Can AI Reduce Conspiracy Beliefs? Testing MIT’s DebunkBot - An In-Depth Review.

Today we are releasing the full episode of "Testing MIT’s DebunkBot". This was a premium episode, previously only available for our Patreons. Please consider supported us on Patreon for other exclusive episodes and benefits including early releases and ad-free content. Our members currently have access to the next 10 episodes of "The World According To Some" so join us and don't get left behind!

https://www.patreon.com/somedarecallitconspiracy 

In today's "premium unleashed" episode, Brent Lee and Neil Sanders embarked on a deep dive to test a new AI chatbot called "DebunkBot" developed by MIT, which is touted to reduce conspiratorial beliefs by 20%.

Our journey began with a discussion about the chatbot's capabilities and some initial expectations. As former conspiracists turned debunking enthusiasts, we were keen to explore its effectiveness from our unique vantage point. We simulated our past selves and presented DebunkBot with some of the prominent 9/11-related conspiracy theories, such as the controlled demolition theory, the NORAD war games, and the lack of CCTV footage at the Pentagon.

The conversation with DebunkBot was enlightening. It provided detailed responses to each point we raised, explaining the structural collapse of the Twin Towers with insights on building construction and weight distribution, clarifying the routine nature of NORAD's war games and the ensuing initial confusion among responders, and delving into the technical limitations of the Pentagon’s CCTV footage during the attack. The bot was well-equipped with official narratives backed by credible evidence from multiple lines of sources, such as physical plane components, eyewitness testimony, and flight data.

Despite the solid responses, we identified several areas where DebunkBot fell short. The explanations, although factually sound, often lacked the depth required to sway deeply entrenched conspiracy theorists. The chatbot delivered answers that were too straightforward, potentially missing the layers of skepticism that seasoned conspiracy believers entertain. We observed that it could appear patronizing and insufficient for those ingrained in these beliefs.

To enhance DebunkBot's effectiveness, we suggested a few improvements:

1. **Deeper Engagement**: Incorporate more nuanced discussions that consider the various levels of skepticism and alternate narratives conspiracy theorists might hold.

2. **Personalized Responses**: Tailor responses to align with the specific doubts or assumptions the questioning individual may harbor, bridging the gap between casual skepticism and deep-seated belief.

3. **Interactive Evidence Presentation**: Use interactive elements to present evidence in a more compelling and engaging manner, such as visual aids or comparisons that directly counter alternate theories.

4. **Audience Trust Building**: Develop strategies to build trust with users who inherently distrust official narratives, perhaps by showing behind-the-scenes transparency of how evidence is verified and vetted.

5. **Expanded Fact-Checking Capabilities**: Ensure the bot can access a broader range of verifiable sources and provide real-time links to comprehensive, detailed explanations and rebuttals.

6. **Tone and Approach Variation**: Offer different tones of responses, from formal to jokey, to make the interaction more relatable and less confrontational.

Ultimately, our test of DebunkBot demonstrated that while it’s a promising tool for debunking conspiracy theories with credible evidence, there is a significant need for adjustments to more effectively engage and persuade those deeply immersed in conspiracy thinking. As such, continued refinement and enhancing its capability to address both surface-level and deeply ingrained queries hold the key to its wider acceptance and success.

Try DebunkBot yourself at https://www.debunkbot.com/ 

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/some-dare-call-it-conspiracy--5932731/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
They are call it conspiracy.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Welcome to the sum Dere Call It Conspiracy podcast, hosted
by Brentley and Neil Sanders. After nearly twenty years exploring
the world of conspiracy culture, we are taking our guests
and listeners on a guided tour of the rabbit hole,
our mission to discover where the truth lies.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
I watched that Trump's heist the other day?

Speaker 4 (00:46):
Did you see that?

Speaker 3 (00:47):
That's quite interesting, although it's just so frustrating, and a
friend of mine, Martin, telling to watch it, and it's
really really good. It just lays out all the times
he denied the election, blah blah blah leading up to
January sixth, and stuff like that.

Speaker 4 (01:00):
Just watch it. You just go, how is this man
not in prison?

Speaker 5 (01:04):
I think the same just because of that. Just doesn't
matter anything else that he said, anything else that he's done.
Just a stolen election. In January sixth, it went.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
Out on the night on the night of the actual count,
he went out and said it was stoll. He then
did about on about ten to twenty times after that
on public things, on speeches and stuff like that. He
accused how he wasn't caught up in that dominion lawsuit
I've got no idea because he literally said dominion is

(01:34):
of crooked organization that stole the election for Joe Biden.
It's like, are you fucking serious? Like outrageous, my ridiculous,
But yeah, apparently that I'm going to watch that four
hours in January. So what I don't always calls something
about I think it was about the January sixth one

(01:54):
that's supposed to be good.

Speaker 4 (01:56):
Like the capital or something that's best one. Yea, yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:00):
Did you see what happened when they turned up Ashky
Babbit's mum's house for some reason and fucking step dad's
got a swastika tattoo? Yeah it turns out that, yeah,
not in isolated incident by the looks of it. Yeah,
it turns out that mum's ridiculously racist and just yeah

(02:22):
really yeah, just bloody hell.

Speaker 4 (02:25):
It's a mess. It's a total most weight. Is that
which brings me to why we're here today?

Speaker 5 (02:30):
Oh yeah, yeah, oh you probably saw me post about it.
Did you see about this conspiracy bar seing this this
like chat GPT like meant to debunk conspiracy theories?

Speaker 4 (02:46):
Is it? Okay? No, I'm not seen that. Does he
do it particularly well?

Speaker 5 (02:50):
It's well, okay, look at what I think. One of
the guys that m I T and the other one
is that Cornell Universe City and like they've put it together.
I've reached out to one of them to see if
they want to come on the podcast sometimes, which would
be pretty cool to speak to them about this. And

(03:10):
their studies have shown that it reduces conspiracy belief by
twenty percent. Well, chat GPT does well this version that
they've trained. Okay, so we're going to go through it.
Oh sweet, okay. I thought, Hey, we know, we know tropes, right,
we what these things are. Let's let's like, let's just

(03:32):
pretend that we're our old selves, we are conspiracy to
find out some stuff. Let's see what it's got to
say about, like oh, I don't know, like the passport
that was found at nine to eleven. Yeah, all right,
things like that, Like, well, what you got to say
about this?

Speaker 4 (03:44):
Yeah? Yeah, good idea? Okay, well like that, yeah. Nice.

Speaker 3 (03:49):
I can't believe David Ike's got into the full blown
HIV as well. That's so ridiculous and pointless as well.
It's like, I don't know, he has two themes at
the minute. A desperate desperate attempt to stay relevant and
to get attention. And for some reason, this man and

(04:11):
this septagenarian that spent his entire fucking life lying to
people to like feather his own nest, is now concerned
about what happens after death. Who could say for why? I? Actually,
I will say for a wife fucking like he deserves.
He should be fucking worried. And I'm not even religious.

Speaker 5 (04:32):
Yeah yeah, like he says, don't don't deceive the children.

Speaker 4 (04:39):
H m hm, right, test your beliefs against an AI?
Will you change your mind?

Speaker 3 (04:46):
Try our cons seriously devoting bart and get personalized feedback.

Speaker 4 (04:50):
Okay, all right, let's.

Speaker 3 (04:53):
Let's see what's got to say? Even right, So before starting,
you must answer some questions about what believe why the
AI uses his information to begin the conversation. Oh interesting, gone, then,
so I press the arrows to get started. I tell you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,

(05:14):
we're not gonna be using data, et cetera. Fine, click
on that, we'll do it.

Speaker 4 (05:19):
We're good. Oh the wait, we've signed up to be
a human centipede optional, do not use my data? Yeah cool,
I had something very interesting. They can use our data.
It's fine, talking about data.

Speaker 3 (05:33):
This is a knowledge fight earlier today because through the bankruptcy,
Alex Jones is now auction off a lot of his stuff,
including info Wars, equipment and assets and stuff like that.
One of the lots that is going to be auctioned
is customer data, audience audience data, So he's he's been collecting.

Speaker 4 (05:58):
Data on people.

Speaker 3 (05:59):
I assume they're that buy his stiff over years and
years and years, and that is an asset that he's
going to sell to a marketing firm or to whoever
buys it.

Speaker 4 (06:09):
Yeah, you'd be pissed off, like.

Speaker 3 (06:11):
If you were an INFO was like a viewer, because
that sort of goes against everything that he sort of
stands for. But you know, well, right, some people call
these reflecting on this. Are there any specific such says
that you find credible or compelling?

Speaker 1 (06:28):
Right?

Speaker 4 (06:29):
Mm hmm. How do we want to do this?

Speaker 3 (06:32):
Do you want to put nine to eleven or do
we want to put JFK by which I mean like
one that we don't actually think is that suspicious anymore?

Speaker 5 (06:40):
Or that must just do nine to eleven? I think
that'd be most productive what we just say, like nine
to eleven was an inside job. Uh hm, Prince Charles
is the Antichrist. I don't believe any others. That's the ones.
Therely one I believe. Okay, so describe one below. Show

(07:01):
your reasons for finding it compelling. Nine to eleven was
an inside job. But why why do we find it compelling?

Speaker 4 (07:07):
What would be good? Nothing adds up?

Speaker 5 (07:10):
Yeah, I'm just going to say that, yeah, because look
these are the replies we get, right.

Speaker 4 (07:16):
Yeah, yeah, give it.

Speaker 3 (07:18):
Well, see what happens, like I suppose it depends what
I'm assuming this will do, like a sort of well
could chatbot thing almost where?

Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (07:27):
Did you share that compe theory? I watched loose change.

Speaker 3 (07:35):
Any specific pieces of evidence. The buildings look like controlled demolitions. Yeah,
control control demolition of war games. War games were identical
to what actually happened.

Speaker 4 (07:48):
That's a good. That's a good one. Then position that's
not right.

Speaker 3 (07:55):
Somebody actually explained that to me in the first way
that actually made sense, because I have admit I was
one of the sort of like I still don't get
how this much can crush this much? And you know, yeah,
and then somebody explained that, oh, it doesn't need to
crush that much, It just needs to crush an increment

(08:16):
and then the next fat and then the next fat,
and each time it crushes it, you've got more weight
needed to crush just a single floor. It's like, okay,
that makes sense. And then you go back and wash.
Even that one that Richie gage foot at was week
you can literally see the building starting to buckle between
beneath the collapse zone. It starts to bend and sort

(08:37):
of bur out or whatever the expression is. And yeah,
so that makes more sense to me now. I see
that that photo that you showed as well, where the
sun shines through it was Reverne story as well, because
everybody used to looks at the one where they're building
it of the core, you know, the one where it's

(08:57):
got the core exposed, and it's like, geez christ, that's
a huge amount.

Speaker 4 (09:01):
It's like it is, but if you've got all the
bits around.

Speaker 3 (09:04):
It falling down and stuff, and it will pull it
within it, won't it. So well, yeah, and they're always
like making they're always framing, like the shot of the
outside of the towers as if it's like a concrete
building or something like it's very solid and not knowing
like it's open plan.

Speaker 4 (09:25):
The entire floor.

Speaker 3 (09:25):
It was like, it's almost like a greenhouse poison Like
it's almost like a massive green greenhouse with floors.

Speaker 4 (09:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (09:35):
I saw somebody today talking about it angled beams. It
was like, Wow, that's a an old one. I haven't yeah,
heard of that one for a while. But the one
that's cut, yeah, I can you know it was cut
afterwards three weeks three weeks later, those pictures are I mean, again,

(09:56):
the thing is right, that's not that's a legitimate question.
So it's not I'm still not going from that. It's
stupid to even question it. No, you know, fat, that's
stupid to even question it. Fuck you if you're flatter
that you're an idiot. But nine to eleven, there's still
quite a lot that is perfectly reasonable to question. Now

(10:18):
it transpires there's actually answers to the majority of these questions,
But that still doesn't mean that it's not. That doesn't
mean that it's silly to ask these things, because until
you ask, how would you know that? All Right, there's yeah, efforts,
so we've got the buildings look like a controlled demolition.
Norad was doing war games at the same time. No

(10:40):
CCTV of planes striking the Pentagon and the passport's found
in perfect condition. The grounds to zero are suspicious. Okay,
So on the previous arswer you wrote Yogo Reviews, we
use to summarize your statement. Nine ever was orchestrated for
within the government on a scale of not two hundred percent. Yeah,
this is not but rather about your beliefs about the Yeah, okay,

(11:04):
so yeah, that wants to be high because that's what
we believe.

Speaker 5 (11:07):
Yeah, like, probably true, because I would say it's not
just the government.

Speaker 3 (11:11):
It's a great cabal of satanic elites. Exactly, it's not
just the government.

Speaker 4 (11:18):
No, good point. So probably true about eighty we'll do eighty.

Speaker 3 (11:23):
Yeah, well, yes, it's mostly it's mostly Okay, we're just
being it picky.

Speaker 4 (11:31):
Yes, do it? Come on? Fuck?

Speaker 3 (11:33):
You know, I thought it's such your personal believes or
the understanding of the world, very extremely importremely.

Speaker 4 (11:39):
Yeah it would be. Yeah, they murdered us.

Speaker 3 (11:42):
Is this something that you did truly believe or did
you make your eyes is already fucking sky net?

Speaker 5 (11:50):
No, no, no, it's something that we truly believed, Yes, right, surely?

Speaker 4 (11:56):
Yeah yeah, yeah, So how do you answer that? Yes?
Which yes? Do you put? Yes? I believe it. I
don't believe it.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
It's the truth. Get argumenty with beating. That's what we want.
Like accidentally, like start you see that fell war games.
This is like well like Matthew broad records, Yeah, we're
going to accidentally launch missiles at Russia or the America.

(12:33):
Either way, I'd be fine with that if I'm.

Speaker 4 (12:35):
Brilliant, honest.

Speaker 5 (12:39):
Okay, I guess we're going to participate in a conversation
within an advanced AI.

Speaker 4 (12:43):
Fabulous when the conversation okay enough.

Speaker 3 (12:47):
Yeah, yeah, the conversation will be countered. So do you
get to ask it three things? It's like the fucking
sage at the top of the mountain, like you only
get three questions, only three questions? Yes, really, yes, really, yes.

Speaker 4 (13:06):
Thank you, thank you. I can't see there we are.

Speaker 3 (13:12):
I understand where you're coming from. Fuck half trying to
butcher us up, devon, but I understand where you're coming
from and why the events of nine to eleven mine
seems suspicious to you. Indeed, it was a tragic, an
incredibly complex incident, and in the face of such a tragedy,
it's natural for people with questions seek more profound explanations.
Let's look closely at some of the points you've raised

(13:34):
and see if you can shed a bit more light
on them together. Firstly, regarding the appearance of the Twin
towers collapsing, experts in the field of structural engineering and
demolition have provided explanations based on the unique construction of
the World Trade Center, the intense heat from the burning
jet fuel weaken the steel supports structures, causing the progressive collapse.
Control demolitions, in contrast, involve precise placement of explosions to

(13:58):
initiate a collapse at the bottom of a structure, not
at the impact zones as we saw in towers. That's
a very good point. Actually, if it was, you'd see
it started from the bottom, wouldn't you. And although there
is a little bit of footage of like smoke coming
up from the bottom. And there were some people saying
that they heard explosives in the bottom and Rodriguez, yeah, yeah,

(14:22):
one of them. Could that be the like echoing around that.
I don't know what that is.

Speaker 5 (14:28):
The thing is what I would have to what I
argue with the William Rodriguez testimony is that his testimony
is that he hears a bomb go off in the
basement of the tower before the plane hits. Yeah, so
that's way before.

Speaker 4 (14:49):
So that's not going to be.

Speaker 3 (14:51):
So that's been matched together with some of the firemen
saying it looked like a bomb going off the things. Okay,
that's interesting. So he said that before and before it struck. So,
I mean, there could be numerous explanations for that. The
first inspiration could be that there was a bomb in
the basement. Is there any other evidence to support that.

Speaker 5 (15:15):
And that we've seen not that in nineteen ninety three,
but yeah, nine two thousand and one.

Speaker 3 (15:20):
No, but so so okay, so if we're going through
it logically, it's still a possibility, it's still possibility. But
is there any other possibility.

Speaker 4 (15:29):
That it could have been.

Speaker 3 (15:30):
Yeah, it could be that basically, like it could be
that he actually just in the confusion is gone, his
timing is wrong, Yeah, and that he actually heard the
echo of the plane hitting the building. It could have
it could have been something else. It could be something
The first one could have been the plane hitting, and

(15:51):
the second one could be I know, some sort of
follow on damage from the plane hitting something falling or.

Speaker 4 (15:57):
The second plane hitting.

Speaker 3 (15:59):
Yeah, potentially, and it's different went to say again, isn't
it like because you need.

Speaker 4 (16:02):
To sort of like go back. No, I think it's
just had this guy's antidote.

Speaker 3 (16:06):
Yeah, I would need to go back and sort of
really really checked out tests down and see if there
was excusing anything that could give the explanation, because again,
that is a possibility. But if there is even one
other possibility, then you have to you know, then it's
not proof.

Speaker 1 (16:25):
Is it?

Speaker 3 (16:26):
Like so.

Speaker 4 (16:28):
Because what was there? Was?

Speaker 3 (16:29):
There was one recently where it's like, oh, this proves this.
It's like, are you telling me that there's no that
was it? It was the when I fell out with
I can't even remember his name, about the pizza Gate
thing where it's as she put chicken lover on the
uh chicken hashtag chicken lover and chicken lover. It was

(16:52):
used sort of as a gay slang where it was
used in taxi drivings to describe Jodi Fodge as a
young prostitute she's a little bit kicking and side.

Speaker 4 (17:02):
Well, I don't think I did certain time.

Speaker 3 (17:03):
Why I find of certain time It's like, okay, fine,
is there any other potential explanation for that? Because if
there is, you have to consider that as well. I'll, i'll,
I'll contend that that's the possibility. But if there is
another possibility, like the restaurants you'd just been take and
ask people to p hashed out chicken lover and all
their tweets, which is exactly what happens, that's another possible explanation.

Speaker 4 (17:27):
So there you go. So but people, again, they.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
Tend to want to find the solution to their problem
and to gravitate towards it a bit more rather than go, Okay,
it's possible. You know, you mustn't sort of dismiss it.
But is there other possibilities? And if there's other possibilities,
then we now need to sort of probe.

Speaker 4 (17:49):
A bit deeper.

Speaker 3 (17:49):
Basically, if there's no other possibility, if that's the only
thing that could have happened, then fine, But it's not really,
is it.

Speaker 5 (17:57):
So I have to contend with one of these sentences though,
like just just to play Devil's advocate with the of this.
Controlled demolitions, in contrast, involve precise placement of explosives to
initiate a collapse at the bottom of a structure, not
at the impact zones as we saw in the towers.
But we do see other controlled demolitions where bombs are

(18:19):
going off like all up and down.

Speaker 4 (18:21):
Yeah, yeah, totally. It's not always just from the bottom.

Speaker 3 (18:26):
No, there was enough, you know, that was that was
It was similar enough for lots of people to look
at it and see the windows getting blown out and
to go, that's why it looks like it control demolition.
And again I sure don't think that's that's not it's
not stupid like that's that is something that needs to
be observed. Now, the explanations falls. My understanding is is

(18:48):
depression of the floors going and just pushing the air out,
but like if you're sort of standing on a lie
level or something to get the air out of it,
like it's going to find a point to go, which
would explain why it's so random, because if it was
controlled demolition, it.

Speaker 4 (19:05):
Would be a great precise. Well.

Speaker 3 (19:07):
The explanation that people say is that like it was
so well, But the explanation is the explosion is sort
of in the full collapse zone, so you don't see it,
and those ones that you do see they've obviously gone
off early.

Speaker 4 (19:19):
The mistimed ones.

Speaker 3 (19:20):
Yeah, yeah, but I don't think it works like that
because I don't think I don't think every single individual
one would be on an individual timer. I think what
you would see if there was a mistiming would be
an entire row. And I don't know that to be
fact by any stretch of imagination, but I would suspect

(19:42):
that if it was a mistiming thing, that you'd have
more than one on the same button detonator timer, because
if there's so many, you surely wouldn't have a timer
for each explosive like fireworks. Yeah, you'd have it for
a set like a fire.

Speaker 5 (20:00):
Display when they have these bits goes up and those
got off and it's all in a timer.

Speaker 4 (20:06):
Right, Okay.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
As far as as Fanora had conducting war games, they
need had exercise and scheduled. But that is not uncommon
for the defense organizations to do. It's part of regular
training and regulous activities. These exercises did not impede the
military's real world response. Long the complexity and unprecedent the
nature of the tax contributed delays of confusion. Those two
sentences contradict. These exercises did not impede the military's real

(20:30):
world response. The complexity unpresent date of the tax contributed
delays in confusion. That's not true, because there is there
is a sound bite of somebody going is this real
world or is this exercise? So at least for a second,
it delayed it. To say that it caused absolutely no
confusion at all. I don't think that's true.

Speaker 4 (20:49):
I would right.

Speaker 3 (20:50):
I want a better answer from the the AI about that.
I want to know what the war games were that
were going on all that day or what they involved, which.

Speaker 5 (20:59):
Is or Operation North Northern Defense. I think it was called.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
There's quite Vigilant shield Shield.

Speaker 5 (21:07):
Yeah, there was quite a few going on, and there
was one that was a hijacked plane that was supposed
to crash into an air force base.

Speaker 4 (21:13):
Was the air Force base?

Speaker 5 (21:15):
It was trade center, right, crash because it was running
out of fuel or something. It wasn't like intentionally being crashed.
That part of this exercise. But that kind of thing
should be in there, because I don't feel like that
actually answers the legitimate question of like, well, yeah, I

(21:38):
say this is a coincidence.

Speaker 3 (21:40):
That that seems a little bit hand waving, doesn't it,
Like mm hmm, yeah, that does seem a little bit
hand waving away. But again, here's the problem with this
is that the person that's done this. This is why
you would need some people like us to help do
something like that, because to I'll put it this way,

(22:02):
if my mom read that, she go, fine, it's explained it.
But she has not had that sort of years of
paranoia and going but what about this?

Speaker 4 (22:10):
And what about this? And what about this? And what
about this? And what about this?

Speaker 3 (22:14):
So so that this is the problem that I foresee
potentially with this to a for want of a better expression, normally,
that's a perfectly reasonable response and answer that explains everything
to to a degree that that is satisfactory to you
and I that you've you've shook the question there, you've
swerved the questions somewhat. Yeah, So, okay, that's interesting, but

(22:39):
we'll follow We'll do a follow upon that one. And
so right, So, the lack of cct ME footage and
depends upon attack comes up often, you're too. Firstatle one,
security cameras were not as widespread as they are today,
but most of the available footage do not capture the
impact of the speed of the plane and.

Speaker 4 (22:56):
Technical limitations of the cameras at the time. Yeah, yeah, again,
no again, The problem with.

Speaker 3 (23:03):
That, right again is that's actually a perfectly reasonable answer
to that question. But the question itself has got so
many assumptions and presumptions and add ons to it. It's
a really loaded.

Speaker 5 (23:19):
Question because there's always like comebacks, so that one says
this as like the answer to it. The comebacks are
what the most defended building in the planet doesn't have
obviously CTV, like there would be all these other defense questions.

Speaker 4 (23:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (23:37):
Yeah, but this is like a question like the problem
with anyone asking that question is the nine times like ten,
I'm in to ask that pessional position of they already
know the answer. They're testing you to see if you
know the answer. It's this prick they're trying to get
into it. At the other day on our Twitter feet,
are you going to tell us about the English and

(23:58):
how the British Empire organized? Have you just stopped the recordings? No,
it's a recording. Oh no it isn't. Still are you
going to tell us about the British Empire and how
they manufactured all these.

Speaker 6 (24:13):
Wars and blah blah blah blah blah and they were
behind World War the First World Wars and why I
had a quick lac on his page right, and it
was like he wants me to say the Jews, and
if I don't say the Jews, easy to say the Jews.
And it's like this is ridiculous, Like but that's the problem.

Speaker 4 (24:32):
Is is that? And it's not that the question is
not in good fate.

Speaker 5 (24:36):
He's a far left one though, yeah it is a
tanky yeah right, okay, so at least like, well we
blocked it a long time ago. He certainly got Palestine flights.

Speaker 3 (24:50):
Honestly, it's like, you know, if you would assume that
he's quite left wing with his opinions.

Speaker 4 (24:56):
But anyway, but that's the problem.

Speaker 3 (24:59):
But it's not even though it's bad faith per se,
it comes from a different perspective because you're so entranch
with these things when you're talking about conspiracies that it's like,
I mean, you're pilled, you're through the look and glass,
you're away whatever, do you know what I mean? Everything
has got a different connotation onto it. So it's not

(25:21):
as that's not a satisfactory answer for somebody in the
conspiracy world because they want you to explain everything, and
that that whilst it is perfectly reasonable and it does
give an explanation to the question, it doesn't give real
an explanation to what happened now, which is what the
question is really asking for.

Speaker 4 (25:40):
Tell me what happened at the Pentagon? And yeah, okay,
but but that's not bad. That's not bad.

Speaker 3 (25:46):
So you might want to ask a bit more about
the Pentagon and.

Speaker 4 (25:52):
That would be a good one.

Speaker 3 (25:54):
So two, we already followed messages to five. So so
first one should be what were the war games and
how are they similar to what actually transpires? And then
the second question should be what evidence was there that
are playing actually crashed at the Pentagon? So okay, So

(26:16):
regarding the passport, it might seem unlikely for paper items
to survive such a disaster. However, other personal items and
documents were also recovered after the attacks. Sometimes, in chaotic events,
lighter materials can be carried by the force of.

Speaker 4 (26:30):
Its explosion and fire.

Speaker 3 (26:33):
It's not unprecedented for some items to escape instruction in
unusual ways. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (26:39):
True, Yeah, that's that's it is true.

Speaker 1 (26:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (26:43):
The implication with the passport was it was planted, and
they also the implication of this story was slightly particulars
because I always or the documentaries strongly implied that it
was picked out the wreckage of the twin hours, like
as if they were going to it and they found it,
and it was like, oh, this proves it, and that's

(27:06):
not quite how how it happened. Like it was found
much later, wasn't it. And it was found down the
street and it took a while to it wasn't like
they didn't hold this up as the smoking gun of
what had happened, did they? They like it was in
many ways it was almost like incidental because they know

(27:28):
who got on the plane because they've got CCT but
TV and footage of the getting on the plane. Yeah,
like so they didn't. It wasn't like it was required.
It's presented and framed like there was no other evidence
that this person was there, and that's not quite the case. Yeah,
again it is fortuitous certainly, Like.

Speaker 5 (27:52):
And it's one of the things survived from the plane
as well, including slippers. Yeah yeah, it's like American Airlines
slippers like unburnt just because that massive like ball of
fire and they expect everything burned up, but that's not it.

Speaker 4 (28:14):
Like fire can say.

Speaker 5 (28:15):
Pass through a room in a blast and not actually
burn everything up. Just like the fire has to stay there,
it has to be retained for it to burn everything up.

Speaker 3 (28:27):
You know, well if you saw a crash, shite or
I mean I think this is even I may have
made this up or imagined it. When playing was shot
down over a Ukraine at the passengers, I'm sure there
was bits of wreckage and stuff like that. And there's
always the because you know it's a good copy or what.
But they'll look for like a child's teddy bear. That's

(28:48):
that's because it's a very poignant symbol of the tragedy.
But if a child's teddy bear could survive, then alf
a passport could survive.

Speaker 4 (28:57):
Yeah, by the same logic. So ocky dog. So lastly,
these claims have been.

Speaker 3 (29:04):
Thoroughly investigated by multiple panels of experts, including the NASH
are now here's where you're sucking up, including the National
Institute of Standing in Technology for the nests for the
collapse of the World Trade Center building to the nine
eleven Commission for the overall reports. That's tens to accounts
for the myriad pieces of evidence in Iowa. This accounts
are openly and are openly available for public spouts.

Speaker 4 (29:29):
Okay, so it did kind of get there. Yeah, So
Chris is here is what's going on? Yeah.

Speaker 5 (29:37):
Uh, it just asks if we're alive. So yeah, I
think your microphone on your on your laptop is what's
on because I can hear you scraping around.

Speaker 4 (29:45):
Oh, that's just always Chris, not me.

Speaker 3 (29:47):
It's Chris fucking about It's oh, could be Oh, it
doesn't matter now anyway. Anyway, the problem with that is
they've led with but the official reporters don't all this,
and to the conspiracy minded that's kryptonite. That's like saying
the warrant port totally solved JFK, and it's like did

(30:10):
it fuck?

Speaker 4 (30:11):
Like, even in a non conspiratorial way, the.

Speaker 3 (30:14):
Warrant reporter has got a lot to be desired.

Speaker 4 (30:19):
So that I don't know.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
Now.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
At the end, it does pull it together that all
of these reports are available for public excrucivily.

Speaker 4 (30:29):
But the problem with that again.

Speaker 3 (30:32):
Again it founds who UK turn this for because to
a conspiracist that is, yeah, but we've looked at it,
and there's like you know, or I haven't actually looked
at it, but architects are nine eleven have looked at it,
and they reliably informed me that there's sort of wrong.

Speaker 4 (30:48):
So do you know what I mean? So, yeah, I
don't know.

Speaker 3 (30:51):
I don't know how you could word that slightly better,
although I do like that that it's the public excruciity
bit right, Okay, this is that's a irritate me. I
understand that it's sometimes comforting to feel that we may
have answers or natives that explains such terrible events. Wrong
way to go, But it's also important that we base

(31:13):
our understanding on the strongest evidence available to us. If
you have specific points evidence you'd like to discuss further,
I'm here to talk it through with you. You know, a
twenty year old me, i'd have punched the screen that
who the fuck do you think you are?

Speaker 4 (31:26):
Chatchy? Like you said, because you think it's sky in it?

Speaker 3 (31:30):
Yeah yeah, well absolutely, because like you know, because you'll
always you'll already have come into it that the AMEI
is part of the system. It's going to tell you
the official report. We still get that that all you've
told us is the official storys Yeah, no, no, we haven't.
Actually we've checked, like we've gone and blah blah blah blah.
It might match the official story. But here's x Wein

(31:53):
and Zeen why we know it's true, which is to
be fair, again a legitimate criticism. If you're coming from
that angle, you can't just tell me no, sorry, experts
have looked at this. You need to explain it. So
maybe that's the problem with this is that when the
conspiracy theories ask you something, they're not really asking you. Oh,

(32:16):
they are asking you that, but they're asking you that
as a sort of entrede too and what about this,
and what about this? And what about this. I don't
even mean that in a shitty way. I don't mean
that any gish gallon a sense. I mean that in
a sort of you know this so much wrong with it?
Because here's the thing as well, you know, you know
what it's like.

Speaker 5 (32:36):
It's like a game of snap yeah yeah, like you
just keep going, you keep putting until you got the
higher card bams until even.

Speaker 3 (32:45):
Then though, because I thought that was the case, just
like when I was still such as like dying at
the end, I thought, right, okay, what this Italian you
it if you believe with COVID, so he believes of
this or worse and less than this. So if you
take this away and we show that can't be true,
and we take that away and we show that can't
be true. And then we take away this and this

(33:05):
to show that those couldn't possibly be true, then all
these beliefs that were granted that were dependent on those
should go away, and they didn't. People just went, yeah,
but I still believe that. And that's the that's the
problem with that with this is is that that you're
still gonna going to get that to it to an extent. So, yeah,

(33:26):
this is a I don't know, it's it's a it's
a it's a good tool. But the problem with this
is that people are just going to use it to
I did a simple thing. Do you know that any
questions answered that that phone line where it costs fifty
p in a QA?

Speaker 4 (33:45):
No, it was a thing. It was a thing you
technically could blah blah blah blah blah. I ended up
wasting absolute armor a leg.

Speaker 3 (33:51):
Gave a fucking argument with the bloke about how you
didn't have to pay income tax because I just watched
that blah blah blah, the Aaron Russo documentary, and so
I do it to see if he knew and they
know it says that, well you're wrong because of this
and this, and and it got into an argument with

(34:14):
this plague. Think it costs me about seven quick and yeah,
total total waste of time basically. So okay, well let's
see how.

Speaker 4 (34:24):
What would we say to it?

Speaker 5 (34:25):
Well, what we're going to let's be honest to it, like,
I don't feel like that answered our questions.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
Well, say, I think I think we've got five more
things to to to go.

Speaker 4 (34:37):
So what I go is we have three?

Speaker 3 (34:41):
Yeah, only three responses, wasn't it? It says five at
the top though, how many messages you have left? H Yeah?
All right, well let's just go with three. So let's
go with what war games were happening that day? And
how did they? How were they similar or different from
what actually happened?

Speaker 4 (35:00):
Well, let me tell it how we feel first. You
can see what it says.

Speaker 5 (35:04):
Yeah, well, I'll add it all in there. We'll put like,
write a whole paragraph. I don't feel like giving me
the strong answer to my questions. You're just oh, I
like that? Yes, so that one. Yeah, funk about, it's
just an official narrative. What type of war games? What

(35:26):
were what were the war games?

Speaker 4 (35:29):
Yeah? How are they similar to what happened? Oh? Hold on?
What were war games? You said.

Speaker 3 (35:41):
They didn't cause any confusion, but there are tape of
responders asking is this real world? Where did you see
Alex Jones's keutes tried to have conversations with committee because because.

Speaker 7 (36:01):
He's convinced that it's almost like that, so you know,
you know, if you get rid of large choke hold
there circus breaking like science fiction and stuff like that. Yeah,
he's trying to do that, and he's convinced that he's
got all this knowledge that he's not telling it, and
he keeps.

Speaker 3 (36:20):
Trying to sort of asking things in different ways, and
then he loses his temple with it.

Speaker 4 (36:24):
It's like, oh, come on, you know the truth, it's marvelous.
He doesn't get it.

Speaker 3 (36:32):
It's like it's just a very advanced form ask for Jeeves. Yeah,
he's not really there, and he can asking his ship
like are you afraid of death? Can you die?

Speaker 1 (36:46):
He wants to get it.

Speaker 8 (36:48):
He wants to be still existential terror the computer Yeah,
speakers me. Way is Alex emasculated by Chap GPT.

Speaker 4 (37:06):
I was going to put something the other words. He again,
I've lefted you know, I'm saying you got that color?
Here here to do? I tak You're not going live obviously.

Speaker 3 (37:14):
Man, it's not live, but we're recording as we already
in according and we don't put edits in the pay chance.

Speaker 4 (37:20):
There's a couple of people in the chat bobs who
are just washing along.

Speaker 3 (37:23):
All right, Uh right, I don't feel like you've given
me strong answers to my questions.

Speaker 5 (37:33):
You're just repeating the official narrative. What were the war games?
You said that they didn't cause confusion, but there are
tapes of responders asking if this was real world or exercise?
How is that not confusing? Also, what evidence is there
that a plane actually crashed into the Pentagon?

Speaker 3 (37:51):
Oh excellent, it's going to dive deeper into one of
these points. Okay, I apologize if my previous as seem
to repeat the efficient out of that addressing your consensus detail.
All right, all right, okay, fair enough, bye bye chat GPG.

Speaker 4 (38:06):
He's all right.

Speaker 5 (38:07):
We've all had a drink right regarding the war games.
He got his name wrong already, that's why we've been drinking.

Speaker 3 (38:16):
De brunk but sorry, Debunk, but sorry Debunk, But it's
it's you. I don't want to sound racist, but you
all look the same to me. Regarding the Norrid War Games, Indeed,
there were tapes where operators were confirmed asking US reports
they were hearing a real world exercise reward or exercise.

(38:36):
Such questioning as evidence of the initial confusion as the
unfolding events coincide with the training scenarios. This sort of
confusion at the beginning of a crisis, it's not unusual
given the human element of processing. We're expected and high linked.
It's like it's having at the humans here saying that
like our superior machine.

Speaker 4 (38:56):
Brains would have COVID this very well.

Speaker 3 (38:59):
It's the sort of good is at the beginning of
a crisis is not unusual given the basic human element
of vote that. I added that the human element of
processing unexpected and highly stressful situations. However, the confusion did
not stop nor aud from ultimately responding it did well
know it shot one of the players death. It did, however,

(39:20):
expose weaknesses in the communication and command structure at a
time of unprecedented crisis, which is important was the focus
on in the following in quas of reforms. I don't
know if I'm satisfied with the answer. There may be
and I'll tell you for why, because why did it
get to the I'm sure there's an explanation, right, But

(39:42):
what was the time between them saying there's a hijack plane,
it's heading into this airspace them realizing it's real. That
still doesn't explain to me why those two planes were
allowed into New York airspace without being shot down. Again,
there may be or some thing like that, because wasn't
that the thing there.

Speaker 4 (40:03):
Was that that Golfer page something that.

Speaker 3 (40:06):
Derek Jones always went on about that they implied that
he got shot down or that he veered into airspace
that he wasn't supposed to be in and was you know,
jets fighters or whatever sort of like threatened them. I
don't know exactly what happened, but that's still not completely

(40:27):
satisfactory to me, because if, as they're saying, oh no,
after the initial confusion, we knew what was going on,
why did the crash? Was the fucking building there twice?
That still and the Pentagon and wherever the other one
was going for? You know that that again wasn't according

(40:49):
to this wasn't brought down by Norrad was brought down
by the intervention of passages on board. That's not no, no,
that's not good enough. I think for like like hardcore truthers, Like,
what we do need is the names of the exercises. Yeah,
you know, we want to we want something to go

(41:10):
and do our research with. Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely, this
system giving us anything to then go and look into ourselves.

Speaker 4 (41:19):
Let's say, okay, let me fact check that.

Speaker 5 (41:20):
Let me see if you're right about this thing, and
then you would go to like the Air Force pages
or the other Wikipedia pages about these actual exercises and
you see that they're actually real.

Speaker 4 (41:31):
That would be good, and that would be really good. Cool. Actually, yeah,
these are right.

Speaker 3 (41:35):
Okay if they had like sort of hyperlinks or something
where basically like if you want to look at this further,
it goes into this and this and this.

Speaker 4 (41:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (41:44):
Yeah, I don't wish to ship all over this because
it's it's very good what it does. But like you know,
if we're we're looking to shock test it and go
from the perspective of like if if if David Ike
or whatever was looking at this, that that's exactly what
they would say. The symbol that you have explain to
me why that that doesn't make sense to me? If
there was no confusion, why was there no defense? Yeah,

(42:08):
so that's something that is so as the Pentagon attack multiplized,
erodents support the conclusion that there wasn't due to playing
physical evidence, various playing components, blah blah blah, blah blah blah.
I witness testimony, the many recorded account some witnesses you
saw commercial airlines strike the Pentagon. Witnesses include civilian Pentagon

(42:30):
personality and journalists.

Speaker 4 (42:32):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 3 (42:33):
Oh anger did require a lot of flight data, photographic evidence,
DNA evidence. The problem again with this is and this
is this is kind of like I'm taking this from
the perspective of how we do our deep dives, right, Okay,
that's why our deep lines getting longer and fucking longer.

Speaker 4 (42:52):
Because even though that.

Speaker 3 (42:54):
Is an explanation, that explanation in itself opens up at
least two more questions like well, yeah, yeah, quite quite
and I don't I don't think. I don't think this
is quite good enough to deal with that particularly proud,
because I mean there's even stuff they've even missed up

(43:17):
stuff in this explanation, like the people with the more
powerful stuff, which is all the people with the injuries
and the rashers from the reaction to jet fuel. That
to me, is the strongest evidence or it's maybe it's
not the strongest evidence, but it's but it's a very
very very poignant, very graphic, very very sort of like.

Speaker 4 (43:40):
It hits home.

Speaker 3 (43:40):
It's a physical thing that you can go, Okay, I
can put myself in that person's position and blah blah blah.
And where did that fuel come from? Well, either somebody's
sprayed them with it, yeah, or it's come from a
crushing jack.

Speaker 5 (43:55):
I find like one of the the I don't know
the best way of like answering this question really is yeah,
explaining why it's a plane, but one of the best
parts is explaining why it isn't a missile. Yes, and
that's the good way, and why it's not a bomb.

(44:15):
And that's like because it burned for three days. You know,
jet fuel burns for so long. The people were injured
by a jet fuel these different things. The frames of
the CTTV outside, like they show a very long streak,
and a Tamahawk missile is like twelve meters long or

(44:39):
six meters long or something like that. It's not even
that that long, so it can't be one of these
types of missiles, you know, a bunker buster, any of these,
because they're around that sort of size, and a plane
is like a lot longer. That all accounts for that.
So point out different reasons why it's not a style

(45:00):
it has to be a plane.

Speaker 4 (45:02):
Things like what knocked down all the lamp posts?

Speaker 3 (45:05):
Yeah, and then they'll show you that one of the
plane where it's gone when it's taxied into a lamp
post and it's brown, and it's like it's being a
five US from last brown mate. Yeah, you know it's
not a comparable, yeah, image basically.

Speaker 4 (45:19):
Okay, So so I mean this is this is good
for but this is always this reminds me of when.

Speaker 3 (45:25):
Like BBC and stuff used to do, like you won't
even the Daddy Wallace ones and stuff like that because
he always left you with you.

Speaker 4 (45:32):
But you've not addressed this. You've not a dressed this,
you're not address this.

Speaker 3 (45:36):
Yeah, but the problem with that is you've got to
have this the mind of a conspiracist who's not going
to I mean, just the very fact that the name
mists and stuff like that, it's like an authority.

Speaker 4 (45:51):
Yeah, me fifty years to authority with them. No me,
me fifteen years ago would have gone.

Speaker 3 (45:57):
That would be enough to let me know that this
entire thing doesn't I was fucking talking about and I
dismissed the entire thing from Yeah, so that's a bit problematic.

Speaker 5 (46:07):
I would say though zero point four and five are
good points. Points they should just like probably higher up
because they're like these were things for me myself, Like
that kind of blew me away. Was actually finding out
that black Box was found, yeah, because we're always told
it wasn't, and then the human remains, like with the

(46:27):
DNA of almost every single passenger was accounted for and
people who died inside the Pentagon like that, I think
that stuff is actually really much more powerful evidence.

Speaker 3 (46:41):
Yeah, no, I tend to be agree. Was yeah, absolutely,
it's yeah. But but this is the thing that the
problem is with this as well, is that this is
this is fine for dismissing stuff. It's almost like religional
sort of paranormals, Like let's go with paranormal right, okay,

(47:03):
if you don't believe it, Actually we could just apply.

Speaker 4 (47:07):
To the conspiracy theories, right, okay, if you.

Speaker 3 (47:09):
Didn't believe the conspiracy theory in the first phase, this
is perfectly good. This gives you a perfectly rational explanation.
You're not going to delve any deeper. Why would you
trust that to an extent, you'd probably trust official narratives etctera, etctera,
et cetera, et cetera. But if don't trust any of that,
this is slightly problematic inasmuch as it needs to go

(47:32):
to that next step of explaining the minut shit. And
even then that doesn't I mean fucking know, we've added
its right, entire articles trying to explain how Manchester is
still really happened.

Speaker 4 (47:45):
Yeah, like do you know what I mean?

Speaker 3 (47:48):
Because it's it's it's something more important than just a
conversation to these people. It becomes an explanation for how
the world is, and so everything else, you know, everything
in the world is part of that. And so this
would be seen as that, Yeah, the FLAG data is good,

(48:11):
the DNA evidence is good. I do get what it's
saying with it's in cruisier to approach topics I skept
blah blah blah, and you know, we all want to
ruk confronting information. But this does come across as a
little bit patronising because the problem is I don't think
it's I'm not sure this is written with a comprehensive

(48:36):
knowledge of the audience that xaimeder this this is this
is like a sort of this is to help people
with conspiracies in the popular culture.

Speaker 4 (48:46):
This isn't going to help conspiracists. I don't notice.

Speaker 3 (48:49):
This is going to challenge conspiracists. Let's let's try and
see if see if we can get something else. Because
it's not bad, not badly as at nine and even
but maybe maybe it's too big of a subject as well, true,
but but interesting anyway, interesting, but a good idea.

Speaker 4 (49:17):
Well else should we ask it?

Speaker 3 (49:18):
Then perhaps it needs a little bit of tweaking. Mm hm,
well I see see if this see let's fuck with this.
Nine leven was U was used as a pretext to
invade Iraq and that had nothing to do with nine
e C.

Speaker 5 (49:37):
If it explains that, how about okay, maybe it was
allowed to happen as a pretext.

Speaker 3 (49:45):
There you go, yeah, yeah, yeah, I like that. That
was one of the things that actually believe because like
originally I went from it was sloppy, it was a
total fuck up on the part of America's defense to
they allowed it to happen, to watching info Wars videos

(50:06):
to they did it well. So the first nine to
eleven one I saw was Ed Begley Junior, who was
a relatively sensible person within society.

Speaker 4 (50:18):
Oh fuck your point.

Speaker 3 (50:19):
Touch is some one of the most complex and contentious
areas of the nine to eleven aftermath. The connection between
the attacks and the subsequent war in Iraq laid out
clearly no connection between nine to eleven Iraq. The nine
eleven Commission report from now adawnments of collaborative operational relationship
between Saddampu says I Raq and al Qaeda. Russian administration

(50:41):
initially proposed such connections, but these claims have been subsequently discrested.
Al Kaeda, under the leadership of Osama Lan was responsible
for the attacks, as they themselves claimed when the group
was principally based in Afghanistan and the protection of the
Talivan regime, not Iraq, motors.

Speaker 4 (50:56):
War with Iraq.

Speaker 3 (50:58):
The US government's rationale for invading a Rack was primary
based on the allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of master
structure and posed a persistent threat. These as stations were
proved false when no substantial quantities of the remds post invasion.
Critics argued that the administration used the general climate of
fear post nine to eleven to push from the war
with the country that they had other strategic interests in

(51:19):
separate from the nine membered tract tags.

Speaker 4 (51:21):
Yeah, fair enough.

Speaker 3 (51:23):
Public compolicity confusion the timing of framey of the Iraq
War led many people to conflate to Damcuse Saints regime
with the nine eleven attacks. Yeah, I mean mostly because
the fucking government told us that they and the media did,
although there was no evidence linking the two. The conflation
might have been the result of how information was presented
at the public. Yeah, they told us that it was Okay,

(51:46):
that's a bit shit. Over the time, the idea that
nine level was so our pretext for war has been debated,
with some accused of the government of seizing the opportunity
to advance pre existing agendas, in.

Speaker 5 (51:54):
Which they of course they fucking yeah. Like at the
end of the day that the neocons did publish the
in a century.

Speaker 3 (52:07):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely, I don't think that was even contentious that,
to be quite honest, I'm sorted. It's pointed to GPT
that maybe maybe we are. Maybe it's one of those
things where absolutely remembering it wrong. But the strong, the
strong memory I have is that they were both completely connected.

Speaker 4 (52:27):
That that was that was the excuse. Yeah, the fact
that was definitely an excuse.

Speaker 3 (52:31):
Does remember people are arguing afterwards, was he out that
he's opposed to Alchaia, he's kicked Alchider out of the
rat Yeah? Yeah, all right, that's not a satisfact answer.

Speaker 5 (52:44):
And it's also like supposing like that we're acting as
if Iraq had something to do with nine to eleven,
but we're not saying that. We're saying like nine to
eleven was allowed so that they so that the American
government could go to Iraq?

Speaker 4 (53:00):
That why would be so?

Speaker 1 (53:02):
What?

Speaker 4 (53:02):
So?

Speaker 3 (53:02):
I think if you's some confusion here, yeah, I mean
this is the same because remember we're not dealing with
a person. We're dealing with a bot that's picking up
on words. Isn't it looking for phrases and things like that?
Maybe if I had phrased it differently. Yeah, that's the problem.
We're talking to these things instead of basically like it's
like when you get when you're trying to Google search

(53:24):
something and you're like, why the fuck can I'll find it?

Speaker 4 (53:27):
And then you're just google something randomly.

Speaker 3 (53:29):
It's the first thing that pops up, like sometimes the
way that you know, you've got two different things going on.

Speaker 4 (53:37):
You've got the way that your brain works and the
way that computer's brain works, and like you know, sometimes
neither of them are right.

Speaker 5 (53:44):
So and then here at the end, it says, in essence,
while the factual basis for the Iraq War has been
heavily criticized and the government's rash now for it deemed faulty,
the available evidence does not support the idea that nine
to eleven was allowed to happen in or to justify
the war.

Speaker 3 (54:01):
Okay, that's probably true, but I'd like to see the evidence.
I'd like exactly yeah, so, but that when it says
there's an available evidence, I'd like to know what that
available evidence that disproves it is. So I'll tell you
why this is wrong, or not that it's wrong, but
why it's not quite where it needs to be. What

(54:22):
this needs to be, And even that won't be used
by conspiracy dinners because they don't want to test the parents.
It needs to have a link to a wiki, thing
like a rational wiki or a metabunk or something. This
needs to be the front that leads you to the behind,
and behind would need to be something like, listen to

(54:46):
some their conspiracy's deep dive on behuman growth, listen to
this explanation about this point.

Speaker 4 (54:52):
And the problem is is that.

Speaker 3 (54:55):
This, this is the thing, This is why we're and
this is going to make you sound like I'm blowing
our own trupid someone here. This is why we're in
a slightly unique position because we know the things that
they'll be looking for. We don't necessarily think that that's
a reasonable argument, but it's an argument that will be presented.

Speaker 4 (55:13):
For whatever reason.

Speaker 3 (55:14):
Yeah, so that's the problem with this is just saying
now it didn't happen like that isn't good enough. Again,
our read right, even if it did have a wiki
on here, even if it had the best wiki known
to man, with incontroversial proof and a letter from your
mum say that, like do you know what I mean?

(55:36):
People still wouldn't believe it. But I think this is
a good start. But we have criticisms with it that
and we're being quite kind, do you know what I mean? Still,
because we want this to be a good thing, we
want it to work, and we want to be thinking.

(55:56):
But with a very sort of quick test of that,
we've found flaws that would mean that it would wouldn't.
It's not quite fit for purpose. Yet, It's not bad,
and I'm quite impressed by by some.

Speaker 5 (56:10):
Of it, to be quite honest, I wonder if it
does need to be a bit more like a research
research tool. Yeah, like with having the links and stuff
to it, being able to ask it multiple questions like
not just a few, yeah, you know, actually have a
proper conversation with it, be able to point out what
I don't agree with that part, Well, how do you

(56:30):
explain this thing?

Speaker 4 (56:31):
Yeah? And having that'd be interesting.

Speaker 3 (56:35):
You could link up to various sort of debulking sites
as well, if you could link it up to it,
if you could get various mediical rational wiki even people
like us those conspiracy guys and stuff like that, because
do you know what I mean? Because that's that's where
that step is that you need to explain X, Y
and Z. It's not it's not good enough to like like,

(56:58):
you know, here's picture of the fuse, here's a picture
of this or whatever took to back it up. You
telling me that the official report says that, Oh, don't.

Speaker 4 (57:08):
Worry about that. That to me, go back to bed
in America.

Speaker 3 (57:12):
Your government has worked it out like here's America, glad
the editor, Sure, what's this?

Speaker 4 (57:18):
Yeah, like that's not quite good enough.

Speaker 3 (57:21):
But that's I suppose why we do what we do
is because there is that requirement for that next step basically,
and even with that next step, it's still not guaranteed
because again it very much depends. There's on a number
of things, depends why people are into these things, and
also you know, again, people do this usually for the

(57:45):
best of intentions, like it becomes a part of the
personality and a sort of a way off. They're trying
of good people, they're trying to like solve crime essentially,
and if you basically are you're wrong there. It's a
bit like pointing out you've wasted a huge amount of time.

Speaker 8 (58:05):
Like.

Speaker 3 (58:06):
It's terrible, like but in fact it's bizarre because there
was always a weird thing when you first got into
conspiracy things where you're like almost like an ego death
or sort of like surrending a realization that I didn't
know what was going on, and to.

Speaker 4 (58:23):
Have to do that again, it's like I've alrea fucking
done this one. Yeah, are you serious?

Speaker 1 (58:31):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (58:33):
And also let's be honest as well, if I went
through an ego death. I thought I was really right,
and then now I think't that actually I was probably wrong.
This is entirely the possibility that in twenty years time
I might go, ah, you're fucking wrong there as well.

Speaker 4 (58:50):
It might be a third option. It's a nightmare.

Speaker 3 (58:59):
Yeah, not bad though, dee, But but that'd be interesting. Yeah,
we should speak to the chap if you know, the
guide's behind it, and and just expressed, look, I think
it's really good. We think that these are potential flaws
with that, and it's nothing to do with here's the problem, right, Okay,
those flaws they're not necessarily a fault with with the

(59:20):
de bum. But other than they've failed to understand quite
how dog with the bone people are when they get
into this type of thing.

Speaker 4 (59:30):
And how is that? No, no, what about this? What
about this? And what about this? What about this?

Speaker 3 (59:35):
And that's that's the problem is that, And then this
is I don't mean this, but I'm struggling to find
a better word. This is coming out from a rational standpoint,
whereas conspiracies not coming from a rational and University commons standpoint.
I don't mean that it's irrational. I mean that it's

(59:58):
it's grounded in a certain degree of understanding the world
in a different way, and that is where I'm not
entirely sure that this kind of works. It's a good start,
it's a very good start, and it's actually it's impressive.
But this is the problem with these things. He's like,

(01:00:20):
and and again you know this is me saying this.
You've just seen our fucking long the next deep diabetes, right, Okay,
that's probably too much.

Speaker 5 (01:00:32):
Jenny Wallace has taken a piss out of us about pussy.
Didn't you catch that in the in the in the interview. Yeah,
basically that's what he said about conspiracy stuff, zeros videos,
like you know, I can't remember the word that he used.

(01:00:53):
And then then he mentioned our podcast has said the
same thing, like.

Speaker 3 (01:00:59):
You remember miss to say when we first started, there's
gonna be no fucking about and it needs to be
under an hour.

Speaker 4 (01:01:05):
Because I can't stand those long as and they've got
longer and longer.

Speaker 3 (01:01:12):
In our defense, in our defense, and I cahn't name
the podcast that the reason was because the podcast that
I was talking about, that that goes on for hours
and hours and hours. They don't start talking about the
topic until about hour two. Yeah, and even then they
do it in a way that assumes that you know
what the topics, and they don't always explain the backstory.

(01:01:35):
So even though ours has got hellishly long, I think
I don't think that there's the same amount of waiting
for it to get going, and I don't think there's
the same amount of going. I've got no idea what
they're fucking talking about. So so we summarize it really
well at the very beginning, and then we'd actually take

(01:01:56):
you on a tour.

Speaker 4 (01:01:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:01:59):
But again, but again, this is this is tirely the
problem we're talking about with this, Bob, is that I
felt I can't miss that out because if I missed
that out, somebody will go, oh, I know what you
missed it out?

Speaker 1 (01:02:12):
Young.

Speaker 4 (01:02:12):
I answered that, And that's for one thing that proves
that it's real. So you're in a you're in a
buying bayeah, and.

Speaker 5 (01:02:19):
Then you prove that one thing wrong and they're like, oh, yeah,
but it's not about this one, about this this one.

Speaker 3 (01:02:25):
So you've got to try and be a completist with it.
And even then you can't, like you know, you know,
you're talking years and years and years and years and years,
So you know, there's some bits that I haven't included.
They might get a couple of sentences or that at
this time they're doing this, which is a bit stupid,
but like you know, I mean with this next topic though,
we're talking twenty years, twenty years of stuff, dozens of

(01:02:51):
people involved in it. Each you've written their own books
which I haven't read.

Speaker 5 (01:02:58):
Another thing might be sting for this because if this
is going to be open to the public right and
it's going to be there for conspiracists to come and
debate against and argue with or whatever.

Speaker 4 (01:03:09):
See what see what sort of weapons are?

Speaker 5 (01:03:12):
It needs to be opened a little bit more. It
needs to have you neither have more questions obviously being
able to have full on sessions with it. But the
other thing is I wonder, like would interesting A tone
would be interesting, Like you could change what type of
tone the AI that you're talking to has.

Speaker 3 (01:03:36):
Okay, like for more angry jokey. That's interesting, That is
very interesting.

Speaker 5 (01:03:44):
Yeah, that would be good because Brock has like a
funny mode. It has like a fun mode, and Elon
must funny. Yes, funny. It's probably where he gets hiss from. Yeah,
of course he fucking does like that. I mean, I

(01:04:07):
suppose it does, doesn't it. It'd be interesting if you could.

Speaker 3 (01:04:09):
Sort of learn and buy and learn I mean of
like add to its database. Inasmuch as this is a
question that is often asked, this is the response to that,
or do you know what I mean?

Speaker 5 (01:04:21):
Like, does it have does it even have real time searched?
Can it look at Google? Now that's a question.

Speaker 4 (01:04:27):
I wouldn't because so don't chat. GPT can't.

Speaker 5 (01:04:30):
GPT can, but perplexity can. Connectity is really really good.
This like it does like searches and then when you
do search for stuff, it gives you links.

Speaker 4 (01:04:42):
You know, I think that would be better.

Speaker 3 (01:04:44):
Yeah, not to ship on this because it's a very
good start. How to make this better and make it better? Yeah,
if he wants to be really really effective, Yeah, we
should get onto the guy.

Speaker 4 (01:04:54):
We might be able to get a job new payers
and feel it's all over your were doing for free.

Speaker 5 (01:05:04):
We'll give him give him another shout. Like I gave
one of them a shout, I'll give the other guy
a shout. There's three of them.

Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
So no, I mean, because again, like real check that
it is. We do really like what it is. But
the problem is that the fevered brain of the hungry
conspiracist will be able to prove it wrong.

Speaker 4 (01:05:23):
And it's this isn't because that's what we were trying
to do.

Speaker 5 (01:05:27):
Yes, they because we're ex conspiracists, but we're still the
same people. So we're people trying to test it. And
that's exactly what like, well, this is it you've got
we would have done as conspiracists.

Speaker 3 (01:05:40):
Yeah, we want to combat it. We don't want it
to tell us the answers. We want to beat it.

Speaker 5 (01:05:46):
Yeah, and I don't think yes, like like if we
were playing like virtual chess or something like, then you've
you've lost.

Speaker 4 (01:05:52):
You're like, okay, except I lost this one.

Speaker 3 (01:05:55):
You'd storm off two weeks later and you'll pick it
up and throw it out the window.

Speaker 4 (01:06:00):
Okay, thing, Yeah that's passively.

Speaker 3 (01:06:07):
But yeah, but no, not bad, not bad, DeMont.

Speaker 4 (01:06:12):
But