutical companies.

Has the FDA really helped us in that regard? I don't think so. So, again, they're all now supporting federal regulation. And this is not anything that we haven't seen before. Look at the situation with glyphosate, for example. You had the situation where they're going through, and as people realized, how it was poisoning the soil for any real seed, once you poison the soil, the only thing that would grow there

was the seed that was produced by the company that produced the poison for the soil. So, yeah, it created their own customers and made them captive to them. As a matter of fact, when I was introduced in India, there were a lot of poor farmers, and they ruined their, soil with the glyphosate and then every year they had to buy the seed from Monsanto and it bankrupted them. These people lost everything. They had a massive number of suicides in India because of that. And so when the American farmers were looking at this and they were pushing to put glyphosate and DeCambra, which drifts quite a bit into these different areas, they were enacting laws to say,

well, no, we're not going to do that here. We're going to prohibit that poison in the soil because it doesn't just stay where these people are spraying. It's drifting onto other people's properties, a trespass. And so these regulations started coming up in different farming communities. And one small farming community, you had Monsanto spend over $8 million in terms of campaign ads. And they lost. So what did they do?

And this is during the Obama administration. They went to Washington. And they said, we can't have a patchwork quilt of regulations. We need to have one set of regulations. This is something that needs to be regulated. It's really important. But you, the federal government, needs to do this.

So we've got one set of rules everywhere. Well, that's simply what the industry would like to have, but that's not in the interest of people. And it's not in the interest of the Constitution either. Federal government doesn't have the ability to usurp that kind of power. But we've seen this done over and over again. That is the pattern that they're doing with this. And then we get Trump in.

What does Trump do? Well, it's even worse than what we had with the Dark Act under Obama saying, well, we're going to stop this country. He comes out and he says, no, I don't want you to have any regulation at all at the state level of AI. But when it goes to glyphosate, what does Trump do? He says, well, we're going to declare it to be a national security interest and we're going to subsidize it. As a matter of fact, we're going to put it out there. And the Republicans who have a lot of big agricultural companies behind them, Big Ag, loved that idea because Big Ag, just like Big Pharma, wants to sell product

and they don't care if it kills you. They don't care what it does to your health. It's simply about pumping product out and selling a lot of it. The only calculus is the money that they can make and the product that they can move. And so they operate in the same way. as big pharma as well. So the AI experts want the federal government to regulate this because they want the federal government to give them preferential treatment.

This technology will be built in other countries, including authoritarian countries. Oh, so you mean like the U.S.? And how do we stop that from happening by shutting down any competition in the United States? You guarantee if you shut down the competition in the United States that you will have this run by a foreign country, as a matter of fact. The Chinese government does a better job of an authoritarian centrally controlled economy than we do. Yes, go ahead. Oh, that'll be the excuse for war.

They're two weeks away from AGI. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Yeah. They got this model that's coming out. And let me tell you, when that comes out, it's going to be crazy. The incentives to pull ahead and the military advantage that you get are so large. And honestly, I don't know if it's possible, but we should try.

And so again, it's the military, police state, surveillance state. This is all being driven by that. And the simple fact of the matter is that they don't talk about those issues. They talk about China. You know, we got to worry about China. Folks, we've got to worry about Washington. We got to worry about the wars they want to put us into. We got to worry about the fact that they want to go to war with us with the police surveillance state.

So then, Amidai says this. He said, my view here has always been very strange. technology is being built by a private company. This guy is a very hardcore leftist socialist. Listen to what he says. People ask me a question all the time. Why isn't this being built by government? And he said, I agree with him. And I'm uncomfortable about this. Well, again, it's being built by government because, it's being built by individuals because we are following a fascist model. the merger of corporations and government in the sense that the government will direct the corporations of what to do. But like Hitler said, he said, Stalin got it wrong. He just took over the companies

and he wanted to run them. He can't, he doesn't know how to run them efficiently. I'm going to leave these guys who know how to run the company in charge. And then we'll use it for our purposes. That's the model that we have here. And it has been, it has been built by government. If you go back and look at people who pushed this and who funded it, ask if he's willing to give up his technology to the government. He responded, he said, well, to the right combination of governments, I am concerned that one single government could abuse this technology just as easily as a single company could. Well, then think about the fact that you're going to be consolidating this under government control. You don't think that they could abuse this? Of course they will. It's human nature.

But I think a combination of democratically elected governments, I don't know about handing over, but some kind of oversight, some kind of joint governance. Folks, this is exactly the kind of fuzzy thinking that gives us central banks and macroeconomics and $40 trillion debts. Yeah, it doesn't matter. I mean, you know, on an individual level, you have to be careful about your budget. If you've got a company, if you've got a family budget, you've got to be careful about that. And it matters.

You can't run forever in a deficit. But hey, if it's macroeconomics, Keynesian economics tells us, it doesn't matter. We could just keep piling that stuff on. And so that's the fuzzy thinking here. Well, somehow, if we say that it's democratic, that'll be a control mechanism. Have you noticed democracy doing much to control the evil urges of these people? No, as a matter of fact, these evil people use democracy to escalate their agenda. just look at what Trump did with the $5,000 per family pledge last week.

If we win, I'll give that to you. I mean, it's pure idiocracy. And it is idiocacy to believe that somehow voting makes it all right. It doesn't make it at all right. It is not a check on the evil nature of power. Not at all. Nevertheless, Elon Musk, who first called this out saying, well, I think this is SIOP. He's now on board.

With Sam Altman and with Dario Amadai, he says, yeah, we need to slow this down to avoid any catastrophic damage. And we need to have some government oversight. And so, again, they're all singing the same tune. And we know what that tune is really going to deliver. When the fat lady sings, it's going to all be about the government controlling everything. So suddenly they want a speed limit for everybody else, is the headline from, economic collapse is Michael Schneider, and he's absolutely right about that. He's still that in,

I think, very well. It is monopoly seeking. It is a government and corporate monopoly that is the worst possible case, as a matter of fact. As I said so many times, the left sees no good in corporations, the right sees no good in government. That typically has been the case until Trump now they, let's just forget about MAGA. It's just this aberrant idiotic thing. But typically with libertarians, versus socialist, that's what we would see. And yet what they don't see, either party doesn't see that governments and corporations merge together. And that's when they get to be their most evil and their most dangerous.

And so, again, we'll, we're going to take a quick break here in a moment. But I think that, you know, when we go back and look at it from the perspective of Babel, this is what Michael Snyder says. He said, one language now runs. silicon. The men who wrote it want magistrates to lock the stairwell after they've already laid the next course of bricks. So they're on their way building a tower of Babel and there's no restrictions on that. So Trump, meanwhile, of course, rejects this. He always throws caution to the wind. He never thinks about the consequences. It's always about his immediate gratification,

whether it's what he eats or his wars or his tariffs or anything else. And so again, he's back to China, China, China. Well, again, putting restrictions on domestic development of technology is only going to help China. So the issue is the data centers. And what an issue it is. Think about what they promise us. You know, they promise us that they're going to take everybody. jobs, whether that's going to happen or not.

They promise us the data centers that are going to take our electricity and our water, and in return, we get massive amounts of noise and continuous surveillance that'll be handed over to the government. They do all of that. And at the end, they say, and yeah, there's the likelihood that it's going to kill us all. Where is the cost-benefit analysis? As a matter of fact, DG8 said the whole idea and the Constitution in three branches of government was to create a roadblock when the government is doing something.

Rest assured that it is not to benefit the American people. That's right. We want to make sure that we slow things down. That was what the basic principles of the Constitution were about, especially even at a time when technology was not moving fast, when things are not changing rapidly. They still said we need to slow these things down and deliberate about what we're going to do. We're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.

Decoding the mainstream propaganda. It's the David Knight Show. Here's a little song I wrote. You might want to hear it in your pod. You'll owe nothing. E-happie. No cash ain't got no car, but to empty four booster shots in your arm. Oh, nothing.

Be happy. Buy shit in the store. because of your low social credit score. Oh, nothing. He had me. Nothing eats the bugs. Yeah, as a matter of fact, I got another comment here from DGA. Thank you for the tip on Rumble.

He says, David, I took a picture of my almost 21-year-old Jack Russell Terrier. Sent it to AI and said it's about a four or five-year-old chihuahua. I guess that's what happens when Jack Russell Terrier's age, right? They turn into chihuahuas. No, I guess at this point, your Jack Russell Terrier's probably got the, at 21 years old, probably has the energy level of a puppy of any other breed. Those dogs have a lot of energy. I think my border collies got a lot of energy, but Jack Russell Terriers are on a whole other level,

I guess. Well, as we're talking about intelligence and artificial intelligence, let's talk about real intelligence. The clues in human DNA that prove life had an intelligence. intelligent creator. This is actually an article from the Daily Mail. And of course, they will come back and tip their hat to the consensus scientific opinion that there is no God periodically. But they talk about Dr. Orson Wedgwood, a New England-based healthcare researcher who argues that DNA could not have emerged randomly in puddles or undersea events on early Earth, calling

its spontaneous formation so improbable that it is effectively impossible. That's right. When you look at something, this is the great deception of people like Richard Dawkins and others. You know, I mean, Carl's saying billions and billions and billions of years. We've got billions and billions of years. We've got billions and billions of planets. And so, therefore, there's got to be lots of life out there. No, not at all. As a matter of fact, when you look at something, when you have, you know, the whole idea that, well, if you got a monkey that's setting in a typewriter, just randomly punching away, given enough time, if that monkey were to live for billions of years, he would probably produce a Shakespeare manual. It's the nonsense. Well, that's not true. The simple fact of the matter is, is that if you've got something that has a zero percent probability of happening, even if you multiply it out by a billion, guess what?

It's still zero. So the genetic system contains abstract instructions. that nature has no known mechanism for creating unaided. That is the issue, folks. It is foolish to deny intelligent design. And again, we can look around us. We can see all the things that are there in the many different ways that the universe is just perfect

for the supporting of life. If it was off just a little bit, there wouldn't be any life. And that's the other side of the probability. What's the probability that this would be like that and that would be like that and that would be like that and that would be like that and you stack all those probabilities together of things that really did happen and what are the chances of them all happening in exactly the same way at exactly the same time? Well, then you do have something that points to an answer. Not when you start out with something that we don't see ever happening. And that's issues in thermodynamics as well as in. intelligence, but that is the key thing.

And when you look at Crick and Watson who discovered DNA, they realize that they had intelligence there. When you stop and think about what they've done in terms of trying to discern an extraterrestrial intelligence, the SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, why are they looking for? They're looking for some kind of a signal, some kind of a signal that isn't just random. Because if it's organized and not just random, well, that would indicate intelligence. And yet we have that kind of intelligence inside each and every one of us.

And inside of each and every plant and animal. All things have DNA. So people have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to decode something. If there was a code, there has to be a coder. There has to be intelligence behind it. Or, as the Bible puts it, in the beginning, there was logos, there was information. and the word, okay, is how that's right. In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word was God.

And you have to have that intelligence to organize this. It is not going to be self-organizing. It is no adding years and eons to this stuff. It's not some magic formula. It's not some magic fairy dust that makes it all happen. Any more than saying, well, somehow there was some kind of an explosion or some kind of a force, and then that organized things. You ever see that happen?

You ever open up your window and a breeze comes through and you've got a bunch of papers on your desk? And all of a sudden it organizes them by category and stacks them very nicely and neatly. No, it just adds more disorder to it when you have something like that. He also pointed to the protective barriers that hold cells together, arguing that explaining their parents exposes a fundamental gap in accounts of how life began. Wedgwood's case says a daily mail pushing back on that said, well, okay, well, we've got a language here. And we got a language that just happened. It doesn't have any intelligence behind it.

And yet we had the Human Genome Project that was run by Francis Collins before he became the head of the NIH. But they worked for a very long time with a tremendous amount. of computer resources, try to decode some of the DNA. And so it was not only an intelligence, but it was intelligence that was much greater than their intelligence, wasn't it? And so he looks at that. He looks at the protective barriers, and he said, well, you know, how does this work? How does this evolve?

Because it actually, if you get a protective barrier around one part of it, the other part of it is still exposed. It's kind of like the idea that how did the bats evolve? from rats, right? So you've got rats and then you got the flying mouse, which is what the German word is for bat, the fleeter mouse. And how did they get the wings? I mean, you know, before they could fly, as these wings are starting to develop, it actually becomes an encumbrance for the mouse, that it's trying to get into small places and hide with different things. When they can't fly, that's a big issue. And you see that type of thing repeated over and over again. But Daily Mail comes back

their obligatory pushback says, However, Wedgwood's case rests on his interpretation of DNA's complexity, rather than experimental evidence demonstrating an intelligent creator. No, the DNA's complexity is real. And it is the DNA's complexity, Daily Mail, that argues for an intelligent creator. You know, day after day, night after night, heaven's pour forth speech.

They talk about the glory of God, and that's exactly what they mean by that. And we have more than just the astronomical, cosmological issues that are there. Now we have things, of course, that we look inside of us as well. So I think, as I said before, when you look at a car, you don't say, I wonder how that came together. Say, who made that? You know that there was somebody who made that. How could you look at something as complicated as DNA?

and not say who made that. And that's where Daily Mail misses out on this. So Wedgwood sets out his challenge in DNA, the elephant in the lab. That's the name of his book. He holds a PhD in organic medicinal chemistry. And his doctoral work involved designing drugs interfered with DNA replication and translation. Was he doing MRI? I don't know.

But anyway, that experience prompted his interest in the biochemical relationship between genetic instructions and proteins. He began studying life's origins more closely during a period when his Christian faith was challenged. That's always a good thing. We should invite challenges to our Christian faith. We should be ready to give an answer to people for the hope that is within us. And we should not run away from these challenges, but run to them because that's what builds our faith. Scientists had identified reactions producing certain starting materials.

without explaining how those ingredients became a functioning living system. He said, there are three types of insurmountable hurdles, chemical, statistical, and conceptual. The statistical problem, he said, concerns the extraordinary improbability of amino acids assembling into a functional protein without any direction. And his conceptual objection goes further. He says, as modern cells depend on DNA to provide instructions for proteins, while proteins help to copy and to translate those instructions. He questioned then how that interdependent arrangement could have been risen without intelligence.

And again, when you look at symbiotic species, or even things like the flowers and the bees, not necessarily the birds of the bees, but the flowers in the bees. But of course, the birds and bees also is there as well, sexual reproduction or the pollination of flowers. How does any of that happen gradually? it has to come about all at once, so it's not going to work. If you think about just a part of that being there, there is no answer for how it could stay around long enough for anything to change in a happy, fortuitous accident. He said, you need a barrier around a cell for the contents to stay together and to function as a unit. Part of that wall would provide no useful protection.

It's kind of like Trump's wall. He built a, yeah, we got a 2,000-whatever-mile, border and he builds a few hundred miles of it and so he's got a door that's about 1500 miles wide. Part of a wall provides no useful protection, but instructions for a complete barrier would require a substantial genetic sequence. Researchers have proposed that oily bubbles or chambers and rocks could have contained early chemical systems. He rejects these substitutes that leave the origin of the cell's own protective barrier unexplained. He also argued that an existing enclosure would remove the pressure for such a system to develop its own boundary. So the RNA world hypothesis

addresses a different starting point. Scientists proposed the simpler RNA-based systems could bridge the transition from non-living chemistry to early life. No, it is a design and it requires a designer. That is the thing that you can't get past. You know, Richard Dawkins wrote a book called the blind watchmaker. And the reality is that he's blind to seeing the intelligence of the watchmaker. The watchmaker doesn't need to be able to see. If he's intelligent enough, he can build a watch. But Richard Dawkins can't see the intelligence. To explain the distinction between unlikely and impossibly imagines a cow traveling from a field near the reader's home to New Zealand. healing through events beginning with an open gate.

He said it's ludicrous, but you could conceive how it could happen. But the deeper gaps in the original life explanations are much more like expecting the cow to jump over the moon, he argues. He also points the persistence of the relationship between DNA and proteins, describing the genetic system as a frozen accident. Do we see evolving still? No. It's extremely hard to change even one component within that system.

And when you change it, it breaks down. See, that was the thing. And I would encourage this to anybody who's got children. When you teach them, teach them about, take the approach that God created these individual amazing animals that we see everywhere. God did that. And if you take it from that perspective, and you look at it and you say, well, look at the woodpecker, look at the giraffe.

We have all these unusual animals that are out there. And think about all the different things that make them work. The woodpecker's got special feet so it can hold to a tree vertically. It's got special shock absorbers for when it hammers the tree with its brain. It's got a very long, sticky tongue that curls up and around. All those things have to be there at once, right? Irreducible complexity. Same thing with the giraffe.

How does it not pass out when it lowers its head to get a drink of water? You know, with a blood pressure. It's got a massive heart that's pushing this stuff up. You know, what are the mechanisms that allow it to function like that, that are very interesting and unique? When you look at it from that standpoint, certainly the kids come away with an understanding that there is a designer. And it makes biology a lot more interesting.

When I was not biology, they showed us a bunch of skeletons. And you talk about reducing anything down to the bare bones. And, oh, look, this skeleton is kind of looks a little bit similar to that. And so they must have come from each other. It's like, well, no, might have been a common designer. Might have been the answer for that as well. So again, get your kids to think critically, to question what they're told, and let them enjoy the massive diversity and design of God's creation. I would say an excellent resource for that is Answers in Genesis.

That's where we found our stuff. So anyway, this guy's book was partly inspired by comments. made in 2017 by a former astronaut who was then Canada's governor-general. She questioned why people were still debating divine intervention versus natural origins. And so she actually mocked the people who disagreed. Justin Trudeau praised her defense of so-called science and truth. And he said, that encouraged him to investigate. She threw that challenge out there to him.

And he investigated it. And that has been the testimony of so many Christians. I've seen. So many people who did not share their spouses faith, usually a wife, and they wanted to disprove it because they didn't like the way to change their wife. And so they started investigating it. And then they are converted in the process. The guy who did Colcate's Christianity was one of those examples. But I've seen so many people who have become Christians that way and become very strong Christians. Because once you have your faith challenged, once you investigate it and you find that the explanation that the Bible has is the one that makes the most sense.

Look, we're all going to accept certain things with a certain amount of faith in terms of our worldview. You're never going to get absolute proof of anything. It's just like people have all this stuff out, the age of the universe, or they throw out the fact that 10% chance that it's going to destroy humanity. Where do these things come from? And nobody ever explains where they get these numbers. They're thrown out there with an authority figure. And we, that's not scientific thinking. Scientific thinking is where you are shown the process, where you can reproduce that process.

Anything other than that is just an argument from authority. It's an argument from academia, which Francis Bacon pushed back against with a scientific method. He claims some Christian scientists privately share its doubts, but they avoid discussing them publicly because their career depends on keeping quiet. The same type of thing that we see with all the pharmaceutical stuff. So he said every code, every other code is a result directly of intelligence. And that sort of speaks to the evidence of perhaps an intelligent originator. Exactly. Why would we think that when every other code has intelligence behind it, this has no intelligence. By comparing DNA with codes devised by people does not demonstrate that biological

information must arise the same way as human language, says Daily Mail. Well, yes, it does. It says that you don't have a code without any information. As a matter of fact, Werner Get wrote a book said in the beginning was information. It's pretty close to summarizing what the Bible says about Logos and in the beginning it was there. It's Matter of fact, you have a great pyramid may unlock some new secrets. Mathematical code is found in it, says one guy. And so, again, sometimes people can go back and identify a pattern that, and that may be the case in this guy's pyramid stuff. Maybe he's identifying a pattern that is coincidental or maybe not.

Okay, they may have been trying to say something in it. But nevertheless, when you look at the pyramid, Amids? Do you think they happen by random chance? I mean, the big question is that I by how in the world that get built? It looks difficult to everybody. It's hard to imagine how that could be built without the kind of equipment that we have. They had a different kind of intelligence, didn't they? But who built it? How did they build it? Why did they build it? You see, these are the questions that we're not allowed to ask about our own bodies, for example. Many wondering how, why it was built in Egypt before 1,000 years ago, a new theory suggested that one message may be staring us in the face all along. And this is a guy who was saying, rather than this being, these things being built to house important carcasses from dead leaders, maybe the pyramids themselves were the things that were important. So he looks at it from a different perspective. And again, I'm not going to

the details of what he thinks that he may have found here. But he said he looks at other calculations that he's found that would indicate that they show the cycles of other planets, including Venus and Jupiter, the proportion of the pyramids itself produce figures that are akin to pie and the golden ratio. Again, this is all about intelligence, isn't it? And yet you can look at this and you can say, well, Stonehenge didn't just, You know, it's a bunch of stones here. They just happened to get here.

I don't know how they got here. But they're really big stones. They're just kind of a freak accident of nature. I guess it was a storm that put them that way. Or you could say that about the pyramids. Now, that would be stupid, wouldn't it? And yet these two articles are both carried by the Daily Mail. One of them arguing that, well, of course, the pyramids are built by people.

How did they do it? The other one saying, well, yeah, your body was not built by an intellectual. intelligence. It just happened. The reality is that we can, we can look at this and they can examine the intelligence to say that it's behind the design and say, look at this, it can predict the movements of the planets. And yet, it doesn't look at the planets as something that even though they are predictable and ordered, it doesn't see that. And certainly, I think even more, more than cosmology, the DNA argues the intelligent design. So he goes back to the origin story of the Egyptians,

states that they state the earth formed when a sacred hill of dry land, known as the Ben Ben, rose from the depths, which it has said that the creator God brought himself into existence then. See, this is the issue. you have to have a God that is self-existent. That is the very definition of God. But somehow their God comes from the land that again somehow magically appeared from underneath the sea.

Kind of interesting, isn't it? They believe that the Earth was originally just a dark endless ocean known as none, except they have none answer to any of this. Very similar in some regards to what the Genesis account says. In the beginning, the Earth was without form. in void and darkness is on the face of the earth and Spirit of God hovered over the waters and spoke light and everything else into existence. That is one observation and it is supernatural and we don't

shy away from that. But it does make sense. Meanwhile, as we look at what is happening in the United States in terms of the insanity that we have here, I think we should never underestimate the ability of people to embrace ridiculous ideas, like transgenderism, for example. And it is so ridiculous that James Tolariko is now having to flip-flop all over the place to get away from his previous statements about trans, especially trans kids. He went on Fox News, and he said, well, now I would absolutely support a national ban on gender transition surgeries for kids. Very different from what he was saying a few years ago.

As a matter of fact, in 2023, that's only three years ago. When he was a state lawmaker, he voted against a Texas bill which would ban trans surgeries for minors. He condemned the bill at the time for being dangerous and said that it was the twisted result of Christophascism. Well, since when do kids get to make decisions that can be incredibly harmful and irreversible? As I've said so many times, we look at saying people who don't want kids to have guns. They don't want kids to drive. They don't want kids to drink. They don't want kids to smoke.

But, hey, if you want to take drugs to alter your body, to sterilize and mutilate yourself surgically, well, that's fine. When pressed by Fox News on his claim in 2021, that there were six biological sexes, he said, well, obviously I was wrong. Well, we know you're wrong. Question is, where do you get that magic number six? I thought it was kind of coincidental because it was only recently that I, realize that ancient Jewish writings, and I'm not talking about the Old Testament,

I'm talking about the Talmud, the Mishnak, and the Midrash, these rabbinical writings that have nothing to do with the Old Testament. And these rabbinical writings, they had six different genders. Now, those are primarily for legal purposes. However, this is really grabbed a hold of and popularized in the 90s by Jewish queer studies, because Jewish people, especially in Israel, were at the forefront of the transgender stuff. And it doesn't begin in the 1990s. It goes back to the Weimar Republic.

And the first transgender surgeries done by a Jewish guy who was there and he had a, he had a institute, a clinic that was there. They got it made legal to do that type of thing. They were on the forefront of that before Hitler took over. That was what the Weimar Republic was doing. And so, again, Is that where the six genders come from? And he says, now Tolar Rico says, no, I missed the mark with some of my past statements. I'll be the first to admit it.

He also pivoted on his stance about trans athletes. So again, transitioning minors, he now denies that, even though he adamantly supported. Six different sexes and genders. No, he now denies that. And now the trans sports issue. In 2021, he said some things are more important than perfectly fair competition. in sports. It doesn't feel that way now.

He says, I care a lot about our student athletes. I care a lot about our students. So I will oppose trans athletes playing girls' sports if it risks safety or fairness. You see his wiggle room there? If it does? No, it does, Tala Rico. It's not an if. It is a because.

And he's not going to admit that. So, again, he gets the ire of a lot of LGBT. advocates there, they said, this guy is just all over the place, he's going to betray us. And it's like, yeah, he will. He'll do whatever puts him in power, just like Trump will, just like they all do. They all tell you whatever you want to hear when you vote for him. And the people that he's really going to betray are the people who think that he's changed this position on this LGBT stuff.

In Canada, you have a Christian doctor, by the way, who has fined $28,000 for refusing to give a trans teen, a puberty blocker. Yeah, they're not about choice, are they? Just like the abortionists, they're not about choice. And they're not about your conscience. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ordered a Christian family doctor to pay $28,100 after declining to inject a trans-identifying 14-year-old with a hormone blocker because doing so would go against his religious beliefs, he said. So this was a doctor who has immigrated from Nigeria. and he went to medical school there.

He practiced in South Africa. Then he moved to British Columbia before he went to this particular place. He sees about 50 patients a day, has about 3,000 patients. And so this was a family that went to him for health care. They decided that he wanted to, the mother wanted the kid to transition. And so he said, well, I don't do that. And you refer them to a clinic where they can go. So they go to the clinic and the clinic says, well, yeah, we've got a drug for that,

puberty blockers, but you should have your physician inject that. So they come back to have him do it. And he says, oh, I can't do that. And so the mother was irate. She was, you know, beyond angry. They went to another walk-in clinic and got them to give the injection that same day. But that wasn't good enough for it. She had to punish him.

And so she took him before this tribunal that found that the child, they call him child cue and mom cue to make sure that their identities are kept secret. So again, we're talking about a child, talking about a minor. And so the tribunal found that the doctor had misgendered and dead named the patient. in other words, called the boy by his real name and his real gender and sex, during their appointment and that also an office assistant during a two-hour wait had used the wrong name for their child. The dignity of the child was not upheld.

Yeah, and again, what if mom demanded that the doctor give her child a shot of, let's say whiskey instead of a shot of a hormone blocker, right? Would that be okay? Well, no, that's not okay to give that to a kid. And to, you know, go to into a bar and say, you humiliated my child by not serving them some alcohol at the bar. No, you don't have the maturity to do that. As a matter of fact, it could harm your body, especially at a young age.

According to the tribunal, so they said that this drug does not on its own conflict with the doctor's stated religious belief that God created man and woman. No, it just tries to make a woman out of a man. In other words, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decided that Puberty Walkers are not gender reassignment, except that they are. And so they said, he felt uncomfortable, he felt unprepared. They said, this context is an explanation for his, his decision, but it does not justify his decision.

So, in other words, that's the reason they didn't do it, but we don't think it's justified. And so on that note, we're going to take a break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about the case of the mother who killed her kids, right? She may have a reason for doing it, but does that justify her doing it? We'll be right back. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. Welcome back. Molly Brown Dog.

So the trainees will stampede that doctor now in the hopes of leaching all of his money out through lawfare. Well, as a matter of fact, that tribunal gave $20,000 to the mother who was, you know, her dignity was offended. And then the other 8,100 was to the tribunal itself. They award it. Truly is amazing. And as they looked at it, they said, well, yeah, he gave us his reasons. for why he did what he did, but we don't like his reasons,

so we're going to punish him. And it doesn't justify it, even though he had a reason. And as I said before, you know, we look at this Clancy case, Lindsay Clancy, and the decision that was there, this has caused a great deal of consternation

with people. And there's a lot of important issues here. I didn't talk about this. Lance was saying, you know, I got a lot of people saying, Wednesday we're going to talk about this because I talked about juries and jury nullification.

and in this particular case, you've got a jury nullifying murder. Laws against murder. And that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about jury nullification being there as a check against government overreach and power. You know, we have different types of laws, don't we? You have some laws that pretty much every civilized society, unless they have been uncivilized for quite some time and their consciences have been seared with the hot iron, everybody understands that, Murder is wrong. You know, cannibalism is wrong. Thief is wrong. And yet in some societies and in some cultures, theft, murder in order to steal from people, those things have now been normalized.

I'm talking about Israel, for example, right here. But you have situations like that where the culture cannot be trusted. It's one of the reasons why John Adams said, we've got a form of government that only works with a moral people. But they wanted to give people a check on government usurpation of power. And that's the way I see the jury nullification as. When you talk about laws about murder and that type of thing, that just harkens back. If the jury doesn't support that, that harkens back to a broken immoral people. But before we get onto that, I want to thank some of the people who have supported us. We're about halfway through the month. And I don't want to go too long without doing this. I want to thank people, first of all,

we'll have the list tomorrow for Zell and for Cash Hat. But I want to thank the people who sent in checks. It's been very generous. Tom, Nancy, Abby, and Sammy, Kay, thank you so much. Long-term supporters, very strong supporters of the show. Dale L. Teal C. Scott C. Mary N. And we have a letter here from Mary as well about a, she said you got the book, Mind Virus. that was by my guest, Mr. Leek, and she thinks that it's very helpful. And she's really enjoying that. She thanked me for the interview about that. But I'm glad that she found that to be useful.

We also have Tango L, a new supporter, and Joni S. James F. N. Z. Thank you very much. Ann is a new supporter. Marty K. Gonzalez M. Timothy W. Susan H., also a new supporter. Thank you so much. Joel B. H.D. and NC. Margaret Mary T. Peter G. and Dian L.

Also on, we have other people. I'm not going to read those names off here, but sorry but to mumble about this. But that was a note that Karen left me. By the way, part of that note is this letter from Dian L. And in it, she was talking about the fact that what happened during 2020 with all of the mandates and the harmful vaccine. And she wrote me a letter saying that it was very helpful to her to have the examples to get a spiritual exemption. Her husband used that. And I got to give a shout out to Jason Barker because it was Jason's example that he

had there that we put on the website. And I've had a lot of people say they were helped by that. Of course, Jason Barker, Knights of the Storm. And she said that, both she and her husband were punished because of their exemption in one way or the other. He's got an ongoing case, lost wages and being kept off of their jobs. She said two months ago, after five years of fighting this, she was able to get a grievance award over the lost wages that they took from her for not getting injected. And so I'm so happy for you that happened. And the happiest I am is the fact that you didn't get injected,

whether or not you were compensated for the harm that they did to you financially. Just understand there are a lot of people who made that decision, that compromised because they're worried about finances. And unfortunately, they were browbeat into doing something that they're living with the harmful consequences of that now for a very long time. It really does break my heart to see this type of thing happening. But I'm so glad that you didn't get it. And I'm so glad that you got compensation for the injustice that was done to you. But let's talk about the injustice of these jurors there because this is, of course, as you probably know by now, there were 11 women and one man on this jury that was looking at the woman who killed her kids. It was nine women and three men.

Oh, okay. Thank you. So some of the men went along with it. There was one man that was a holdout. That's what made me think it was 11 and 1. Thank you, Lance, for correcting that. Anyway, one guy held out, and he had several these women who went on to talk shows afterwards because this became such a big case.

And I looked at it and I thought, what? Why is this a cause-seleb for the left? And it became a big left and right issue, people trying to own the other side. And that's one of the reasons why I didn't talk about it. But there are issues to talk about when this in terms of how do juries work? and what is the purpose of juries. And then the other issue is why is this so important to these liberal women? You know, when they talked about what it was that got them to vote to acquit this woman,

again, she killed her three kids, did it sequentially, and then she tried to commit suicide. And she said she was depressed, postpartum depression. She doesn't say that she was on SSRI drugs or anything like that. usually that's what we see with murder or suicide. I don't know if that was a part of this. They're saying that it was simply because she'd had a kid. And so this, as you can understand, is really something that the women on the left who are all

about abortions and self-determination and, you know, hey, I'm a woman. We've got special problems. You can see why they would latch onto this thing. And boy, did they ever latch onto it. They were out there condemning the fact that she wasn't acquitted, that there was one lone juror that was holding out. And I guess the most amazing thing about it is the fact that they went on to, did some interviews, some of these jurors, and said, yeah, the defense attorney was really

clever and funny, very entertaining. I mean, it was about as shallow as you can imagine. And then criticizing the man, they said he was very obstinate and arrogant. He said he just couldn't get over the fact that she'd killed her three kids. Yeah, even worse than that. He just couldn't get over the fact that she viciously killed. her three kids, strangled them with exercise bands. He apparently reenacted it to show the other jurors, but that wasn't enough for them.

Yeah, one at a time. I mean, she's a serial killer of our own kids. And I'm sorry, you know, there are people who have had postpartum depression. This is unusual. And yet it has been really celebrated by the women on the left. It just shows you how toxic this feminism has become, the fact that, they now celebrate somebody who kills her kids in that kind of a heinous manner. Well, they had a lot of practice with this, haven't they, in terms of supporting abortion?

And so then they were all about all these men, blah, blah, blah, and then it comes out that the guy is black. And then you have Gail King who says, oh, well, I'm going to have to sit with that, I guess, I mean I'm going to live with that. She's not happy at all about the fact that the guy is not white. It'd be easy to hate a white man, but I don't know, he's a black man. I'm just going to have to think about that. And so it was a very long process for these people to try to convince them that it wasn't an issue. Now, after this has all come out, they're not stopping at that. They are now doxed this guy.

This is who the guy is and then start to investigate his background. They said that when he and his wife were the process of getting a divorce or allegations, of assault or abuse or something like that physical. And yet they dropped the charges of I understand that correctly. But nevertheless, they're coming after them. So DeSantis has offered asylum to this juror. That you can run away to Florida. This is being used as a political football,

but there are some important issues here. Again, as I said, when we talk about juries, sometimes juries will do this, especially if their priority is racial, if their priority is sexual in terms of man versus woman, that type of thing, that clouds their issue over the bigger picture. I think that was a case in the O.J. Simpson jury. I think that's the case here, except you got one guy who's a holdout on all this stuff. And so it's not clear.

I mean, they can take up to three times they can charge somebody. If they get a hung jury, they can go typically in most, states, you can go three times for that. It's not clear whether they will bring this back or not, and yet he was the one who was actually right. I've never bought into this claim of temporary insanity as being an excuse. As a matter of fact, I've mentioned it before. I had my aunt and uncle were killed by a guy who murdered him. He was somebody, he was a former convict, and they didn't do the due diligence, I guess, to find out what the situation was with them. It was a very small house. They didn't have much money. They lived in one side of a duplex and rented out the other side.

And he didn't pay them rent for several months. And so they were very apologetically told him and said, we're going to have to evict you. Well, he came back. And that night he broke in to their house and somebody who was close by. Again, a lot of small houses so people could hear the noise, heard this guy, saw this guy. There's no question that he was the one who did it. As a matter of fact, after he murdered my aunt and uncle he ran away for a short period of time and they couldn't find him for about a week and then he turned himself in and he said yeah I did it I was high on drugs at the time it's like okay that's my take on what these people were saying about that doctor who said well I couldn't do that and they said well that's your reason but it's not an excuse they thought

well I looked at that and said okay well that may be the reason why you did it but it's not an excuse what were you doing before you got high on drugs? If you can't control yourself on drugs, that's your problem. Did you willingly take these drugs yourself? Did you decide to take them? Yeah, or did somebody do that to you, right? And so that is, when you look at this, temporary insanity, right? Just like this woman is trying to plead temporary insanity.

And yet, from what I understand, there's not any drugs involved in this, like SSRIs, which would typically be the case. Postpartum depression is something. something that a lot of women go through, but they don't strangle their kids one at a time, like she did. So again, I think that the jury got this shamefully wrong, but I think that it is also part of the feminist agenda to say that women's needs come before anything else and that children are just an obstacle to your self-realization, right? So, in fact, the ages of the kids were five years old, three years old, and eight months.

So postpartum depression after eight months, and she kills them one at a time with exercise bans. Then she tried to take her life and... And it was premeditated. She sent the husband out so that she could kill them. Yeah, I didn't follow the story that closely. But thank you for adding that, Lance. Yeah, that is truly amazing. But you know, as I point out, this guy who murdered my aunt and uncle,

his name was Alphonse Green. And he was, they gave him life in prison. And actually not life in prison. They were going to execute him. But he kept doing appeal after appeal after appeal. And there was a Canadian group that was against a death penalty. and he became one of their cause celebs because he wrote some poetry or something.

He said, oh, we must not let this guy be killed. It's like, well, that's fine. He writes some poetry. That doesn't change anything. And my cousins used to have to go to these hearings over and over again to make sure they didn't let this guy loose. And they had to relitigate that over and over again. And he did not get executed.

God took care of him. He got cancer, which is. is probably worse than any form of execution that he could have gotten from the state. He died of cancer in prison. But when you look at this, this whole idea of the insanity plea, I think, is just the biggest bunch of nonsense. That is the issue. That and feminism and the state of our society are the issue.

Juries are a great mechanism. And jury nullification is something that is a very important power. but again, the power can only be used if it's wielded by a moral people. And so speaking of moral people or the lack of morality, let's talk a little bit about our war as the war continues to spread. Trump said, if I had to do Iran again, I would do it exactly as I did it. He was asked Thursday night by Laura Ingram. She said, any regrets about Iran?

He said, I don't believe in the word regret. That's right. He doesn't believe in the word regret. He doesn't believe in the word repentance. He's told us in the past. He doesn't need any forgiveness for anything he's done. And we know that he also doesn't ever forgive anybody for any trespasses against him. It's kind of the version of the Lord's Prayer, right?

I won't forgive anybody who trespasses against me, and I don't want you to forgive me either. So he says, I don't believe in the word regret. He said, if we hadn't done Iran, you would be, she said to him, you would be cruiseries. you would be cruising to midterm victory right now. And he said, yeah, well, suppose that Iran had a nuclear weapon. They would use it. This is the 30-year-plus laughable lie that Netanyahu has been telling people. He said, I've had to do it again.

I would do exactly what I did. He's going to hang on that idea that he's got to stop the nukes. And yet, here is the truth about all of that. We are not talking about North Korea today. And there's a reason why we're not talking about North Korea, because North Korea has a nuclear weapon. And so nobody wants to mess with North Korea. Well, the Iranians weren't building a nuclear weapon. There are two CIA National Intelligence Estimates that concluded that there was no nuclear weapons program,

besides the fact that Ayatollah Khatmanai issued a fatwa decades ago saying there will be no nuclear weapons program. But Benjamin Netanyahu came to the United States dozens upon dozens of times to... And again, even Trump knows this. He said, as a matter of fact, as part of that, he said, well, if they'd had a nuclear weapon, I'd be calling the Supreme Leader and I'd be saying, Mr. Supreme Leader, how are you, sir? Is there anything we can do for you? As opposed to bombing the crap out of him, he said.

Look, this lesson is not lost on Iran or anybody else. They were not building a nuclear weapon. you better believe they are now. And you better believe there's a lot of countries that are doing that because they're not going to be left alone by the likes of Netanyahu and Trump if they don't have a nuclear weapon. So he knows exactly what that is about. But I want to go back. Like I said, I've got another clip that I didn't play on Friday. This is about the demolition stuff on 9-11.

And I think it is really important that we go back and look at this because, again, all of this stuff was tied together from the very beginning. As a matter of fact, even when you look at Michael Chertoff, the guy who was the first director of Homeland Security. Are you aware that his father was a Talmud teaching rabbi? His mother was involved in some of the earliest Zionist movement, so much so, in fact, that many people have said she was one of the founders of Mossad, in the same sense that Obama's grandparents were founders of the CIA. This is a guy who, after he was director of Homeland Security,

he goes to a company after that, and his company was the one that created the naked body scanners. They had them all manufactured and ready to roll out, as a matter of fact, when you had the phony underwear bomber and they rolled that stuff out. That's Michael Chertoff, again, the fingerprints of Israel in 9-11 yet again. But I want to play for you the part of the Reichstag fire for the police and surveillance state, because I think that's really where this ultimately goes. The fact that they have to claim, not only do they set us on a path of one war, after the other to benefit Israel, but they also have set this thing up for the police surveillance state as well. The police state's Reichstag fire.

The problem is that we don't have large gradual deformations associated with collapses, and fires in high rises have never brought down a steel frame of high-rise building at all, ever. And what we have, unfortunately, is the evidence in the Twin Towers and the third sky-scrake-scrake. to collapse that day, which most people don't know anything about it, we have the evidence of the 10 key features of controlled demolition. In the case of building 7, it collapses straight down into its own footprint at free fall speed in the first 100 feet. It's dropping, as you can see,

symmetrically, smoothly, at free fall speed in the first 100 feet, two and a half seconds. This is uncanny. There's 40,000 tons of structural steel designed to resist to resist this collapse. What, a 47-story building? Yeah, it's called Building 7, right? A football field away from the Twin Towers. Okay, so what we're showing is left, what happened, in fact,

right is controlled where you are using, or the people who made this happen, used demolition. And this is a direct comparison. And you can see that, indeed, almost free fall speed, free fall acceleration through 40,000 tons of structural steel. That is uncanny. So we have 700 R-R-R-R-R-Rsons. 700 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation as a result of this evidence and the evidence in the World Trade Center that is very explosive.

Almost every architect and engineer we show this information to agrees with us that these are controlled demolitions. If we can get them to look at the information, because obviously the implications of a controlled demolition are dark for our country. Because that means somebody besides al-Qaeda was involved, because these have to be easily three of the most highly secure buildings outside the Something of this kind is what we should have seen when the top section of the towers collapsed onto the lower one. The upper and lower sections should have mutually destroyed each other until all the energy is dissipated and the system comes to arrest. What could not have happened is this. A little tiny chunk of the building can't possibly fall and crush the entire structure below it. This is such a simple, fundamental concept that architects and engineers were astonished in seeing it totally ignored by NIST.

This is high school physics, and our whole society is being led to believe that these fundamental laws of physics, hard science, don't apply anymore. But even if we assume that the top section of the tower had enough potential energy to destroy the rest of the structure below, it could not have done so at the speed it did, which was near freefall speed. That would have violated an even more important principle in physics, known as the Law of Momentum Conservation. This law states that the total energy within an isolated system must always remain the same. As we have seen, the energy can be transformed within the system, from motion to physical deformation. But for the deformation to begin, the velocity must decrease in order for one kind of energy to be transformed into the other. No new energy can be added to the system. One particular example of momentum conservation is freefall.

Freefall happens when the only form. applied on an object is gravity. This means that all the potential energy contained by the object is converted into vertical motion. As soon as the falling object hits an obstacle and breakage occurs, the speed must decrease because some of its energy needs now to be converted into physical breakage. It takes energy to break things apart, and that energy must come from within the system. As the falling rock cannot keep falling at free fall speed and break apart at the same time, because it doesn't have enough energy to do both.

Let's go now to the Twin Towers and ask a simple question. Assuming that the top section on the left contains enough potential energy to destroy the rest of the tower, and assuming we dropped both upper sections at the same time, which one would hit the ground first? It would be the second, of course. As it finds no obstacles in its path, the section on the right would quickly accelerate to free-fall speed

and maintain it all the way to the ground. The section on the left instead needs to be able to be able to the ground. to use some of its energy to destroy the structure below, so it could never achieve free-fall speed. In the case of the Twin Towers, however, both upper sections fell with an acceleration close to freefall speed, as if their path had been practically free from obstacles. It took each tower between 10 and 12 seconds to collapse to the ground,

while an absolute freefall time would have been 9.2 seconds. I found that there's three things that keep people from understanding what happened. what happened. Number one is poor problem solving skills. They tend to guess at the answer and then work backwards and cherry-pick data to support the answer. Number two is group think. People feel safer following their peers.

So peer pressure can control people's thoughts and public opinion. And the third thing is they can't handle the implications. They wish it weren't true. so they'd rather deceive themselves. It may or may not be conscious. So those three things, you know, keep things from going forward. And if it's too horrible of an outcome, people easily look for something else and also run with a herd. It is a survival instinct.

You think of a big field full of deer. One gets spooked and they all go running. Only one of them knows why they're running. Again, you can see the parts of the building, they're still standing structural parts holding it up. And if you look at the construction of that inner core and the outer steel girders supporting it around there, it doesn't add up, folks. You first need to start out with what happened. That's the key. You first have to establish what happened before you can determine how it happened, before you determine who did it or why they did it.

But what did we hear on 9-11? They hate us for our freedoms. Bin Laden did it. And, you know, he did it with instructing people to fly airplanes into the buildings. But what happened? That was never discussed. We were told how it happened, who did it, why they did it, but we weren't given the information to determine what actually happened. And if you don't first understand what your problem statement is, you know, what problem are you solving?

if you don't know what happened and you immediately start with how it happened, who did it, or what did it, you have to assume the what part of it. You have to assume what happened. So you're solving as an imaginary problem, not a real problem, because you have to imagine what it was that happened. Who did it? What's it that got done? And that is a really key feature. And a few people realize that. That's what forensic science is about.

first looking at what happened. You don't need a theory to determine what happened. If the evidence doesn't tell you, then you aren't determining what happened. That's right. And when we look at this, we're still not getting anybody really looking at what happened. Mainstream media still doesn't look at the official lie. As Tucker has said many times, you do that, you'll get fired. And when we look at alternative media, much of it is already captive as well.

As a matter of fact, Steve Bannon and Jack Bosovian are out there promising that Trump is going to give us some more documents again, right? I'm sure he will, just like with the Epstein stuff. Yeah, the Saudis were supposedly the bad guys and all this. Yet now, Trump wants to give them nukes, but don't worry, Trump is going to release the information. Look, folks, what happened with 9-11 was Israel's enemies became our enemies. Israel's wars became our wars. Israel's tactics became our tactics. Our government became terrorist.

and they directed the terror at us. Thank you for joining us. Have a good day. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.

But each of us has worth and dignity created. in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the David Knight Show.com.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. The David Knight Show.com.