Untitled Document

[00:00:00] Apparently Nick's theory based on the [00:00:02] expert that he cited by name, our French [00:00:05] guy. Apparently Nick's theory is that [00:00:09] the bullet didn't even hit the spine on [00:00:11] the way in. It entered Charlie's neck [00:00:14] here, passed beyond his spine into the [00:00:17] back, and bounced off of his skin, and [00:00:20] then did a 180 degree turn, a 306 [00:00:24] bullet, and was trampolined with so much [00:00:28] speed back into Charlie's spine that it, [00:00:31] I guess, according to the official [00:00:33] narrative that Nick is paring, then [00:00:35] shattered his C2 all the way down to his [00:00:38] C7, just obliterated his spine, and then [00:00:41] [snorts] just lodged right beneath the [00:00:43] skin [00:00:45] down by T1. Nick is being forced to [00:00:48] continually respond to this over and [00:00:49] over and over and just like make more [00:00:51] and more mistakes because his own fans [00:00:53] are sending him super chats being like, [00:00:54] "Nick, this is not a good look, bro. [00:00:56] Nick, you should not don't keep doing [00:00:57] this. Nick, you're [ __ ] you're [00:00:59] [ __ ] it up, Nick." [00:01:00] >> Conspiracy theories [music] are entering [00:01:02] a danger. [00:01:03] >> Information is the oxygen of the [00:01:06] >> There's so much evidence [music] out [00:01:08] there that even if less than 1% is true, [00:01:12] That be enough to collapse the current [00:01:14] paradigm and change the whole planet. [00:01:23] Well, Nick Fuentes just can't help [00:01:25] himself. He keeps on digging his hole [00:01:27] deeper and deeper and deeper and getting [00:01:29] more emotional in his responses, more ad [00:01:31] hominemum in his attacks. and he started [00:01:34] to venture into discussing the evidence [00:01:37] in Charlie Kirk a little bit and [00:01:39] discussing the ballistics and the skin [00:01:42] and all sorts of other amazing topics. [00:01:44] And I just can't help but make a video [00:01:46] response because Nick is just perfectly [00:01:48] teeing up um a good discussion about [00:01:53] what's really going on out here and [00:01:55] who's really got information and who's [00:01:57] got a whole bunch of logical fallacy ad [00:02:00] homonym and generally emotional uh [00:02:06] like I I I hesitate to use the word [00:02:08] crashing out but it kind of feels like [00:02:11] an animal backed into a corner right [00:02:12] now. He feels like a man that's got [00:02:14] something to lose that is out on a limb [00:02:18] on the wrong side of the argument. [00:02:20] And it's very public and we can all [00:02:22] watch and we're about to. And Nick, you [00:02:26] don't have to keep doing this. You don't [00:02:27] have to keep on just handing out gifts. [00:02:30] You don't have to keep on serving it up [00:02:32] on a silver platter. [00:02:34] But if you want to keep attacking me and [00:02:36] calling me names and stuff, I can't help [00:02:38] but respond to the large substance of [00:02:41] your answers, the substance of your [00:02:43] argument. And don't worry, this one's [00:02:45] not going to have to be two hours long [00:02:47] because we already did that. We already [00:02:48] beat that horse to death. And because [00:02:51] Nick's uh points are getting more and [00:02:53] more hollow and more and more easily [00:02:55] debunked, but they do give us space for [00:02:59] a very interesting conversation. And [00:03:01] they give a space to address some of the [00:03:03] experts that have conveniently flooded [00:03:05] the zone right after I brought up a [00:03:08] whole bunch of noise about how we [00:03:11] literally the first piece of evidence, [00:03:13] the bullet, the gunshot does not work. [00:03:15] The gun that they say was used. The gun [00:03:18] that links Tyler Robinson to the scene. [00:03:20] The gun that Tyler Robinson's dad did [00:03:22] not see a photo of when he said that [00:03:24] that was why he knew it was his son that [00:03:26] did the murder. That gun is not the gun. [00:03:29] The the bullet doesn't match, even [00:03:31] though they've not shown it to us. [00:03:32] They've not shown us the autopsy, but [00:03:34] they've leaked enough and they've [00:03:36] confirmed enough of their official [00:03:38] narrative that we very well know that [00:03:40] this is not possible. [00:03:44] So, we're going to use this opportunity [00:03:46] to kind [clears throat] of laugh at Nick [00:03:48] Fuentes' [00:03:51] whatever you want to call it and also [00:03:53] address some of the other experts that [00:03:54] have been coming out to call me names [00:03:56] online and kind of exposing the game [00:03:58] while they're at it. So, let's not waste [00:04:00] any time. Let's get right into it. [00:04:03] >> Evidence. Why not respond to it? You ask [00:04:05] for evidence and now say you're not [00:04:06] keeping an open mind. A lot of your fans [00:04:07] are banned and muted in chat for [00:04:08] disagreeing about Charlie. Not a good [00:04:10] look. If you believe in x up to 3206 [00:04:11] then content with the arguments has open [00:04:13] to do a live stream. [00:04:14] >> You're an idiot. He's an idiot and he's [00:04:18] a small fry compared to me. I'll debate [00:04:20] Candace Owens about it. I'm not debating [00:04:22] him. He's an ankle biter. [00:04:24] [snorts] [00:04:26] Nick's scared. And it's hard to bite [00:04:29] your ankles when I'm more than a foot [00:04:30] taller than you, Nick. But I'll try not [00:04:33] to be too mean here. [00:04:35] >> The only reason he did a video about me, [00:04:38] it's so typical. I did a one minute clip [00:04:40] responding. [00:04:42] >> Nick did a one minute clip responding. [00:04:44] Yeah, the clip I was responding to is 8 [00:04:46] minutes, Nick. So, I don't I don't know [00:04:47] what clip you're referring to, but [00:04:50] [clears throat] these are the types of [00:04:51] um small not super important [00:04:54] inconsistencies and just little lies [00:04:56] that are adding up on Nick's side. [00:04:58] Little little um shall we say displays [00:05:01] of the insecurity of his position where [00:05:03] he has to kind of fudge everything to [00:05:05] make it seem like there's no argument [00:05:06] for him to argue against. to make it [00:05:08] seem like we have no position over here, [00:05:10] like all the conspiracy theorists are [00:05:12] crazy. Yeah, there's a lot of those [00:05:14] going on. [00:05:15] >> He said, "Oh, boy." And then he did a [00:05:17] twohour video clip farming me. [00:05:20] >> Actually, Nick, clip farming is where I [00:05:22] go back through your past and grab a [00:05:23] whole bunch of clips of you saying [00:05:25] things in other context, out of context, [00:05:27] like the hilarious GTA clip that I [00:05:30] defended you on cuz I thought that [ __ ] [00:05:31] was funny as hell. Um, [snorts] that's [00:05:33] clip farming. This was just me making a [00:05:36] direct response to you asking for [00:05:38] evidence because you don't seem to know [00:05:39] about it. So, I gave you two hours of [00:05:41] evidence, but trust me, there's way more [00:05:43] than two hours. That's why there's so [00:05:45] much content about this is because [00:05:47] there's so much depth to how much this [00:05:49] doesn't make sense. We could go on for [00:05:51] hours and hours more, but I thought two [00:05:52] was enough to thoroughly [ __ ] on your [00:05:55] parade. [00:05:57] >> [ __ ] you. [ __ ] him. [laughter] [00:05:59] There is no ev What's the evidence? [00:06:02] >> There is no evidence. Wait, what's the [00:06:03] evidence? [00:06:04] >> Well, the bullet could never do that. [00:06:08] >> See, here we're going to get into the [00:06:10] part where he [00:06:11] tries to make the argument sound [00:06:13] [ __ ] but he's just exposing his own [00:06:16] lack of an argument. You can go watch my [00:06:18] two-hour video. You can compare it to [00:06:20] his representation of it. [00:06:24] It's very transparent. We have the [00:06:25] internet, Nick. We can all watch things. [00:06:27] >> That's not evidence. One. Two, there are [00:06:31] many ballistics experts that disagree. [00:06:34] JF Gripy did a one-hour video about it. [00:06:38] >> I'm This part's going to be great, too. [00:06:39] We're going to respond to JF Griie a [00:06:41] little bit and to Phoenix Ammunition and [00:06:43] to all the other experts that have just [00:06:45] popped up conveniently to um [00:06:48] you know, shovel the Fed slop [00:06:51] conveniently all of a sudden, right? [00:06:53] when there's a new resurgence of [00:06:56] conversation about how this doesn't [00:06:58] work. [00:07:00] >> There's a number of other ammunition [00:07:02] sellers and other ballistics experts [00:07:04] that [00:07:04] >> ammunition sellers. Yeah, we know who [00:07:05] you're talking about, Nick. It's cool. [00:07:06] We got this. We'll take it from here. Um [00:07:09] JF Gripy is this French guy. It's got to [00:07:13] be French. He's a [snorts] neurosurgeon, [00:07:15] a brain surgeon apparently. Um [00:07:16] >> All right. So, we are now entering the [00:07:18] main portion of the show where [00:07:19] >> We are now entering the main portion of [00:07:20] the show. [00:07:23] Um, and he replays a bunch of my video. [00:07:25] He makes a bunch of points. Um, this [00:07:27] part right here, um, I think is relevant [00:07:30] and interesting. [00:07:32] Very interesting. And the number of big [00:07:34] accounts that have come out and reposted [00:07:36] this video saying, "This is the best [00:07:37] argument I've seen." [00:07:39] Yeah. [00:07:40] >> About a 10 degree angle. [00:07:41] >> That's the only way you could ever [00:07:42] possibly imagine that there was no exit [00:07:43] wound. And [00:07:44] >> no, my theory is that the skin played [00:07:47] the role here. And I will prove that to [00:07:48] you tonight [00:07:49] >> because all the Te USA leakers have told [00:07:51] us that the autopsy says that it hit. [00:07:52] >> He's not kidding. His theory is that the [00:07:54] skin stopped the bullet, the vertebrae, [00:07:56] and then traveled down his spine and [00:07:58] obliterated him. [snorts] [00:07:59] >> Muscle structure that you would find in [00:08:00] a human neck. This is where the bullet [00:08:02] would have gone. [00:08:03] >> Sineas says, "I don't know what I'm [00:08:04] talking about. Wait for the rest of my [00:08:06] argument, sir. And if you're not [00:08:08] convinced at the end of this show that [00:08:09] it could have happened, uh, I don't [00:08:11] know. I I will I will say sorry. [00:08:14] >> For it to go into the body, we have to [00:08:15] believe it would have done two things. [00:08:17] It would have had to take a hard turn in [00:08:18] towards the center of the body and then [00:08:19] been impressed by or stopped by these [00:08:21] bones here enough to get [00:08:22] >> no it was stopped by the skin and [00:08:24] bounced toward the bones. Now as it was [00:08:26] bounced by the skin through back through [00:08:29] the elasticity of the skin then it [00:08:30] didn't have its kinetic energy anymore [00:08:32] in full because the skin absorbs a lot [00:08:34] of kinetic energy. It rolls back just a [00:08:35] little bit and that just a little bit [00:08:36] was enough to just push back the bullet [00:08:38] to go along the spine but not too deep. [00:08:41] down into the [00:08:44] [laughter] [00:08:46] >> bro [snorts] thinks that the skin is a [00:08:48] trampoline. [00:08:50] This surgeon thinks that the skin is a [00:08:52] trampoline that's going to bounce back [00:08:55] the bullet from the back of Charlie's [00:08:57] neck with enough force to then travel [00:09:00] back through muscle tissue, hit the bone [00:09:02] vertebrae, shatter them, travel, then do [00:09:05] a right-hand turn, travel down the bone [00:09:07] vertebrae, shatter them, shatter them, [00:09:09] shatter them all the way down to T1. [00:09:12] That's a very powerful trampoline, Mr. [00:09:15] Jean Francois, [00:09:18] you're a surgeon. [00:09:21] A, you think that a bullet can come in [00:09:24] from the front and then hit the skin at [00:09:27] the back with so much force that it can [00:09:30] do all that, but somehow the skin is [00:09:33] going to make it do a 90 degree, sorry, [00:09:35] a 180 degree turn. [00:09:39] I'm sorry, that is [00:09:41] not what bullets do. Like, [00:09:45] you really can't make this up. [00:09:47] I thought we were going to have like I I [00:09:49] didn't even watch this video when it [00:09:50] first came out because I was like, I [00:09:52] kind of see what's going on here. [00:09:53] [snorts] And now that I'm actually [00:09:54] watching it, it's like, holy [ __ ] guys. [00:09:56] This is really the best you can do. [00:10:01] Bullet refraction is when a bullet comes [00:10:02] into a substance like like a body or [00:10:05] like water and and it often will refract [00:10:07] a little bit and change its direction [00:10:09] over over time and over distance. [00:10:13] But go watch the bullet ballistics [00:10:15] experts. They have broken down exactly [00:10:16] how bullet refraction works. [00:10:18] >> Refracts straight down into the T1. Uh [00:10:23] yeah, that's not what a 306 round is [00:10:25] going to do if it hits a human neck [00:10:27] bird. We know it's going to blow right [00:10:29] through. But even if there was some [00:10:30] weird refraction, bullets aren't going [00:10:32] to refract almost 90 degrees. We've [00:10:34] talked about that. And then keep their [00:10:35] actual velocity to be able to do that [00:10:36] much damage. Not really a thing. again. [00:10:39] So with just basic middle school math, [00:10:40] we [00:10:41] >> of where the shot would have hit the [00:10:42] neck. I think that this is roughly [00:10:44] accurate in terms of the entry. Now, [00:10:46] here's my claim. The skin here, given [00:10:48] that the bullet was tumbling, the bullet [00:10:50] was unable to pierce the skin. And I [00:10:52] will show you this through video. I [00:10:54] swear to you, by the end of this show [00:10:55] tonight, I will show you the skin of [00:10:58] Charlie Kirk creating a V-shaped [00:11:00] reaction to the bullet. Okay? This is [00:11:02] absolutely new. I'm the first to claim [00:11:04] this. I've seen it on a single frame of [00:11:06] the video. I'm telling you, the bullet [00:11:08] tumbled, bumped in the back of Charlie [00:11:10] Kirk's neck in the on the skin, not on [00:11:12] the vertebrae. It bumped exactly right [00:11:15] here. So, this guy is correct with his [00:11:16] line. But what these guys have to [00:11:18] understand, Yan, Carol included, is that [00:11:19] the skin then pushed the bullet back [00:11:22] into Charlie Kirk. And you'll see it on [00:11:24] video. I'm guaranteeing you tonight. [00:11:26] That is his claim. [00:11:29] [laughter] That is legitimately his [00:11:30] claim. [00:11:33] We have been told by TPUSA that Charlie [00:11:35] Kirk's spine was exploded from the C2 [00:11:40] all the way down to C7 and that the [00:11:42] bullet was found down by T1. [00:11:47] And so by Nick's cited expert, Jean [00:11:51] Francois Gar [00:11:54] and I'm not trying to make fun of his [00:11:55] name. I just love [00:11:57] making fun of the French language in [00:11:58] general. It's a fun language to speak. [00:12:01] Um, but Jean Francois, [00:12:04] the neurosurgeon, [00:12:06] is agreeing with Chris Martinsson here [00:12:09] that the path of the bullet [00:12:12] didn't even hit the spine until after it [00:12:15] bounced off the back skin of Charlie's [00:12:19] neck and did a 180 degree turn and then [00:12:23] rebounded with so much force from that [00:12:27] skin that it exploded his spine. from C2 [00:12:31] down to C7 apparently. [00:12:36] Well, Nick, that is quite the expert to [00:12:38] site. That is quite the theory to hoist [00:12:41] up as though you know what the [ __ ] [00:12:42] you're talking about. It's just basic [00:12:44] Newtonian physics. You don't even need [00:12:46] to be a ballistics expert to understand [00:12:48] this. [00:12:51] I actually thought that this video would [00:12:53] be like complex. I thought it would [00:12:56] challenge my thinking. I was not [00:12:58] expecting this at all when I turned this [00:12:59] on this morning. [00:13:02] Now, let's talk about Phoenix [00:13:03] Ammunition, [laughter] [00:13:05] our favorite ammunition expert. [00:13:08] Phoenix Ammunition has been tweeting [00:13:11] like it's his full-time job. Ever since [00:13:13] he joined the Frey the other day, very [00:13:16] convenient timing. Where you at, [00:13:17] Phoenix? So, Phoenix Ammunition joined [00:13:19] the Frey a number of days ago, a couple [00:13:22] days ago, calling Candace a dumbass, [00:13:24] calling me a dumbass, calling Valhalla [00:13:26] VFT a dumbass, calling everyone a [00:13:28] dumbass because he's an expert because [00:13:30] he makes bullets. Lots of bullets. And [00:13:33] he was working on a chalkboard talk as [00:13:34] we speak to discuss the myriad of [00:13:35] variables involved. Yeah, we know [00:13:37] there's lots of variables involved. Yes, [00:13:38] ballistics is very complicated. I [00:13:41] responded, "You saw where Green Beret [00:13:43] Valhalla VFT shot clean through 38 inch [00:13:45] steel, shot through cow femurss wrapped [00:13:46] thickly in meat, or where Dr. Chris [00:13:48] Martinson did 38 tests on pork [00:13:50] shoulders, all 38 exited. They even went [00:13:52] through the pork shoulder, the bone, a [00:13:54] particle board, and then one wall of a [00:13:55] cinder block, which I showed in my last [00:13:57] video about this." So, I hope you've got [00:13:59] some really fancy numbers on your [00:14:00] blackboard to explain how Charlie's neck [00:14:02] contained multiple thousand footpounds [00:14:04] of force. Let's find his blackboard [00:14:06] talk. His blackboard talk was a 40minute [00:14:10] video of his notebook pa p p p p p p p p [00:14:12] p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p [00:14:12] p p p p p p p p p p p pages just with [00:14:14] math, math, math, math, math, math, [00:14:16] math. Yeah. Yeah, math is important. [00:14:19] Math is complicated. Bullets are [00:14:20] complicated. Yeah, that's cool. That's [00:14:22] cool. So, it shouldn't be a problem [00:14:24] since it's so possible and so likely for [00:14:27] bullets to be stopped by human necks, [00:14:29] literally one of the largest rounds that [00:14:31] you make, I I assume, [00:14:34] um, to be stopped by human necks, that [00:14:36] you could very easily go out and shoot [00:14:37] some tests and within maybe 20 rounds, [00:14:40] you would get at least one that was [00:14:43] stopped by something comparable at all [00:14:45] to a human neck. cuz so far we've had [00:14:47] experts testing 306 rounds on all sorts [00:14:51] of [ __ ] way stronger than human necks [00:14:54] and it's blown through all of them. So [00:14:55] he quote tweeted me in other words they [00:14:57] replicated exactly none of what happened [00:14:59] that day which was the entire premise of [00:15:01] my presentation. Thank you for proving [00:15:02] my point. Thanks buddy. We got this from [00:15:04] here. You can go back to driving taxis [00:15:05] again because they always got to throw [00:15:07] out homonym as though they have just [00:15:10] discredited the factual arguments but [00:15:14] you know have fun with it. The whole [00:15:15] point of the tests is that no one's [00:15:17] going to shoot another human in the [00:15:19] living neck. Duh, dude. So, we obviously [00:15:22] can't run the test, which is obviously a [00:15:25] part of the reason why you all are [00:15:27] running this propaganda piece. And I'm [00:15:29] not saying you're being paid to do it. [00:15:31] I'm saying that it's propaganda one way [00:15:33] or the other. [00:15:35] And so what all of these experts have [00:15:38] fallen back on in lie of shooting a [00:15:41] human in the neck is shooting at things [00:15:44] way stronger than a human neck. Shooting [00:15:46] at giant pork roasts that have way more [00:15:49] dens, way more muscle, way more bone, [00:15:52] way stronger bone. Shooting at literal [00:15:55] steel. Shooting at cow femurss. [00:15:59] Shooting at just about everything. [00:16:01] Because obviously if you think it [00:16:02] through, if the bullet just keeps on [00:16:05] going through things that are stronger [00:16:06] than Charlie's neck, then shooting at [00:16:09] something weaker probably going to yield [00:16:12] some similar results, maybe even worse, [00:16:15] right? And the best you could possibly [00:16:17] do short of shooting a living human on [00:16:19] camera is shooting a ballistic dummy. [00:16:21] And we've got that, too. [00:16:24] So, Mr. Phoenix ammunition man, we're [00:16:26] all waiting for you to take some of your [00:16:28] highly esteemed ammunition out to the [00:16:30] range and film some tests for us. Make [00:16:31] some video evidence of just how likely [00:16:33] it is. Maybe take a 100 rounds of 300 6, [00:16:37] 100 pork roast, 100 whatever you want. [00:16:41] You could get a whole leg of cow. You [00:16:43] could put a whole moose carcass out [00:16:45] there. Take a 100 shots at it. Film it [00:16:47] all. Put it online. Tell us how many of [00:16:49] those hundred shots go through and [00:16:50] through whatever carcass you choose to [00:16:52] shoot at. Hell, take steel plate. Just [00:16:55] take a giant 38 inch steel plate out [00:16:57] there and see how many times your [00:16:58] esteemed 30 six rounds penetrate the [00:17:01] steel plate. [00:17:02] That'll be some information. It won't be [00:17:04] a living human neck, obviously. But no [00:17:06] one's going to do that. Duh. So, I [00:17:09] clarified for Mr. Ammunition Man that [00:17:11] this is called journalism, where we [00:17:13] investigate claims, we look for sources, [00:17:16] we, you know, display the facts, we kind [00:17:18] of tease them out, we look for more [00:17:20] facts, we try to debunk them. Anyone can [00:17:24] do it. Even a literal taxi driver can do [00:17:26] it. Even an ammunition seller can do it. [00:17:30] Anyone can do it. They just might not be [00:17:32] very good at it. You can be the judge of [00:17:35] that. And I offered that maybe he should [00:17:38] do some tests like all these other [00:17:40] experts have been doing, like Dr. Chris [00:17:42] Martinson did, [00:17:44] because I don't see any tests. I just [00:17:46] see a lot of a lot of talking. Just a [00:17:48] lot of talking. a lot of obfuscation [00:17:51] behind complexity and math. [00:17:55] If your math was so great, you'd think [00:17:57] one of these bullets would have stopped [00:17:58] in one of these extremely strong bones, [00:18:01] pieces of meat, steel plates, etc. [00:18:04] But that's not what's happening. [00:18:07] You might realize, Nick, and everyone [00:18:10] citing Phoenix ammunition, that Phoenix [00:18:13] Ammunition is Justin Nazerof, [00:18:16] and he's appeared on the Tim Pool [00:18:18] podcast a couple of times. You [snorts] [00:18:19] can watch clips of him. He posted a [00:18:21] video recently. All I'm going to say [00:18:22] about Justin Nazerof is that he claimed [00:18:24] he confirmed that this is his LinkedIn [00:18:26] page, which obviously it is. He's the [00:18:29] general manager. He's also the founder, [00:18:30] as far as I can tell, of Phoenix [00:18:31] Ammunition [clears throat] back in 2016. [00:18:35] So, he's been making bullets since 2016. [00:18:38] Good on you, bro. [snorts] [00:18:41] And before that, he was an account [00:18:43] manager at Sentry Insurance. He was an [00:18:45] insurance guy. Um, he was an engineer [00:18:48] recruiter at the Bartk Group. He was a [00:18:50] search consultant at Nationwide [00:18:51] Executive Search. And he was a technical [00:18:53] recruiter at Reliance One, Inc. [00:18:58] And he went to college. He's got a [00:19:00] college degree. So, yeah. [00:19:05] Sorry, Phoenix, but I'm going to go with [00:19:07] the literal green beret that served [00:19:09] multiple tours of duty that is extremely [00:19:13] experienced in combat medicine. I'm [00:19:15] going to go with people like Zeb Boyin, [00:19:18] who's a literal ballistics expert, [00:19:20] because right now, Justin, it looks like [00:19:22] you're shilling a narrative. [00:19:26] It looks like you're very sure of your [00:19:28] narrative, and it's a little weird. [00:19:32] But let's be fair, for what it's worth, [00:19:34] when you go to Phoenix Ammunition's [00:19:36] Twitter profile and you scroll back [00:19:38] through his page and his mentions of [00:19:40] places like Israel and all that, he's [00:19:42] been very apparently America first. He's [00:19:44] been very critical of Israel. He's been [00:19:46] very critical of corrupt governments as [00:19:48] far as I can see. He's he's got a pretty [00:19:50] solid Twitter profile before this [00:19:52] outrage. Um, I didn't do a super [00:19:55] extensive dig, but Phoenix Ammunition is [00:19:58] not overtly on X in Israel show, so [00:20:02] don't come don't come after him for [00:20:03] that. [00:20:04] >> [snorts] [00:20:04] >> um [00:20:06] makes it a little weird how [00:20:09] why he's so certain that he needs to [00:20:12] debunk this narrative now, right? [00:20:15] Specifically now when this all flares [00:20:18] back up. But hey, if you want to buy [00:20:21] your ammo from him, you buy your ammo [00:20:23] from him. Um, maybe if he's too [ __ ] to [00:20:27] take his rounds out to the range and [00:20:29] film some tests and post them on the [00:20:31] internet, maybe someone else could buy [00:20:32] some 306 rounds from our boy Justin and [00:20:36] uh, take them out on the range and see [00:20:39] if those bullets penetrate stuff. [00:20:43] See if they can get stopped by anything [00:20:46] comparable to a human neck. So, Nick, [00:20:49] great experts, A+. Yes. Apparently [00:20:53] Nick's theory based on the expert that [00:20:55] he cited by name, our French guy. [00:20:58] Apparently Nick's theory is that the [00:21:01] bullet didn't even hit the spine on the [00:21:04] way in. It entered Charlie's neck here, [00:21:07] passed beyond his spine into the back, [00:21:10] and bounced off of his skin, and then [00:21:13] did a 180 degree turn, a 306 bullet, and [00:21:17] was trampolined with so much speed back [00:21:22] into Charlie's spine that it, I guess, [00:21:24] according to the official narrative that [00:21:26] Nick is paring, then shattered his C2 [00:21:30] all the way down to his C7. just [00:21:31] obliterated his spine and then just [00:21:34] lodged right beneath the skin [00:21:37] down by T1. It's possible that Nick [00:21:40] doesn't think all of that. It's possible [00:21:42] that our French gentleman doesn't think [00:21:44] that the spine was shattered at all. [00:21:47] It's possible because I didn't even care [00:21:49] to go all the way to his end of his [00:21:50] video honestly once I heard that he [00:21:52] thought the skin was a [ __ ] [00:21:53] trampoline that could stop a bullet. [00:21:55] [clears throat] Um, and yeah, we know we [00:21:57] know about yaw. We know that bullets can [00:21:59] tumble. We know all of that. [00:22:03] If this is the if this is what you want [00:22:04] to go with, you just keep on going, bro. [00:22:08] Christmas is coming early. I suppose. [00:22:11] Um, but we are being told by people [00:22:14] directly affiliated with TPUSA, multiple [00:22:17] that the autopsy shows that the spine is [00:22:21] eviscerated from C2, which is behind [00:22:24] your [ __ ] face. [00:22:28] Bullet incoming from the front. C2 is [00:22:31] behind your [ __ ] face. [00:22:34] So maybe the Frenchman's on to [00:22:36] something. Maybe that's how it hit the [00:22:37] C2 is it bounced off the back of his [00:22:39] neck and then went upwards to the C2 and [00:22:42] then went straight downwards down his [00:22:43] spine and just [00:22:47] Yeah. This is the illustrious Nick [00:22:51] Fuentes, folks. The the illustrious [00:22:54] Nickuentes. Sorry, I'm sorry. I'm [00:22:56] getting into attacking him back. It's [00:22:59] [snorts] just [00:23:02] low hanging fruit. We'll try not to pick [00:23:04] it. [00:23:04] >> They've said the same thing. [00:23:07] Okay. [snorts] [00:23:09] And Ian Carol's not a ballistics expert. [00:23:11] He goes on and says, "Well, some hunter [00:23:13] shot a thing from 100 feet away." [00:23:15] >> I'm not a ballistics expert. Um, but [00:23:17] again with the [00:23:20] No, no, no, Nick. Actually, I'm citing a [00:23:22] whole bunch of combat veterans, ex [00:23:24] special forces, [00:23:26] some hunters, some people that run [00:23:28] ballistics expertise channels [00:23:30] specifically. Um, a wide variety of [00:23:32] folks, basically everyone except for [00:23:35] this swarm of shills that are now coming [00:23:37] out. Way. So, that's not evidence. [00:23:42] >> Yes, it is. [00:23:45] Look it up. Type it into your [00:23:46] dictionary, Nick. Come on. You're smart. [00:23:48] You speak English. The problem is you [00:23:50] don't understand formal logic. You don't [00:23:52] understand this part is gold [00:23:55] rationality. [00:23:59] Let's learn about formal logic and [00:24:01] rationality. Formal logic [00:24:05] is a system of reasoning that evaluates [00:24:07] arguments based on their structure [00:24:08] focused on the validity of the logical [00:24:10] form rather than the content of the [00:24:11] premises. A formal fallacy occurs when [00:24:14] there is a flaw in the logical structure [00:24:16] of a deductive argument, rendering [00:24:17] invalid, even if the premises are true. [00:24:20] You mean sort of like when you use a [00:24:21] straw man argument, Nick? A logical [00:24:24] fallacy where someone misrepresents an [00:24:25] opponent's position by distorting, [00:24:26] exaggerating, or oversimplifying it to [00:24:28] make it easier to attack. [00:24:31] Kind of like that. [00:24:36] Oh, for you, this kind of vague [00:24:38] insinuation, [00:24:40] I feel like something's off here. You [00:24:42] you read [00:24:43] >> Yeah. You mean misrepresenting your [00:24:45] opponent's argument to make it seem [00:24:47] oversimplified or just not even [00:24:49] representing it at all? [00:24:52] >> Yeah. [00:24:53] Formal logic, Nick. [00:24:55] >> Register that as evidence. That's not [00:24:57] evidence. [00:24:58] >> Yeah. Whatever you just said was not [00:25:00] evidence. [00:25:02] That was you [00:25:04] doing some weird [ __ ] [00:25:06] >> Oh, okay. A big bullet didn't do a [00:25:08] thing. No. Okay. and you register. [00:25:13] >> Yeah. Actually, physics is evidence. [00:25:16] Ballistics is evidence. [00:25:20] You ever watched a murder trial, Nick? [00:25:23] Like, for example, the JFK [00:25:25] assassination, which I think we're [00:25:26] probably going to talk about here in a [00:25:28] second. [00:25:28] >> That like that's an argument. That's not [00:25:30] an argument. You need a postulate. You [00:25:33] need a hypothesis. You need a theory, a [00:25:35] conjecture. You have none of that. [00:25:38] You seem to misunderstand what's going [00:25:40] on here, Nick. [00:25:43] Unlike all of you, we are not saying [00:25:46] that we know what happened. We're trying [00:25:48] to investigate what happened. You are [00:25:51] saying that you do know what happened. [00:25:53] You are the one with the theory. Your [00:25:55] theory is the official theory, the fed [00:25:58] slop narrative. Tyler Robinson took the [00:26:01] shot, one shot with his grandappy's 306 [00:26:05] rifle at about 140 yards from the roof [00:26:08] of the Losi center and it struck Charlie [00:26:10] Kirk in the neck and killed him by going [00:26:13] into his neck. I you the the theory may [00:26:15] differ here, but the autopsy apparently [00:26:18] says that it hit his spine at C2 way up [00:26:22] here and then [00:26:25] deflected at a near 90° angle and [00:26:27] traveled down his spine exploding all [00:26:29] these vertebrae down to C7 and then it [00:26:32] lodged somewhere around T1. [00:26:36] That is the theory. You guys are the [00:26:38] ones with the theory. We are saying your [00:26:41] [ __ ] theory doesn't make sense. [00:26:45] We don't need a theory because we're [00:26:47] journalists and we're trying to [00:26:49] investigate what happened. And some [00:26:50] people are coming up with theories. [00:26:53] I investigate many. Personally, I don't [00:26:57] hold any of them. I don't think I know [00:26:59] what happened, but I know you're full of [00:27:02] [ __ ] [00:27:04] And I know that this is just like waking [00:27:07] up on Christmas morning. So, please do [00:27:09] not stop. Please make this bigger video [00:27:11] that you said you would make. Just [00:27:14] tearing it all up, just eviscerating [00:27:16] this clown Uber Eatats driver, Ian [00:27:18] Carol. [00:27:20] >> You You're not even an expert in the [00:27:22] subject. You have no expertise. There is [00:27:24] no forensic evidence. [00:27:26] >> There is no forensic evidence. [00:27:30] You mean like the video of it happening? [00:27:36] You mean like all the other videos from [00:27:38] the scene? And there's way more than [00:27:40] that, I would presume, behind the closed [00:27:43] doors of the investigation, of the FBI [00:27:46] investigation, which I'm sure is totally [00:27:47] above board. I'm sure it's all good at [00:27:50] the FBI. Jeffrey Epstein totally killed [00:27:53] himself, never trafficked anyone to [00:27:54] anyone. [00:27:57] Next thing you know, that'll be what [00:27:58] Nick is talking about. [00:28:01] >> You have this the first of all, you're [00:28:03] completely ignorant. Sorry, that was a [00:28:05] logical fallacy. I I just jumped jumped [00:28:07] the fence to the next argument over [00:28:10] >> person and then it's just this vague, [00:28:13] oh, okay. Yeah, I guess a giant bullet [00:28:16] didn't leave an exit wound. [00:28:18] >> Yeah, you can go and watch my video for [00:28:19] yourself and see if that's the substance [00:28:22] of my argument and that's how I [00:28:24] presented it. [00:28:26] What you don't understand is that [00:28:27] bullets do [00:28:29] >> see here's where he starts to parrot [00:28:31] Jean Franuis's talking points. [00:28:36] This part's great. Nick [00:28:41] >> when a bullet enters skin starts talking [00:28:44] about skin which is like the key word [00:28:46] that French homie keeps on saying it's [00:28:49] just this is all that's been downloaded [00:28:50] into Nick's little brain and now he's [00:28:52] just where did bullet enter? Sorry, I'm [00:28:54] not going to make fun of I'm not going [00:28:55] to do it. [00:28:56] >> It can change the trajectory of a [00:28:58] bullet. It can alter its velocity. [00:29:00] >> Yeah, when a bullet enters a substance, [00:29:02] it can change its trajectory and [00:29:03] velocity. Usually, a very small amount, [00:29:05] it will deflect off course and travel [00:29:08] over time in a different direction. [00:29:11] Bullets don't bounce off skin and go the [00:29:14] opposite direction and retain their [00:29:16] velocity. Bro, [00:29:18] that's not how it happens. Skin can't [00:29:20] hold 2,000 foot-pounds of force. [00:29:25] even if the bullet is tumbling. [00:29:29] And I mean maybe like there's a slight [00:29:32] chance, a miraculous chance. [00:29:36] But I would point out that the official [00:29:38] narrative that you're paring is that it [00:29:40] was a miracle. Is that there's almost no [00:29:42] possible way that a bullet would do [00:29:43] this. And so it's just a miracle that [00:29:46] the bullet was stopped by his neck. The [00:29:48] surgeon himself apparently said that. [00:29:51] >> TB USA said that. Oh yeah. Here you go. [00:29:53] Fox News today. Man of steel. Charlie [00:29:55] Kirk's body stopped a bullet that would [00:29:57] typically just go through everything. [00:30:00] And it was an absolute miracle nobody [00:30:02] else was killed. His surgeon told [00:30:04] Turning Point USA. And another one. [00:30:05] Surgeon says Charlie Kirk's neck stopped [00:30:07] Bullet from killing anyone else. He's [00:30:09] like the man of steel. [00:30:11] Okay, we're guys, we're going to talk uh [00:30:13] everything in this. We're going to talk [00:30:14] ballistics. We're going to talk anatomy. [00:30:16] We're going to talk physics. Uh and just [00:30:18] we're going to look at the actual post [00:30:20] Turning Point put out here in a second. [00:30:22] I I'm blown away by how stupid this is. [00:30:24] The man of steel. It's a miracle. We're [00:30:26] going with That's the explanation. Now, [00:30:28] the official story now is claiming this [00:30:31] is a miracle. [00:30:33] There we go. To add to the FBI's story, [00:30:35] it's a miracle. And Charlie Kirk was the [00:30:37] man of steel. I am I'm so blown away [00:30:39] that this is where where we're at with [00:30:41] this. [00:30:42] I can't I can't imagine any of you [00:30:44] watching this are going, "Yep, sounds [00:30:47] good." If you if you're calling people [00:30:50] like me a conspiracy theorist right now [00:30:52] for looking at this story and looking at [00:30:54] posts like that and going that's total [00:30:56] [ __ ] guys I'm sorry but this is from [00:31:00] top to bottom start to finish this [00:31:02] entire thing has been pathetic from the [00:31:04] FBI. [00:31:06] >> I just want to point out on the wall [00:31:08] Nate's metals hanging up in case you [00:31:11] didn't notice. [00:31:13] Yeah, [00:31:14] >> it can change direction because skin is [00:31:17] very elastic. [00:31:20] >> And you're not a physicist and neither [00:31:22] am I. And you're not a [laughter] [00:31:24] ballistics. [00:31:24] >> Did you watch Nick's brain quickly go, [00:31:27] oh, maybe you shouldn't get into this [00:31:28] line of thinking. Maybe you shouldn't do [00:31:31] this part. This is not going to go well. [00:31:33] And he's like, I you're not an expert [00:31:35] and I'm not an expert, so why are we [00:31:37] even talking about this [00:31:39] >> expert? And neither am I. So for a [00:31:42] complete amateur to go and say big [00:31:44] bullet didn't do this. Okay, that's not [00:31:49] journalists report on things that [00:31:50] they're not experts at all the time and [00:31:53] they go to experts and they ask [00:31:54] questions and they cite those sources [00:31:57] and they present them to you. [00:31:59] But I it's easy for me to forget, Nick, [00:32:01] that you're also not a journalist. [00:32:03] You're a political commentator [00:32:06] with some really interesting political [00:32:08] aspirations, it would seem. Um, so to [00:32:13] expect you to be doing journalism or to [00:32:15] understand journalism maybe is a bridge [00:32:16] too far. [00:32:18] >> Proof of anything. And by the way, what [00:32:21] would that even be proof of? [00:32:25] >> You don't have any evidence. And then [00:32:27] and there is no evidence and your [00:32:28] evidence sucks. And by the way, even if [00:32:31] there was evidence, what would that even [00:32:32] be proof of? [00:32:36] Just let's let's clear this up, Nick, in [00:32:38] case it was too complicated. [snorts] If [00:32:41] the rifle that they say was used, the [00:32:45] rifle that links Tyler Robinson to the [00:32:47] scene, if the bullets that that rifle [00:32:50] fires could not possibly have made, or [00:32:53] let's be really precise, could almost [00:32:56] never in a million years. The smallest, [00:32:59] tiniest, tiniest, tiniest fraction of a [00:33:01] miraculous percent is the only way that [00:33:03] that rifle could have fired and made the [00:33:06] wound that we all saw on camera, [00:33:09] then Tyler is not linked to the scene. [00:33:12] And it is almost certain, it is entirely [00:33:14] certain in my mind that this is a cover [00:33:17] up and that it actually matches the [00:33:19] pattern of political assassinations [00:33:21] throughout time [00:33:23] that are more often coverups than not. [00:33:27] More often they're trying to blame it on [00:33:29] a lone gunman when it clearly isn't than [00:33:32] not. [00:33:36] That's what this evidence would show, [00:33:37] Nick. [00:33:39] Duh. [00:33:40] What would that be proof of? [00:33:43] So you're you're insinuating a 306 will [00:33:47] always have an exit wound or blow up a [00:33:49] guy's head. If it didn't, it must have [00:33:51] been [00:33:52] >> No, like when you shoot a moose, it [00:33:54] might not have an exit wound, though. It [00:33:56] often does. [00:33:58] If you were to shoot an elephant, it [00:34:00] probably wouldn't have an exit wound. [00:34:02] Maybe an elk, it could go through and [00:34:04] through sometimes. [00:34:06] And we, you know, we've got these new [00:34:08] experts putting out photos of game with [00:34:12] 30 sixes going through them. It's like, [00:34:13] yeah, Charlie is not an elk. His neck is [00:34:17] not an elk. [00:34:19] different bullet. So, what did the FBI [00:34:22] and France and Israel do? They brought [00:34:24] the wrong gun. [00:34:26] >> I love this part. Nick just keeps on [00:34:29] because here's the thing is that Nick [00:34:30] has such strong stances that he's [00:34:32] elucidated so well for 10 years. [00:34:36] It's a part of Nick's core identity, [00:34:38] what he's based on. And he's waiting [00:34:41] into waters here where he's undermining [00:34:43] his own credibility on everything else, [00:34:46] too. [00:34:48] Did they bring the wrong gun? Let's [00:34:50] let's listen a little more. [00:34:51] >> Seriously, what's the alternative [00:34:53] theory? So, there's a second shooter [00:34:56] that shot him with the smaller caliber [00:34:58] bullet. And when when France planted the [00:35:01] rifle in the Palunteer Woods, [00:35:05] they got the wrong rifle. [00:35:08] Why did they do that? [00:35:11] Well, Nick, if you were familiar with [00:35:13] the JFK assassination, you would know [00:35:17] that that's not necessarily unheard of [00:35:21] because in the JFK assassination, they [00:35:23] planted the wrong rifle. And researchers [00:35:26] noticed [00:35:28] that the rifle that had been presented [00:35:30] to the public had the strap attachments [00:35:32] on the side of the rifle. As you can see [00:35:34] in the color photo right there, the [00:35:37] strap attachments are on the side. [00:35:40] And [00:35:42] the rifle that Lee Harvey Oswald had, [00:35:45] the strap attachments were on the [00:35:46] bottom. And you can also see that in the [00:35:49] advertisement for it in the magazine [00:35:51] where the purchase was traced to, that [00:35:53] the strap attachments were on the [00:35:54] bottom. They were pretty close. They [00:35:57] were pretty close to the right rifle, [00:35:59] but little details matter. And in this [00:36:03] photo, you can also clearly see that in [00:36:05] the one that he owned, and his wife also [00:36:08] confirmed this, if my memory serves, [00:36:10] that the strap attachments were on the [00:36:12] bottom and it did not match the rifle [00:36:15] that they [00:36:18] claimed was used. And I'm sure that [00:36:21] because Nick is based about JFK, he [00:36:24] knows all about the magic bullet and [00:36:26] about how there were multiple shooters [00:36:28] and about how there's no way that the [00:36:31] shot that we all watch on the Zupruder [00:36:33] film came from the Book Depository [00:36:35] building, [00:36:40] right, Nick? [00:36:47] In fact, [00:36:49] when you think about it, Nick, the act [00:36:51] of getting the a pathy into place is a [00:36:54] very hard thing to achieve. And I don't [00:36:55] know how they do it. I don't know how [00:36:57] they did it. [00:36:59] But Tyler Robinson doesn't own some [00:37:01] advanced scoped collapsible AR platform. [00:37:06] They can't just force him to buy one. He [00:37:09] owns a relic 300 6 that is an heirloom [00:37:13] that will directly tie the rifle to [00:37:15] Tyler. [00:37:16] And so for whatever reason that was the [00:37:19] rifle that was there. [00:37:22] Maybe they would have been wiser to fire [00:37:24] with a 306 round at Charlie Kirk, but [00:37:26] for whatever reason they didn't want to [00:37:28] do that, I guess. Or they couldn't. I [00:37:29] don't know. See, that's the difference [00:37:31] between you and me is I am not making [00:37:33] assumptions based on things I don't [00:37:36] know. I'll perfectly happily discuss [00:37:38] things. I will explore theories and see [00:37:41] what's what. But I don't know. If you [00:37:44] ask me my concrete opinion about what [00:37:46] really happened, I do not know. [00:37:48] And I'm not claiming I do. [00:37:51] I feel pretty confident about certain [00:37:53] parts of the evidence. And I feel pretty [00:37:54] confident about what we might not know [00:37:56] and what we might know didn't happen. [00:38:00] But I'm still waiting for you or any [00:38:02] actual experts to present anything that [00:38:05] seems credible and not absolutely [00:38:08] bizarre and [ __ ] [00:38:13] So this is a multi- agency, multilateral [00:38:16] conspiracy involving French [00:38:19] intelligence, Israeli intelligence, the [00:38:21] FBI. [00:38:23] You know, if Nick was based on the [00:38:24] nuclear Deona facility, the Deona [00:38:27] nuclear facility, he would actually [00:38:29] remember how the French government and [00:38:33] some people in South Africa and the [00:38:35] Jewish mob in America, whole bunch of [00:38:37] other folks all colluded [00:38:40] to get Israel's nuclear facility up and [00:38:42] running. It's not uncommon for a whole [00:38:45] bunch of different nations and [00:38:46] intelligence agencies and [ __ ] [00:38:48] around the world to collude at a ve for [00:38:51] very high level political and state [00:38:53] operations. [00:38:56] Duh. What are you talking about, Nick? [00:38:59] Like, I don't know exactly what [00:39:00] happened. We're just trying to [00:39:02] investigate the actual evidence as [00:39:04] opposed to shoveling the Fed slop [00:39:06] narrative down people's throats and [00:39:07] calling them names and saying they're [00:39:09] dead to you and they're [ __ ] if they [00:39:11] ask any questions. [00:39:13] You would make a great journalist, Nick. [00:39:15] >> The FBI produc [00:39:16] >> And by journalist, I mean White House um [00:39:18] correspondent [00:39:21] >> the weapon. [00:39:23] The FBI discovered the weapon. They [00:39:25] produced it. They released photographs [00:39:27] of it. [00:39:29] >> Actually, Nick, they didn't. The FBI did [00:39:31] not release photographs of the weapon. [00:39:33] And to this day, we've never seen a [00:39:35] photograph of the weapon. And in the [00:39:37] charging documents that the government [00:39:40] released charging Tyler Robinson with [00:39:42] this crime, in those documents, they [00:39:45] clearly state a flaw, a lie, an untruth [00:39:50] that Tyler Robinson's father saw a photo [00:39:53] of the rifle in the news and said, and [00:39:56] then he knew that Tyler Robinson was the [00:39:59] shooter, and that's how they then [00:40:01] confronted him and convinced him to turn [00:40:03] himself in. [00:40:04] >> [snorts] [00:40:04] >> The problem with that is that the photo [00:40:06] we are referring to of this gun [00:40:09] published by the New York Post is not [00:40:12] the rifle that Tyler Robinson owned. And [00:40:14] that's obvious because this is a [00:40:17] composite plastic sort of stock. This is [00:40:20] not a World War I relic. Duh. [00:40:24] And the New York Post [00:40:26] clarified that that this was just a [00:40:29] stock image of a similar rifle that they [00:40:32] used as a standin because the FBI has [00:40:34] never published a photo of the actual [00:40:36] rifle from the crime. [00:40:39] Pretty important detail for you to know [00:40:41] about, Nick. Pretty important detail [00:40:43] when you read the charging documents. [00:40:46] Pretty important detail for the whole [00:40:49] thing. [00:40:51] Yeah, it's kind of awkward in concert [00:40:55] with with the Egyptian military that [00:40:57] deployed their shooters. There's Israeli [00:40:59] phones there [00:41:01] and they got the wrong gun. They matched [00:41:03] a wrong gun to the wrong bullet. How [00:41:05] does that even make sense? [00:41:09] I guess they [ __ ] up. [00:41:13] How How does 911 make sense? [00:41:16] We know what we know about 911 because [00:41:18] they [ __ ] up. [00:41:20] How about JFK? They [ __ ] up. [00:41:25] How about the USS Liberty? We only know [00:41:27] what happened because they [ __ ] up. [00:41:31] Duh. [00:41:35] It's a three agency conspiracy, but they [00:41:38] brought the wrong rifle. And how did [00:41:40] they do that? [00:41:42] They picked one at random. [00:41:45] Most of these conspiracies have some [00:41:47] serious retards involved that seriously [00:41:49] [ __ ] up and leave a trail of clues lying [00:41:52] around. That's very common. What kind of [00:41:54] bullet did they shoot him with? A a [00:41:56] handgun. Why did they [00:41:58] >> I don't know because they haven't told [00:41:59] us. And they won't release any [00:42:00] information. They're actually actively [00:42:02] suppressing information and covering [00:42:04] everything up. And they paved over the [00:42:05] crime scene and all this other [ __ ] We [00:42:07] don't know, Nick. I doubt it was a [00:42:09] handgun [00:42:12] cuz handguns are hard to aim. I'm sure [00:42:13] you know that because I'm sure you shot [00:42:15] a lot of guns. [00:42:16] >> Leave a handgun in the woods. [00:42:19] It doesn't make any sense. Your theory? [00:42:24] >> I don't have a theory, Nick. My theory [00:42:26] is that your theory is [ __ ] [ __ ] [00:42:29] You're the one with the theory, Nick. [00:42:32] You're the one pumping a theory, and [00:42:35] it's the Cash Patel theory. [00:42:39] I am the one poking holes in it and [00:42:42] saying, "Nope, not good enough. Let's [00:42:45] look at real evidence, please." [00:42:48] >> Which you don't even have. All you have [00:42:50] is this. Oh, we're just asking question. [00:42:52] >> Correct. Yes, that's what journalists [00:42:54] do. They ask questions until a credible [00:42:56] theory emerges. And so far, no credible [00:42:59] theory has emerged. You are correct, [00:43:01] Nick. You're almost there. Keep going. [00:43:04] Maybe you'll get there. It's [00:43:07] >> so stupid. It's completely stupid. [00:43:10] >> I think he's just gonna go [00:43:12] >> kind of [00:43:13] >> and I'm going to have to wind up doing a [00:43:16] video about it [00:43:18] >> and I'm [00:43:18] >> Please do, Nick. Please do. That will be [00:43:21] a wonderful day. [00:43:23] >> Going to rip it apart and I'm not [00:43:24] anybody that disagreed like you're dead [00:43:28] to me. Straight up. [00:43:30] >> You hear that, Gripers? [00:43:32] If you have any questions about anything [00:43:34] that your fearless leader says, you're [00:43:36] dead to him. [ __ ] you, you [ __ ] [00:43:39] [ __ ] [00:43:42] Personally, I don't think that's a great [00:43:44] way to think or feel about other people. [00:43:45] I'm of the mindset that you should think [00:43:47] for yourself. And you don't have to like [00:43:49] me or like my theories. I don't care. Do [00:43:51] your thing, dude. Look your own [ __ ] up. [00:43:53] Come up with your own ideas. You can [00:43:54] even call me a fed. You can do whatever [00:43:57] you want. That's fine. You're still good [00:43:59] with me. [00:44:01] I ain't stressed. [00:44:05] Duh. [00:44:07] >> Because you're a sucker. If you fell for [00:44:09] this, you're too stupid. We don't need [00:44:11] you. You're a victim of the matrix. [00:44:15] So, a lot of your fans got banned. Not a [00:44:18] good look. I don't want them. [00:44:21] Nick is being forced to continually [00:44:23] respond to this over and over and over [00:44:24] and just like make more and more [00:44:25] mistakes because his own fans are [00:44:28] sending him super chats being like, [00:44:29] "Nick, this is not a good look, bro. [00:44:30] Nick, you should not don't keep doing [00:44:32] this, Nick. You're [ __ ] you're [00:44:34] [ __ ] it up, Nick." [00:44:36] And he's like banning them. He's [00:44:38] deleting chats and [ __ ] [00:44:40] It's awkward. [00:44:43] I don't want them. if you're pushing on [00:44:45] this. I don't I'm not like these other [00:44:47] people where I'm [00:44:48] >> And to clarify, I haven't banned anyone [00:44:50] over this conversation. I I think I've [00:44:52] hardly ever banned anyone at all. I've [00:44:54] banned a few back in the day when I was [00:44:56] smaller on Twitter. Um but [snorts] [00:44:58] around this conversation, haven't banned [00:44:59] anyone. Haven't deleted any comments. [00:45:01] Haven't done any manipulation of any [00:45:03] conversations in my feeds or in my um in [00:45:07] my zone because it's all good. Talk your [00:45:10] [ __ ] Bring it on. begging people to [00:45:13] watch my show. I don't want If you [00:45:15] don't, if you don't like that, don't [00:45:17] watch it. I swear to God, go somewhere [00:45:19] else. I shouldn't say I swear to God, [00:45:22] but seriously, you want to be, you know, [00:45:24] I've said this before, go watch Num [00:45:26] Nuts. Go watch Can Owens. You're into [00:45:28] the soap opera. I think Nick should [00:45:30] probably work on his insult game. Should [00:45:32] probably come up with better nicknames [00:45:34] for people. Maybe call up Trump and ask [00:45:36] him for some advice. [00:45:38] Go watch that because when push comes to [00:45:40] shove, you're going to be a liability. I [00:45:42] don't need liabilities. I don't need [00:45:44] idiots around me. Don't need [00:45:47] liabilities. A Nick, [00:45:52] maybe you should have had a more [00:45:55] thoughtful past. [00:45:58] But not going to get [snorts] into all [00:46:00] that. I'll let other people on the [00:46:01] internet dig into Nick Flint's past. [00:46:07] So [sighs] [00:46:09] that's Nick Fuentes's most recent let's [00:46:12] I guess we'll not say crash out we'll [00:46:13] say response [00:46:16] and there's my response that's how I [00:46:18] feel about it that's just a little bit [00:46:20] of evidence to talk about it talk about [00:46:22] Phoenix ammunition talk about Jean [00:46:24] Franis [00:46:26] and you make up your own mind think for [00:46:28] yourself do your own research look into [00:46:30] their [snorts] arguments maybe do some [00:46:32] research about skin and [00:46:35] bullets bouncing off a skin or whatever, [00:46:37] whatever floats your boat. Think for [00:46:40] yourself. Come to your own conclusions. [00:46:42] And you're welcome to tune in next time, [00:46:43] whether you love me, hate me, agree with [00:46:45] me, disagree with me, [00:46:48] whatever it is, Nick, please don't stop. [00:46:53] Like, [00:46:55] it's it's greatly benefiting to me for [00:46:57] you to continue. So, selfishly, I would [00:46:59] ask you, please don't stop. Um, if I was [00:47:02] your friend, but I'm being told by [00:47:03] credible sources that I'm not your [00:47:06] friend anymore. Um, if I was your [00:47:08] friend, I would probably tell you to log [00:47:11] off and take a few deep breaths and deal [00:47:13] with whatever is going on in your [00:47:14] personal life because [00:47:17] you look stressed, bro. And genuinely, [00:47:20] this is a genuine statement from here on [00:47:22] out. No more sarcasm. [snorts] Um, [00:47:25] you're important and your voice is [00:47:26] important. It's very important and [00:47:28] you're very smart and um and I genuinely [00:47:33] miss where you were at before or at [00:47:36] least where it appeared like you were [00:47:38] at. And you have every opportunity to be [00:47:41] a huge player in the American political [00:47:44] conversation for good. Um I think maybe [00:47:48] um at least for genuinely you. But this [00:47:52] does not feel like genuinely you to me. [00:47:55] And I don't think it feels like [00:47:56] genuinely you to a huge portion of your [00:47:58] audience and to a huge portion of the [00:48:00] people that have not made their mind up [00:48:01] about you yet. And I think it's a huge [00:48:04] mistake. Um, and obviously you're not [00:48:06] going to listen to me. And maybe this [00:48:09] will even want make you want to [00:48:12] youthfully reject it, rebel, and be even [00:48:14] more of a whatever this is. [00:48:18] But [00:48:20] I uh [00:48:25] yeah, whatever. You do you, man. That's [00:48:27] all for today. Thanks for watching. Um [00:48:29] I'd appreciate if you like the video, [00:48:31] subscribe to the channel, all the things [00:48:32] that help out. And let me know in the [00:48:35] comments if you agree with me, if you [00:48:36] agree with Nick, if you think I'm a [00:48:37] dumbass, if you think he's a dumbass, if [00:48:38] you want me to deliver you a pizza, [00:48:39] whatever it is, dog. Um drop it in the [00:48:41] comments. Um give give us your best. [00:48:42] Let's give give us here in the comments. [00:48:45] You know what? in the comments. Give [00:48:47] your best roast of Ian Carol, please. Um [00:48:51] whether you love me or hate me, just [00:48:53] drop the drop the best roast of Ian [00:48:55] Carol in the comments and let's just [00:48:57] have a little fun at the end of this cuz [00:48:58] it's crazy out here and let's just get [00:49:01] let's get loose, okay? Cuz [ __ ] it, life [00:49:04] is short. Um politics is [ __ ] crazy [00:49:07] and this conversation is a bunch of [00:49:09] slop. So do your worst. I'll see you on [00:49:14] the other side. Conspiracy theories are [00:49:16] entering [music] a danger. [00:49:18] >> Information is the oxygen of a [00:49:20] democracy. [00:49:21] >> There's so much evidence out there that [00:49:23] even if less than 1% is true, [00:49:26] that will be enough to collapse the [00:49:28] current paradigm and change the whole [00:49:31] planet.