Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Today In Top Gear History: January 28th, 2007: Series 9 Episode 1 Main Segment: Richard’s recovery since the Vampire Dragster accident. Challenge: Re-surfacing a road within 24 hours. SIARPC: Jamie Oliver, 1:47.7, Chevrolet Lacetti #TopGear #OnThisDate

topgeararchive's profile picture

Today In Top Gear History

7,644 subscribers

29,874 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

#TopGear#OnThisDate
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

📢 Calling all Web3 developers! 🌐💻 Join the $SAGA Stress Test Challenge and unleash the power of our Web App! 💪 Your Challenge ⬇️ 1️⃣ Start Your Own Chainlet: Use our sleek Web App at to launch your own blockchain in seconds! 2️⃣ TX Smashing: Smash your Chainlet with as many transactions as you can in 5 days! Push the limits and stress test the system. 3️⃣ Turn It Off: After 5 days, turn off your Chainlet within 24 hours. 4️⃣ Tweet about your experience and tag our handle. Challenge completed! 💰 Rewards & Airdrop: - Top 40 scores eligible for a $SAGA airdrop! - Receive a referral code to join the next Stress Test as we prepare for Mainnet! 👉 How to Participate: 1. Fill out the Hubspot form: 2. First 100 verified signups secure their spot 💯 📧 Token Code Delivery: - Verified signups receive token codes via email. - 12 hours to collect the code, or it goes to the next on the list! 🏆 Leaderboard & Results: - We will be posting a top 40 Scoreboard on Discord upon completion 🚨 Challenge Timeline: - Launch: TODAY (1/11) - TX Smashing: 5 days after Chainlet goes live. - Turn Off: Within 24 hours of 5-day window closing. How easy is it to launch a Chainlet? See for yourself! 👀⬇️
1:10

📢 Calling all Web3 developers! 🌐💻 Join the $SAGA Stress Test Challenge and unleash the power of our Web App! 💪 Your Challenge ⬇️ 1️⃣ Start Your Own Chainlet: Use our sleek Web App at to launch your own blockchain in seconds! 2️⃣ TX Smashing: Smash your Chainlet with as many transactions as you can in 5 days! Push the limits and stress test the system. 3️⃣ Turn It Off: After 5 days, turn off your Chainlet within 24 hours. 4️⃣ Tweet about your experience and tag our handle. Challenge completed! 💰 Rewards & Airdrop: - Top 40 scores eligible for a $SAGA airdrop! - Receive a referral code to join the next Stress Test as we prepare for Mainnet! 👉 How to Participate: 1. Fill out the Hubspot form: 2. First 100 verified signups secure their spot 💯 📧 Token Code Delivery: - Verified signups receive token codes via email. - 12 hours to collect the code, or it goes to the next on the list! 🏆 Leaderboard & Results: - We will be posting a top 40 Scoreboard on Discord upon completion 🚨 Challenge Timeline: - Launch: TODAY (1/11) - TX Smashing: 5 days after Chainlet goes live. - Turn Off: Within 24 hours of 5-day window closing. How easy is it to launch a Chainlet? See for yourself! 👀⬇️

Saga AI Labs

90,603 views • 2 years ago

Girls' Frontline 2: Exilium | New York City Itasha Parade Commanders, the Itasha Parade event has come to an end. Let's relive the memories together with this video! During the parade, we also had the pleasure of meeting many enthusiastic Commanders—thank you for sharing the wonderful moments! Click the link to watch the HD version: At the same time, the Dolls have left a redeem code for all Commanders! 〓Redeem Code〓 GFL2ITASHA Valid Period: From today to January 3rd, 08:00 a.m. (UTC-4). 〓How to redeem〓 ■ Method 1: Click [Redeem Code] and enter your UID and Redeem Code on the official website. ■ Method 2: Click the Settings button on the bottom left corner of the game's main interface, and click [Redeem Code] on the bottom right corner of the Personal Information page. ■ Due to possible delays, your gifts will be delivered via in-game mail within 24 hours after redemption. Wishing everyone an enjoyable journey aboard the Elmo! We look forward to meeting Commanders in more cities in the future! >> Download on mobile and PC: #GirlsFrontline2Exilium #gfl2exilium
1:49

Girls' Frontline 2: Exilium | New York City Itasha Parade Commanders, the Itasha Parade event has come to an end. Let's relive the memories together with this video! During the parade, we also had the pleasure of meeting many enthusiastic Commanders—thank you for sharing the wonderful moments! Click the link to watch the HD version: At the same time, the Dolls have left a redeem code for all Commanders! 〓Redeem Code〓 GFL2ITASHA Valid Period: From today to January 3rd, 08:00 a.m. (UTC-4). 〓How to redeem〓 ■ Method 1: Click [Redeem Code] and enter your UID and Redeem Code on the official website. ■ Method 2: Click the Settings button on the bottom left corner of the game's main interface, and click [Redeem Code] on the bottom right corner of the Personal Information page. ■ Due to possible delays, your gifts will be delivered via in-game mail within 24 hours after redemption. Wishing everyone an enjoyable journey aboard the Elmo! We look forward to meeting Commanders in more cities in the future! >> Download on mobile and PC: #GirlsFrontline2Exilium #gfl2exilium

GIRLS' FRONTLINE 2: EXILIUM-EN Official

189,744 views • 1 year ago

In continuation of the Lagos State Taskforce clean-up enforcement operations and its commitment to rid the State of criminal elements and street urchins popularly known as Omotaku, who terrorise Lagos motorists and force them to part with their hard-earned money, especially whenever their vehicles develop mechanical faults on the road. The Chairman of the Agency, CSP Adetayo Akerele, said that the Taskforce has taken the bull by the horns and risen to the challenge by suppressing the activities of Omotaku across the Lagos metropolis. Akerele revealed in the last one week, from Thursday through the weekend up to press time today, Wednesday, 14th January, 2026, the Agency has effected arrest of several Omotaku during its sustained enforcement. The areas covered during the week-long operations included Bourdillon, Lekki Phase 1, Ikoyi, Lekki–Ajah Expressway, Animashahun busstop, Akowonjo road, Egbeda, Fadeyi busstop, Costain, Funsho Williams Avenue, Victoria Island, Apongbon, Jibowu, Yaba Phase 1, Lagos Island Palmgrove, Ojuelegba road ,Surulere and other adjoining roads on both Island and Mainland where the presence of undesirable elements popularly known as Omotaku and other street urchins was observed. In the course of the week, a total of 281 suspects were arrested, and all suspects have since been arraigned in court. The Chairman stated that Omotaku would soon become a thing of the past in few days. Akerele admonished Lagosians, particularly motorists, to promptly reach out to the Lagos State Taskforce whenever Omotaku or other street urchins constitute a nuisance within their vicinity, and to call 09137555111 or 09138555111 for swift response. He, however, warned those engaged in criminal activities to desist, stating that crime is not a career. Gbadeyan Abdulraheem Director, Public Affairs Lagos State Taskforce
2:59

In continuation of the Lagos State Taskforce clean-up enforcement operations and its commitment to rid the State of criminal elements and street urchins popularly known as Omotaku, who terrorise Lagos motorists and force them to part with their hard-earned money, especially whenever their vehicles develop mechanical faults on the road. The Chairman of the Agency, CSP Adetayo Akerele, said that the Taskforce has taken the bull by the horns and risen to the challenge by suppressing the activities of Omotaku across the Lagos metropolis. Akerele revealed in the last one week, from Thursday through the weekend up to press time today, Wednesday, 14th January, 2026, the Agency has effected arrest of several Omotaku during its sustained enforcement. The areas covered during the week-long operations included Bourdillon, Lekki Phase 1, Ikoyi, Lekki–Ajah Expressway, Animashahun busstop, Akowonjo road, Egbeda, Fadeyi busstop, Costain, Funsho Williams Avenue, Victoria Island, Apongbon, Jibowu, Yaba Phase 1, Lagos Island Palmgrove, Ojuelegba road ,Surulere and other adjoining roads on both Island and Mainland where the presence of undesirable elements popularly known as Omotaku and other street urchins was observed. In the course of the week, a total of 281 suspects were arrested, and all suspects have since been arraigned in court. The Chairman stated that Omotaku would soon become a thing of the past in few days. Akerele admonished Lagosians, particularly motorists, to promptly reach out to the Lagos State Taskforce whenever Omotaku or other street urchins constitute a nuisance within their vicinity, and to call 09137555111 or 09138555111 for swift response. He, however, warned those engaged in criminal activities to desist, stating that crime is not a career. Gbadeyan Abdulraheem Director, Public Affairs Lagos State Taskforce

Objectv Media

53,151 views • 8 months ago

For seven seasons and 122 episodes from 1981 to 1987, Today's Special was a favourite show for Canadian children. Let's learn more about this unique show! Debuting on Sept. 1, 1981, the show revolved around a department store, which was based on the Simpson's store in Toronto. At the start of each episode, the character Jodie arrived for work and carried a mannequin upstairs. It was there that the mouse character Muffy said "hocus pocus alimagocus!" At that point, the mannequin came to life, becoming Jeff. He then learned about various things from the world, to help teach the children watching. At first, episodes revolved around an object and the show taught about that object. As the show went on, episodes dealt with more complex topics including wishes and alcoholism. To break up the main plot, the show had short films that were narrated by Robyn Hayle. These included nursery rhymes and quizzes. There were four main characters in the show. Jeff the Mannequin was played by Jeff Hyslop. His magic hat allowed him to come to life when someone said the magic words. If he lost his hat, he became a mannequin again. Jodie was played by Nerene Virgin. She was the store's display designer and was the mentor to Jeff. Sam Crenshaw was a puppet, voiced by Bob Dermer, who was the security guard. He was born in 1919 and was portrayed as clumsy and not too bright. Crenshaw was also the voice of Ralph Raccoon on The Raccoons. Then there was Muffy Mouse, a puppet voiced by Nina Keogh. She speaks in rhymes and lives in the store. She can also play the piano and likes to be mischievous. There were also recurring characters such as TXL Series 4, Mrs. Pennypacker, Mort, Waldo the Magnificent and The Mime Lady. The show ended its run on July 1, 1987 but ran into the 2000s in reruns on Treehouse TV and PBS. After the show, Jeff Hyslop focused on theatre and earned acclaim for his portrayal in the title role in The Phantom of the Opera in 1999. Nerene Virgin went on to work as a reporter for CBOT, the CBC station in Ottawa. She also hosted Eye on Toronto. In 1996, she began hosting Coast to Coast & Saturday Report. Today, she works to help women who have survived domestic violence. In 2007, she ran for the Ontario Legislature, finishing second. She has also written several books on Canada's Black history. If you enjoy my Canadian history content, you can support my work with a donation at
1:46

For seven seasons and 122 episodes from 1981 to 1987, Today's Special was a favourite show for Canadian children. Let's learn more about this unique show! Debuting on Sept. 1, 1981, the show revolved around a department store, which was based on the Simpson's store in Toronto. At the start of each episode, the character Jodie arrived for work and carried a mannequin upstairs. It was there that the mouse character Muffy said "hocus pocus alimagocus!" At that point, the mannequin came to life, becoming Jeff. He then learned about various things from the world, to help teach the children watching. At first, episodes revolved around an object and the show taught about that object. As the show went on, episodes dealt with more complex topics including wishes and alcoholism. To break up the main plot, the show had short films that were narrated by Robyn Hayle. These included nursery rhymes and quizzes. There were four main characters in the show. Jeff the Mannequin was played by Jeff Hyslop. His magic hat allowed him to come to life when someone said the magic words. If he lost his hat, he became a mannequin again. Jodie was played by Nerene Virgin. She was the store's display designer and was the mentor to Jeff. Sam Crenshaw was a puppet, voiced by Bob Dermer, who was the security guard. He was born in 1919 and was portrayed as clumsy and not too bright. Crenshaw was also the voice of Ralph Raccoon on The Raccoons. Then there was Muffy Mouse, a puppet voiced by Nina Keogh. She speaks in rhymes and lives in the store. She can also play the piano and likes to be mischievous. There were also recurring characters such as TXL Series 4, Mrs. Pennypacker, Mort, Waldo the Magnificent and The Mime Lady. The show ended its run on July 1, 1987 but ran into the 2000s in reruns on Treehouse TV and PBS. After the show, Jeff Hyslop focused on theatre and earned acclaim for his portrayal in the title role in The Phantom of the Opera in 1999. Nerene Virgin went on to work as a reporter for CBOT, the CBC station in Ottawa. She also hosted Eye on Toronto. In 1996, she began hosting Coast to Coast & Saturday Report. Today, she works to help women who have survived domestic violence. In 2007, she ran for the Ontario Legislature, finishing second. She has also written several books on Canada's Black history. If you enjoy my Canadian history content, you can support my work with a donation at

Craig Baird - Canadian History Ehx

45,039 views • 2 years ago

The S&P 500 just hit an all-time high. But consumer sentiment just hit an all-time low. Both happened in the same week. Think about this. On April 15, the S&P 500 closed above 7,000 for the first time in history. Traders were celebrating on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The Nasdaq posted its longest winning streak since 2009 - 12 consecutive days of gains. And 5 days earlier, the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index dropped to 47.6. The LOWEST reading in the survey's 74 year HISTORY. Lower than the 2008 financial crisis. Lower than the COVID crash. Lower than the worst of the post-pandemic inflation surge. Lower than anything recorded since Harry Truman was president. Every single demographic group declined. Every age bracket. Every income level. Every political affiliation. Every component of the index (current conditions, future expectations, personal finances, buying conditions) ALL fell. 1 year inflation expectations spiked to 4.8%, up a full percentage point from March. That's the steepest single-month jump since April 2025. Business expectations crashed 20% in a single month. And 98% of the survey was completed BEFORE the ceasefire was announced. These people aren't pessimistic because of headlines. They're pessimistic because of their grocery bills, their gas prices, and their shrinking purchasing power. Meanwhile, Wall Street is throwing a party. Morgan Stanley's Mike Wilson went on CNBC and declared "the lows are in." He said the market is rotating back into pro-cyclical names and that we should expect things to "resolve constructively." Resolve constructively? The ceasefire expires Wednesday. Iran just re-closed the Strait of Hormuz AGAIN. Brent crude is back near $98. The US Navy is still blockading Iranian ports. Peace talks in Pakistan collapsed over the weekend after Iran refused to abandon its nuclear program. And the stock market is priced for a happy ending. Here's what 45 years on Wall Street have taught me: When markets and consumers disagree this violently, one of them is wrong. The S&P 500 is trading at all-time highs because 7 mega cap tech stocks (powered by AI narratives) account for nearly half the index's market cap. Those stocks run on their own dynamic independent of anything, including the war in Iran. That's a market being dragged to record highs by a handful of names while the real economy deteriorates underneath. Can you call this a healthy market? Software stocks are down 28% this year. The broader SaaS index is down nearly 40%. Private credit is imploding. Gas prices are surging. Consumer buying conditions for big-ticket items are collapsing. But the S&P hit 7,000 so everything must be fine. I remember in 2000, consumer sentiment peaked in January. Two months later the Nasdaq topped. Within a year it had lost 39%. In 2007, the S&P 500 hit its record in October. Consumer sentiment had been falling since July 2007. 3 months later we were in recession. The pattern is always the same: Consumers feel the pain before it shows up in the indices. The market ignores them until it can't.
0:38

The S&P 500 just hit an all-time high. But consumer sentiment just hit an all-time low. Both happened in the same week. Think about this. On April 15, the S&P 500 closed above 7,000 for the first time in history. Traders were celebrating on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The Nasdaq posted its longest winning streak since 2009 - 12 consecutive days of gains. And 5 days earlier, the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index dropped to 47.6. The LOWEST reading in the survey's 74 year HISTORY. Lower than the 2008 financial crisis. Lower than the COVID crash. Lower than the worst of the post-pandemic inflation surge. Lower than anything recorded since Harry Truman was president. Every single demographic group declined. Every age bracket. Every income level. Every political affiliation. Every component of the index (current conditions, future expectations, personal finances, buying conditions) ALL fell. 1 year inflation expectations spiked to 4.8%, up a full percentage point from March. That's the steepest single-month jump since April 2025. Business expectations crashed 20% in a single month. And 98% of the survey was completed BEFORE the ceasefire was announced. These people aren't pessimistic because of headlines. They're pessimistic because of their grocery bills, their gas prices, and their shrinking purchasing power. Meanwhile, Wall Street is throwing a party. Morgan Stanley's Mike Wilson went on CNBC and declared "the lows are in." He said the market is rotating back into pro-cyclical names and that we should expect things to "resolve constructively." Resolve constructively? The ceasefire expires Wednesday. Iran just re-closed the Strait of Hormuz AGAIN. Brent crude is back near $98. The US Navy is still blockading Iranian ports. Peace talks in Pakistan collapsed over the weekend after Iran refused to abandon its nuclear program. And the stock market is priced for a happy ending. Here's what 45 years on Wall Street have taught me: When markets and consumers disagree this violently, one of them is wrong. The S&P 500 is trading at all-time highs because 7 mega cap tech stocks (powered by AI narratives) account for nearly half the index's market cap. Those stocks run on their own dynamic independent of anything, including the war in Iran. That's a market being dragged to record highs by a handful of names while the real economy deteriorates underneath. Can you call this a healthy market? Software stocks are down 28% this year. The broader SaaS index is down nearly 40%. Private credit is imploding. Gas prices are surging. Consumer buying conditions for big-ticket items are collapsing. But the S&P hit 7,000 so everything must be fine. I remember in 2000, consumer sentiment peaked in January. Two months later the Nasdaq topped. Within a year it had lost 39%. In 2007, the S&P 500 hit its record in October. Consumer sentiment had been falling since July 2007. 3 months later we were in recession. The pattern is always the same: Consumers feel the pain before it shows up in the indices. The market ignores them until it can't.

George Noble

26,409 views • 5 months ago

NEW: How 137 Ventures Built a 1%+ Position in SpaceX Over 16 Years Interview with Justin Fishner-Wolfson, Co-Founder & Managing Partner One of the most underrated investment stories in tech: a contrarian approach that built one of the most consequential ownership positions in the industry. 137 quietly accumulated SpaceX since 2011, investing over 2 dozen times & never sold a share. Today the firm runs $15B+ AUM, deployed $1.7B last year, holds positions in 40+ companies, & has backed nearly 60 portfolio companies in company’s history. Big names include: SpaceX, Palantir, Uber, Anduril, Cognition, Brex, Impulse Space, Gusto, Ramp, & Hadrian. The thesis, circa 2011: companies would stay private longer. That bet built into one of venture's largest SpaceX positions, accumulated through secondaries and tenders. We cover: - Early SpaceX conviction - Buying the tender cadence - Why secondary, why now - Companies over categories - Cash on cash discipline - Passing on foundational models - Impulse Series D 𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐒 (00:00) Justin Fishner-Wolfson, Co-Founder & Managing Partner at 137 Ventures (00:51) The story of SpaceX (02:50) Why companies are staying private longer (04:15) What Liquidity actually means for Founders and Employees (05:38) Why he left Founders Fund to start from scratch (06:23) $240B Secondaries market (07:01) What made SpaceX a generational bet (07:52) How the Falcon 9 made the entire Space Industry obsolete (10:59) When Starlink became the obvious winner (13:29) How 137 Ventures turns Conviction into Compounding (14:09) Backing SpaceX alumni: the Impulse investment (14:32) Will the secondary market keep growing? (15:15) Companies vs. Categories (16:25) Separating AI hype from long-term durability (17:47) How 137 Ventures is structurally different from traditional VC (22:19) SpaceX made blue collar workers rich (23:24) Ownership percentage vs. Cash on cash returns (24:31) The most memorable moments (25:43) The Third Falcon 1 Launch (26:55) Why test failures are actually a good sign (28:32) The biggest lessons from Elon and Gwynne (29:07) What's next for 137 Ventures
29:55

NEW: How 137 Ventures Built a 1%+ Position in SpaceX Over 16 Years Interview with Justin Fishner-Wolfson, Co-Founder & Managing Partner One of the most underrated investment stories in tech: a contrarian approach that built one of the most consequential ownership positions in the industry. 137 quietly accumulated SpaceX since 2011, investing over 2 dozen times & never sold a share. Today the firm runs $15B+ AUM, deployed $1.7B last year, holds positions in 40+ companies, & has backed nearly 60 portfolio companies in company’s history. Big names include: SpaceX, Palantir, Uber, Anduril, Cognition, Brex, Impulse Space, Gusto, Ramp, & Hadrian. The thesis, circa 2011: companies would stay private longer. That bet built into one of venture's largest SpaceX positions, accumulated through secondaries and tenders. We cover: - Early SpaceX conviction - Buying the tender cadence - Why secondary, why now - Companies over categories - Cash on cash discipline - Passing on foundational models - Impulse Series D 𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐒 (00:00) Justin Fishner-Wolfson, Co-Founder & Managing Partner at 137 Ventures (00:51) The story of SpaceX (02:50) Why companies are staying private longer (04:15) What Liquidity actually means for Founders and Employees (05:38) Why he left Founders Fund to start from scratch (06:23) $240B Secondaries market (07:01) What made SpaceX a generational bet (07:52) How the Falcon 9 made the entire Space Industry obsolete (10:59) When Starlink became the obvious winner (13:29) How 137 Ventures turns Conviction into Compounding (14:09) Backing SpaceX alumni: the Impulse investment (14:32) Will the secondary market keep growing? (15:15) Companies vs. Categories (16:25) Separating AI hype from long-term durability (17:47) How 137 Ventures is structurally different from traditional VC (22:19) SpaceX made blue collar workers rich (23:24) Ownership percentage vs. Cash on cash returns (24:31) The most memorable moments (25:43) The Third Falcon 1 Launch (26:55) Why test failures are actually a good sign (28:32) The biggest lessons from Elon and Gwynne (29:07) What's next for 137 Ventures

Molly O’Shea

158,129 views • 3 months ago

Episode 18 of the @TradingPlacesPod featuring James Riney from Coral Capital is out now! This week: Dave McClure and Aman Verjee kick off 2026 with their macroeconomic predictions (GDP growth, Fed rate cuts, and tax refunds), break down the IPO market outlook (SpaceX at $1.6T?!, OpenAI, Anthropic, Databricks), and dive deep into the secondary market dynamics for companies that won't go public in 2026. Plus, we explore the private Mag 7 vs. public Mag 7 in our [valuation corner] to answer the big question: where would you rather be—public or private markets? Then, Dave sits down with James Riney🐠Coral Capital, founder and managing partner of Coral Capital in Tokyo, Japan. James shares how he went from J.P. Morgan to founding one of Japan's largest crypto exchanges (Coin Check) to launching 500 Startups Japan (now Coral Capital) at age 26. They discuss Japan's explosive VC growth (from $700M to $7-10B annually), the rise of "hidden unicorns" (companies that IPO'd before hitting $1B), why secondaries weren't a thing in Japan until recently, and Coral's massive $100M secondary sale in SmartHR—the largest secondary exit ever in Japan that returned 6X on their fund while still holding half their stake. [ timestamps ] 00:00 – cold open 01:07 – [ tech & vc news ] 01:29 – macro growth picture 🖼️ 07:40 – 2026 IPO predictions 🔮 10:24 – 2ndry market game plan 🏈 16:43 – NVIDIA gives Groq Inc $20B 💰 22:00 – SoftBank buys DigitalBridge $4B 🌉 23:01 – Google acquires Intersect $4.75B 💸 25:42 – Meta hands Manus $2B 👋 27:25 – hot IPO Market in China 31:35 – [ intvw: James Riney / Coral Capital ] 31:46 – $100M 2ndry sale of SmartHR 🧠 34:44 – Japanese founding story 🏯 36:15 – Japan startup scene 🇯🇵 41:35 – Coral Capital strategy 🪸 43:54 – China vs Japan vs USA 🌏 1:13:59 – [ val corner: mag7 public vs private ] 1:13:59 – public mag7 analysis 🔔 1:18:38 – Tesla Elon Musk magic 🪄 1:22:00 – private mag7 deep dive 🕵️ 1:27:10 – 2026 2ndry strategy 🧐 1:30:51 – second takes Pod highlights this week: -2026 macro setup is strong: 4% GDP growth, Fed quantitative easing starting, and the biggest tax refunds ever hitting Q1 (tips, social security, overtime exemptions) -IPO predictions: SpaceX targeting $1.6T valuation, OpenAI and Anthropic likely to go public, plus Databricks, Stripe, Canva, Kraken in the mix -Private market reality check: top 10 AI companies getting all the attention, but the real secondary opportunities are in the next 200-300 companies trading at discounts -Nvidia's shopping spree: $20B for Groq (talent + inference tech), $100B in annual free cash flow to deploy—expect more acquisitions -Japan VC market exploded: from $700M (2015) to $7-10B today, with companies IPO'ing at series B/C stage instead of staying private for 12 years -SmartHR secondary: Coral Capital's $100M sale to General Atlantic = largest secondary in Japan history, 6X return on fund, still holding half their stake for the IPO -Hidden unicorns in Japan: 42+ companies hit $1B valuation within 12 years but were already public—so they don't count in "unicorn" stats (definition = private company) -Why secondaries are new in Japan: companies used to IPO at $60M revenue (series B/C stage), so no need for secondary liquidity—but now top companies raising $100M+ private rounds and staying private longer -Valuation corner showdown: Public Mag 7 trading at 7-10X revenue with profits; Private Mag 7 top tier (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI) at 20-30X revenue with no profits—priced for perfection -Dave's take: avoid the froth at the top (OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX), hunt for value in second-tier private companies (Canva at 7X revenue, Databricks at 20X revenue) trading at discounts outside organized tender windows -James Riney's journey: from 26-year-old startup founder to launching 500 Startups Japan (now Coral Capital) to closing the largest secondary in Japanese VC history -US-Japan partnership thesis: Japan is the largest foreign investor in the US ($500B+), critical manufacturing ally in the China pullback, and Coral Capital now investing in US companies that can win Japan
1:31:42

Episode 18 of the @TradingPlacesPod featuring James Riney from Coral Capital is out now! This week: Dave McClure and Aman Verjee kick off 2026 with their macroeconomic predictions (GDP growth, Fed rate cuts, and tax refunds), break down the IPO market outlook (SpaceX at $1.6T?!, OpenAI, Anthropic, Databricks), and dive deep into the secondary market dynamics for companies that won't go public in 2026. Plus, we explore the private Mag 7 vs. public Mag 7 in our [valuation corner] to answer the big question: where would you rather be—public or private markets? Then, Dave sits down with James Riney🐠Coral Capital, founder and managing partner of Coral Capital in Tokyo, Japan. James shares how he went from J.P. Morgan to founding one of Japan's largest crypto exchanges (Coin Check) to launching 500 Startups Japan (now Coral Capital) at age 26. They discuss Japan's explosive VC growth (from $700M to $7-10B annually), the rise of "hidden unicorns" (companies that IPO'd before hitting $1B), why secondaries weren't a thing in Japan until recently, and Coral's massive $100M secondary sale in SmartHR—the largest secondary exit ever in Japan that returned 6X on their fund while still holding half their stake. [ timestamps ] 00:00 – cold open 01:07 – [ tech & vc news ] 01:29 – macro growth picture 🖼️ 07:40 – 2026 IPO predictions 🔮 10:24 – 2ndry market game plan 🏈 16:43 – NVIDIA gives Groq Inc $20B 💰 22:00 – SoftBank buys DigitalBridge $4B 🌉 23:01 – Google acquires Intersect $4.75B 💸 25:42 – Meta hands Manus $2B 👋 27:25 – hot IPO Market in China 31:35 – [ intvw: James Riney / Coral Capital ] 31:46 – $100M 2ndry sale of SmartHR 🧠 34:44 – Japanese founding story 🏯 36:15 – Japan startup scene 🇯🇵 41:35 – Coral Capital strategy 🪸 43:54 – China vs Japan vs USA 🌏 1:13:59 – [ val corner: mag7 public vs private ] 1:13:59 – public mag7 analysis 🔔 1:18:38 – Tesla Elon Musk magic 🪄 1:22:00 – private mag7 deep dive 🕵️ 1:27:10 – 2026 2ndry strategy 🧐 1:30:51 – second takes Pod highlights this week: -2026 macro setup is strong: 4% GDP growth, Fed quantitative easing starting, and the biggest tax refunds ever hitting Q1 (tips, social security, overtime exemptions) -IPO predictions: SpaceX targeting $1.6T valuation, OpenAI and Anthropic likely to go public, plus Databricks, Stripe, Canva, Kraken in the mix -Private market reality check: top 10 AI companies getting all the attention, but the real secondary opportunities are in the next 200-300 companies trading at discounts -Nvidia's shopping spree: $20B for Groq (talent + inference tech), $100B in annual free cash flow to deploy—expect more acquisitions -Japan VC market exploded: from $700M (2015) to $7-10B today, with companies IPO'ing at series B/C stage instead of staying private for 12 years -SmartHR secondary: Coral Capital's $100M sale to General Atlantic = largest secondary in Japan history, 6X return on fund, still holding half their stake for the IPO -Hidden unicorns in Japan: 42+ companies hit $1B valuation within 12 years but were already public—so they don't count in "unicorn" stats (definition = private company) -Why secondaries are new in Japan: companies used to IPO at $60M revenue (series B/C stage), so no need for secondary liquidity—but now top companies raising $100M+ private rounds and staying private longer -Valuation corner showdown: Public Mag 7 trading at 7-10X revenue with profits; Private Mag 7 top tier (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI) at 20-30X revenue with no profits—priced for perfection -Dave's take: avoid the froth at the top (OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX), hunt for value in second-tier private companies (Canva at 7X revenue, Databricks at 20X revenue) trading at discounts outside organized tender windows -James Riney's journey: from 26-year-old startup founder to launching 500 Startups Japan (now Coral Capital) to closing the largest secondary in Japanese VC history -US-Japan partnership thesis: Japan is the largest foreign investor in the US ($500B+), critical manufacturing ally in the China pullback, and Coral Capital now investing in US companies that can win Japan

trading places

23,864 views • 8 months ago

In case you didn't know mode: The only player in Europe to have an "era of Tekken". The Ryan Hart Era of Tekken was between 1996 - 2012. During this lengthy 16 year period, there was no man in all of Europe who was more feared across all Tekken games than Ryan Hart. Ryan would often rack up 100+ wins or more during arcade sessions and is the only person in Tekken history to win National and European championships on every Tekken 3, 4, 5, 6 and Tekken Tag. Ryan Hart's reign of terror also extended to North America where in 2001, despite having multiple characters in his arsenal, Ryan saw the competition and decided to display the Korean style of Mishima play, which had been taught to him by Bong Bong from South Korea, and Ryan defeated every single North American player he played against, nobody from NA was able to topple him. Ryan also beat US Champion; JOP in a close deathmatch that ended 26-21 in Ryan's favour. Ryan's two single defeats at this time were at the Electric Cancel 3 tournament, where Jang SuWon from South Korea defeated Ryan 3-2 and JOP defeated Ryan 3-1 in tournament, however there was controversy around the JOP win as Ryan's RP button visibly stopped working mid tournament, combos were dropped mid flow, 112's on hit not completed, etc. However despite his 3rd place finish, Ryan had successfully began his reign of terror extension in North America. When Ryan revisited the US for Virtua Fighter on the East Coast twice, again he was dominant against all North American competition. Nobody could put a lid on Ryan's ferocity, reaction time, execution, situational awareness and clutch factor. Ryan also had the largest character usage. Ryan Hart placed Top 3 then Top 4 two years in a row at EVOLUTIONCHAMPIONSHIPSERIES, while simultaneously consistently securing Grand Finals on Tekken at the same time. (Securing Top 2 and Top 3 on two EVO main stage titles at the same time is noteworthy. The next year at EVO Ryan secured top 4 on VF and actually won Tekken at the same time while getting 5th on a third main stage EVO title.) In 2003 Ryan defeated Kim Bong Min from Korea in a 4 hour deathmatch hosted at Castel's House in front of a live audience, becoming the first person in the world to defeat a Korean Tekken champion in a deathmatch. After news of this travelled around North America, every single NA player that had previously challenged Ryan Hart and set up money matches, all rescinded their challenge, during Ryan Hart's time in NA in 2003, not a single NA player would challenge Ryan Hart. People feared Ryan and in pre EVO polls every year, Ryan Hart was always predicted an EVO Grand Final finish even before the tournament bracket had been drawn up. During the next three years in a row at Evolution Championship Series, Ryan Hart went undefeated vs NA, Japan and EU in Tekken Tag. Not a single person from North America, Japan or Europe ever beat Ryan Hart on Tekken Tag at any EVO ever. After these years EVO replaced Tekken Tag in favour of the newer Tekken 5 game, which made sense. In the Tekken Tag domain Ryan Hart went down as one of the all time kings that ever touched the game, that was literally never beaten by anybody from Japan, America or Europe on the EVO stage. Ryan Hart got to Grand Finals back to back 3 years in a row and either won it or lost to a top Korean player. He again won it in 2008, this time on Tekken 5 DR. Ryan came out of Tekken retirement for a one-off exhibition match on Tekken 7 vs RIP in 2019, which Ryan won 10-3. There have been challengers to Ryan's throne that came and went, but no player in the world has stood the test of time on multiple fighting games since the 90's like Ryan has. #EVO #Evo2025 #TEKKEN #VirtuaFighter
0:36

In case you didn't know mode: The only player in Europe to have an "era of Tekken". The Ryan Hart Era of Tekken was between 1996 - 2012. During this lengthy 16 year period, there was no man in all of Europe who was more feared across all Tekken games than Ryan Hart. Ryan would often rack up 100+ wins or more during arcade sessions and is the only person in Tekken history to win National and European championships on every Tekken 3, 4, 5, 6 and Tekken Tag. Ryan Hart's reign of terror also extended to North America where in 2001, despite having multiple characters in his arsenal, Ryan saw the competition and decided to display the Korean style of Mishima play, which had been taught to him by Bong Bong from South Korea, and Ryan defeated every single North American player he played against, nobody from NA was able to topple him. Ryan also beat US Champion; JOP in a close deathmatch that ended 26-21 in Ryan's favour. Ryan's two single defeats at this time were at the Electric Cancel 3 tournament, where Jang SuWon from South Korea defeated Ryan 3-2 and JOP defeated Ryan 3-1 in tournament, however there was controversy around the JOP win as Ryan's RP button visibly stopped working mid tournament, combos were dropped mid flow, 112's on hit not completed, etc. However despite his 3rd place finish, Ryan had successfully began his reign of terror extension in North America. When Ryan revisited the US for Virtua Fighter on the East Coast twice, again he was dominant against all North American competition. Nobody could put a lid on Ryan's ferocity, reaction time, execution, situational awareness and clutch factor. Ryan also had the largest character usage. Ryan Hart placed Top 3 then Top 4 two years in a row at EVOLUTIONCHAMPIONSHIPSERIES, while simultaneously consistently securing Grand Finals on Tekken at the same time. (Securing Top 2 and Top 3 on two EVO main stage titles at the same time is noteworthy. The next year at EVO Ryan secured top 4 on VF and actually won Tekken at the same time while getting 5th on a third main stage EVO title.) In 2003 Ryan defeated Kim Bong Min from Korea in a 4 hour deathmatch hosted at Castel's House in front of a live audience, becoming the first person in the world to defeat a Korean Tekken champion in a deathmatch. After news of this travelled around North America, every single NA player that had previously challenged Ryan Hart and set up money matches, all rescinded their challenge, during Ryan Hart's time in NA in 2003, not a single NA player would challenge Ryan Hart. People feared Ryan and in pre EVO polls every year, Ryan Hart was always predicted an EVO Grand Final finish even before the tournament bracket had been drawn up. During the next three years in a row at Evolution Championship Series, Ryan Hart went undefeated vs NA, Japan and EU in Tekken Tag. Not a single person from North America, Japan or Europe ever beat Ryan Hart on Tekken Tag at any EVO ever. After these years EVO replaced Tekken Tag in favour of the newer Tekken 5 game, which made sense. In the Tekken Tag domain Ryan Hart went down as one of the all time kings that ever touched the game, that was literally never beaten by anybody from Japan, America or Europe on the EVO stage. Ryan Hart got to Grand Finals back to back 3 years in a row and either won it or lost to a top Korean player. He again won it in 2008, this time on Tekken 5 DR. Ryan came out of Tekken retirement for a one-off exhibition match on Tekken 7 vs RIP in 2019, which Ryan won 10-3. There have been challengers to Ryan's throne that came and went, but no player in the world has stood the test of time on multiple fighting games since the 90's like Ryan has. #EVO #Evo2025 #TEKKEN #VirtuaFighter

Ryan Hart

97,170 views • 1 year ago

🚨🚨🚨A Stark Warning 🚨🚨🚨 🚨Europe is losing its mind. 🚨Where are we going up against a nuclear power? 🚨Russia could wipe us out in a matter of minutes, they could wipe out all of Europe. 🚨Does anyone think that if Russia is massively attacked within its territory, it will just sit back and do nothing? Obviously not. So, what are we trying to achieve? That they'll get really tired and launch two or three, nuclear bombs on some of the main European capitals? Pedro Baños Retired Spanish Army Colonel: 📑 That Mrs. von der Leyen is going to give Ukraine another 3.3 BILLONES euros another because she says that everything Ukraine has already received isn't enough, right? Because she says that everything Ukraine has already received isn't enough, right? 0:08 Exactly, the problem is that they've made a huge bet on Ukraine, and it has gone badly for them 0:09 a huge bet on Ukraine, and it has gone badly for them 0:12 and now, how do they backtrack, 0:13 how do they admit that this has been a mistake 0:14 from the very start, that they've led an entire people to destruction, 0:17 that they've led an entire people to destruction, 0:18 that already two generations of Ukrainians have died, 0:20 those who haven't fled the country, 0:22 which is a total disaster. 0:23 We only have the casualty exchange numbers between Russia and Ukraine, 0:27 between Russia and Ukraine, and the figures are staggering. 0:30 We can provide them later, right? 0:32 But what's going on? 0:34 As you said, that increase ... 0:36 look, in Spain's case, 0:37 it means multiplying the Defence budget by five, 0:41 Because of course, since the United States first asked for 2%. 0:44 Since we agreed, they said, "Hey, then 3.5%.." 0:47 Since we also agreed, they said, "Well, 5%." 0:49 These people are fools, so let's go, let's ask them for more, right? 0:52 In the end, they are going to buy almost everything from me, 0:54 which I really need. 0:55 But what is the problem, Ambassador? 0:56 When you manufacture weapons, 0:59 there is only one way for that system not to fail you, 1:02 and that is to use the weapons you've produced. 1:05 Because look, 1:06 you manufacture—imagine, it's true, there was a deficit here, 1:08 for example, of artillery shells, 1:10 one hundred fifty-five, or shells for, 1:12 cannons, or, or, or tank shells. 1:15 Fine, that's all well and good, whatever we want. 1:17 You've already produced that one million, five million shells. 1:21 And once you've produced them, what do you do? 1:22 That factory you set up with public money, with subsidies, do you shut it down? 1:28 Or you have the other option, 1:30 which is to go to war to use up that ammunition 1:32 and keep producing more. 1:33 And as it happens, in Europe, 1:35 especially in the main countries, 1:37 the economy is a total mess, 1:39 it's in free fall, 1:43 they desperately need, 1:45 as they can no longer make cars, like in Germany, 1:48 to start making tanks or ammunition instead. 1:51 But France is in the same situation. 1:52 A France that has been expelled from Africa, 1:56 where what the franc meant for them, the CFA. 2:00 And not only that, but also all the resources 2:02 they extracted under more than favorable conditions from these countries, 2:06 starting with uranium from Niger, 2:08 they've run out of it. 2:09 France is having a very hard time, 2:11 with an absolutely brutal social crisis. 2:15 And now we see all this coming together 2:16 with skyrocketing energy prices, 2:19 we can already see that the price of fuels 2:21 in Germany has already surpassed 2.5 euro— 2:24 euros per liter, which is truly outrageous. 2:27 We're talking about, and we saw the news, 2:29 that filling a standard tank 2:32 of an average vehicle now means 200 euros, 2:35 200 euros, which is absolutely insane. 2:38 And what does that mean? 2:39 That they only have one solution, indeed, 2:42 which is to go to war. 2:43 And remember there's something that, 2:45 we studied it in the Command and Staff course 2:47 and when you tell people about it, 2:48 they treat it as little more than a joke too, 2:50 that there is something called the relaxing wars. 2:53 The relaxing wars that have been used throughout 2:55 history 2:57 to get rid of part of the population or to get out of an economic chaos. 3:02 And that's ... 3:03 right now it would be very convenient for them to, 3:04 on one hand, get rid of some of the population, 3:07 that is, get rid of this problem they say they won't be able to pay pensions, 3:10 because all of this increase, besides the cost, don't forget, military, 3:15 means a clear and tangible reduction of the welfare state, 3:20 of the four pillars of the welfare state. 3:22 Some of the more honest politicians, the few there are, 3:25 tell you this openly, others still keep it hidden. 3:28 But, of course, what happens? 3:29 That, in fact, it would be very convenient for them to camouflage the dire situation, 3:33 regrettable, that they have within their own country. 3:35 We see and we can talk about Macron's statements today, 3:39 where he said that we should just about go 3:41 to war because Russia is waging a hybrid war against us 3:43 which is unacceptable and that we have to be prepared. 3:46 Macron said it, as well as some of his top ministers. 3:48 Of course, but the thing is, France is in a very, 3:51 very delicate, extremely delicate situation. 3:53 And also in a France 3:55 where people are not as patient as the Spanish, 3:57 over there, as soon as people get a little heated, 3:59 they take to the streets and burn down half the streets. 4:02 But we've talked about it, the way things are in Germany, 4:04 the way things are in Sweden, the way things are in Finland, 4:07 which, ever since it joined NATO, 4:09 has completely come apart, with unemployment even higher than in Spain, 4:14 a sunken economy. 4:16 And then some only see the way out as the United Kingdom, 4:19 which now even wants to break apart, 4:21 there are already, there are small populations that are asking for independence 4:25 within the United Kingdom, even on the verge, 4:28 as many predict, of an internal civil confrontation. 4:32 And of course, what do they always find? 4:33 Well, we already know that to unite the people, 4:36 to cover up internal chaos, 4:40 you know, create an external enemy 4:42 and declare that you have to go to war against them. 4:43 The problem with all that, Ambassador, 4:44 is that when, and you know this perfectly well, 4:46 you have even much more experience than I do, 4:49 you say, you know that the problem with all this is 4:50 that when you get yourself involved in this war context, 4:53 you are making the population get used to it every day. 4:56 We just have to look at a some newspaper, 4:59 a Spanish one that every day, every single day without exception, 5:02 publishes some story to accuse Russia of anything, 5:05 or to convince the population 5:07 that we must go to war against Russia. 5:09 So, when you already have the, the, the atmosphere, the context, the narrative, 5:13 and you've already created it, all that's left is the incident. 5:15 And we're seeing incidents like these every day. 5:17 Like—now, it's a Danish helicopter, 5:20 or a frigate getting close to a Russian ship, 5:23 or the Russian ship fires a grenade, or some warning flares, 5:27 which is nonsense. 5:28 A flare is—what's even happening— 5:29 what range could it have? 300 meters. 5:31 And that's not going to bring down any helicopter. 5:34 But of course, it must be because the helicopter had come closer precisely 5:38 to the Russian warship in international waters. 5:42 But they're searching, they're only looking for the incident that will make all this blow up completely, 5:46 when, on top of that, they're deceiving us every day with the whole drone issue, 5:50 about Russian drones in the middle of Germany, 5:52 about not knowing, knowing where they came from and they just appear out of nowhere, 5:55 almost as if in, in a space-time shortcut. 5:58 And, and it's like that all the time. And we have loads of information. 6:01 But look, but the thing is there is a fact right now that strikes me as devastating 6:04 to show us how they're speeding this up by the minute, Ambassador, 6:09 Today's news 6:10 that Ukraine has launched drones 6:13 against a Russian nuclear power plant inside Russia. 6:17 Because remember that every so often, he launches strikes on Zaporizhia and 6:19 on top of that, they accuse the Russians of being the ones 6:22 launching drones at their own nuclear plant, 6:24 because they currently have it in their possession. 6:27 No, no, we're talking about inside, inside Russia, 6:31 at a nuclear power plant, Ukraine has launched drones. 6:34 In other words, what they're looking for now is for 6:36 Russia to blow up, 6:38 I mean, for them to say, look, this is where we draw the line, 6:41 I've had enough of you. 6:42 And, and, and on top of that, so that we Europeans can play the victim, see? 6:45 We had already warned you that Russia could attack us at any moment. 6:48 If they're provoking them with the, 6:51 the ones living in the Baltic states, 6:54 whose civil rights have been taken away, 6:55 who have been banned from speaking Russian. 6:57 In other words, they're constantly provoking it so that Russia finally snaps, 7:01 and specifically, 7:02 so that it's the one to take the first step in this war, 7:05 and today's statements from everyone, from Donald Tusk, 7:08 from Macron, from Merz they're honestly chilling. 7:13 That is, they're already openly talking to us about war, 7:16 they're openly talking to us about war. 7:18 And besides, the case of Poland, 7:20 which we'll discuss later too and give the exact data, 7:25 but what's happening with Poland is, is also spectacular. 7:27 And by the way, Trump, 7:30 who used to say he was going to leave Europe, 7:31 and now says no, that he's going to create a massive mega-base in Poland, 7:36 which is a plan that's already been in motion for some time. 7:39 But later, since he said he was going to leave Europe, 7:40 What is going to leave Europe? 7:41 And what we're talking about is quite the opposite, 7:43 about an absolutely warmongering Europe, 7:46 with reckless warmongering. 7:48 Because also, as you were saying, from a military point of view, 7:52 this is madness. 7:53 Where are we going up against a nuclear power? 7:56 They could wipe us out 7:58 in a matter of minutes, 8:00 in a matter of minutes, they could wipe out all of Europe. 8:02 But where are we going? 8:03 Does anyone think 8:05 that if Russia is massively attacked 8:09 within its territory, it will just sit back and do nothing? 8:12 Obviously not. So, what are we trying to achieve? 8:14 That they'll get really tired and launch two or three, 8:18 nuclear bombs on some of the main European capitals? 8:21 What are they trying to do? 8:22 I really don't know. 8:24 And you say, "But let's see." 8:25 Also, here no one, absolutely no one, is talking about diplomacy. 8:29 No one is talking... And you are a diplomat, an ambassador. 8:32 You know how important, vital, essential diplomacy is. 8:35 And let's not forget that the First World War, 8:38 which today is more than proven, was a failure of diplomacy. 8:42 It was a failure of diplomacy in entering the First World War. 8:45 So, what are they trying to do? 8:47 No one, no one speaks of negotiation, no one speaks of, of peace, 8:50 no one speaks of diplomacy, starting with the Kaja Kallas, 8:52 who is the head of European diplomacy. 8:54 So, it's a situation that's not, no, not, truly tremendously delicate, 8:58 and we're not paying enough attention to it. 9:00 But those of us who know something about these issues, 9:02 in your case as a diplomat, in my case as a soldier, 9:05 since we've traveled a lot around the world, 9:07 we know how populations are prepared psychologically for war. 9:12 And that's what they've been preparing us for, for some time now, 9:14 but right now, in an absolutely accelerated way. 9:17 That preparation is blatant now, absolutely blatant, 9:21 how they're preparing us for, 9:23 of course, because you have to convince people how positive war was. 9:27 We've already done many programs on this topic, 9:27 We've already done many programs on this topic, 9:30 about how, yes, how the adversary is demonized 9:33 so that in the end, people are convinced 9:35 that it's even, even good, 9:37 even logical, even "Christian," to, to attack, to attack the enemy 9:42 because he's so bad, so bad, truly evil, that he deserves to be attacked, right? 9:45 Without us realizing, the ones who suffer the consequences are us. 9:49 Mrs. von der Leyen, the president of the Commission, 9:52 has already said that none of her seven children will go to war, 9:54 because they're not prepared for that. 9:56 It will be the children of the poor, right, who go to war, 9:59 they're the ones who get sent. 10:00 So, of course, the, concern is immense, Ambassador. 10:04 But look, today itself, for example, the statements 10:07 from, we can talk about here, 10:10 from Figaro, it says here Macron says, 10:14 he says, "The president of the Republic's alert regarding the Russian threat." 10:19 It would be a mistake by Russia to continue 10:22 acting like this toward Europeans." 10:23 You say, "But look, you're the ones pressuring Russia." 10:26 Or the same thing, here on BFM, 10:29 it says, Macron says: 10:30 "The Russian hybrid threat towards Europeans and France has intensified." 10:36 Well, now they don't even know what to make up. 10:37 Or actually, here too, the EFE News Agency, which says: 10:40 "Macron warns of a shift in Russian aggression and threats in Europe." 10:46 In other words, they are preparing the ground, Ambassador, 10:48 they are preparing the ground. 10:50 When they haven't been able to prove anything 10:52 about these threats, not even the helicopter with the flares, 10:55 nor the drone issue. 10:57 In fact, there's information saying it's all staged. 10:59 There are no videos, no clear images, no remains of those drones. 11:04 And the only piece that exists, one from Poland, 11:06 seems to be all staged, 11:07 it's a shame I can't show the image, 11:10 but we'll talk about it later. 11:11 That is to say, but this really worries me, 11:13 knowing how wars are prepared, 11:15 knowing how populations are prepared, 11:17 specifically so they go to those wars gladly 11:21 and without understanding the goals behind them, 11:23 which certainly have nothing to do 11:25 with the evilness of Russia, 11:26 nor that Russia is out to kill us all, 11:28 they have been feeding us this story, 11:29 since when, Ambassador, for the past four years, 11:32 when they told us that Russia at any moment 11:33 was going to invade all of Europe. 11:35 Anyway, in any case, I find this issue absolutely extremely serious, Ambassador. *Pedro Baños Bajo is a retired Spanish Army colonel, writer, and prominent geopolitical analyst specializing in defense, intelligence, and international relations.
11:39

🚨🚨🚨A Stark Warning 🚨🚨🚨 🚨Europe is losing its mind. 🚨Where are we going up against a nuclear power? 🚨Russia could wipe us out in a matter of minutes, they could wipe out all of Europe. 🚨Does anyone think that if Russia is massively attacked within its territory, it will just sit back and do nothing? Obviously not. So, what are we trying to achieve? That they'll get really tired and launch two or three, nuclear bombs on some of the main European capitals? Pedro Baños Retired Spanish Army Colonel: 📑 That Mrs. von der Leyen is going to give Ukraine another 3.3 BILLONES euros another because she says that everything Ukraine has already received isn't enough, right? Because she says that everything Ukraine has already received isn't enough, right? 0:08 Exactly, the problem is that they've made a huge bet on Ukraine, and it has gone badly for them 0:09 a huge bet on Ukraine, and it has gone badly for them 0:12 and now, how do they backtrack, 0:13 how do they admit that this has been a mistake 0:14 from the very start, that they've led an entire people to destruction, 0:17 that they've led an entire people to destruction, 0:18 that already two generations of Ukrainians have died, 0:20 those who haven't fled the country, 0:22 which is a total disaster. 0:23 We only have the casualty exchange numbers between Russia and Ukraine, 0:27 between Russia and Ukraine, and the figures are staggering. 0:30 We can provide them later, right? 0:32 But what's going on? 0:34 As you said, that increase ... 0:36 look, in Spain's case, 0:37 it means multiplying the Defence budget by five, 0:41 Because of course, since the United States first asked for 2%. 0:44 Since we agreed, they said, "Hey, then 3.5%.." 0:47 Since we also agreed, they said, "Well, 5%." 0:49 These people are fools, so let's go, let's ask them for more, right? 0:52 In the end, they are going to buy almost everything from me, 0:54 which I really need. 0:55 But what is the problem, Ambassador? 0:56 When you manufacture weapons, 0:59 there is only one way for that system not to fail you, 1:02 and that is to use the weapons you've produced. 1:05 Because look, 1:06 you manufacture—imagine, it's true, there was a deficit here, 1:08 for example, of artillery shells, 1:10 one hundred fifty-five, or shells for, 1:12 cannons, or, or, or tank shells. 1:15 Fine, that's all well and good, whatever we want. 1:17 You've already produced that one million, five million shells. 1:21 And once you've produced them, what do you do? 1:22 That factory you set up with public money, with subsidies, do you shut it down? 1:28 Or you have the other option, 1:30 which is to go to war to use up that ammunition 1:32 and keep producing more. 1:33 And as it happens, in Europe, 1:35 especially in the main countries, 1:37 the economy is a total mess, 1:39 it's in free fall, 1:43 they desperately need, 1:45 as they can no longer make cars, like in Germany, 1:48 to start making tanks or ammunition instead. 1:51 But France is in the same situation. 1:52 A France that has been expelled from Africa, 1:56 where what the franc meant for them, the CFA. 2:00 And not only that, but also all the resources 2:02 they extracted under more than favorable conditions from these countries, 2:06 starting with uranium from Niger, 2:08 they've run out of it. 2:09 France is having a very hard time, 2:11 with an absolutely brutal social crisis. 2:15 And now we see all this coming together 2:16 with skyrocketing energy prices, 2:19 we can already see that the price of fuels 2:21 in Germany has already surpassed 2.5 euro— 2:24 euros per liter, which is truly outrageous. 2:27 We're talking about, and we saw the news, 2:29 that filling a standard tank 2:32 of an average vehicle now means 200 euros, 2:35 200 euros, which is absolutely insane. 2:38 And what does that mean? 2:39 That they only have one solution, indeed, 2:42 which is to go to war. 2:43 And remember there's something that, 2:45 we studied it in the Command and Staff course 2:47 and when you tell people about it, 2:48 they treat it as little more than a joke too, 2:50 that there is something called the relaxing wars. 2:53 The relaxing wars that have been used throughout 2:55 history 2:57 to get rid of part of the population or to get out of an economic chaos. 3:02 And that's ... 3:03 right now it would be very convenient for them to, 3:04 on one hand, get rid of some of the population, 3:07 that is, get rid of this problem they say they won't be able to pay pensions, 3:10 because all of this increase, besides the cost, don't forget, military, 3:15 means a clear and tangible reduction of the welfare state, 3:20 of the four pillars of the welfare state. 3:22 Some of the more honest politicians, the few there are, 3:25 tell you this openly, others still keep it hidden. 3:28 But, of course, what happens? 3:29 That, in fact, it would be very convenient for them to camouflage the dire situation, 3:33 regrettable, that they have within their own country. 3:35 We see and we can talk about Macron's statements today, 3:39 where he said that we should just about go 3:41 to war because Russia is waging a hybrid war against us 3:43 which is unacceptable and that we have to be prepared. 3:46 Macron said it, as well as some of his top ministers. 3:48 Of course, but the thing is, France is in a very, 3:51 very delicate, extremely delicate situation. 3:53 And also in a France 3:55 where people are not as patient as the Spanish, 3:57 over there, as soon as people get a little heated, 3:59 they take to the streets and burn down half the streets. 4:02 But we've talked about it, the way things are in Germany, 4:04 the way things are in Sweden, the way things are in Finland, 4:07 which, ever since it joined NATO, 4:09 has completely come apart, with unemployment even higher than in Spain, 4:14 a sunken economy. 4:16 And then some only see the way out as the United Kingdom, 4:19 which now even wants to break apart, 4:21 there are already, there are small populations that are asking for independence 4:25 within the United Kingdom, even on the verge, 4:28 as many predict, of an internal civil confrontation. 4:32 And of course, what do they always find? 4:33 Well, we already know that to unite the people, 4:36 to cover up internal chaos, 4:40 you know, create an external enemy 4:42 and declare that you have to go to war against them. 4:43 The problem with all that, Ambassador, 4:44 is that when, and you know this perfectly well, 4:46 you have even much more experience than I do, 4:49 you say, you know that the problem with all this is 4:50 that when you get yourself involved in this war context, 4:53 you are making the population get used to it every day. 4:56 We just have to look at a some newspaper, 4:59 a Spanish one that every day, every single day without exception, 5:02 publishes some story to accuse Russia of anything, 5:05 or to convince the population 5:07 that we must go to war against Russia. 5:09 So, when you already have the, the, the atmosphere, the context, the narrative, 5:13 and you've already created it, all that's left is the incident. 5:15 And we're seeing incidents like these every day. 5:17 Like—now, it's a Danish helicopter, 5:20 or a frigate getting close to a Russian ship, 5:23 or the Russian ship fires a grenade, or some warning flares, 5:27 which is nonsense. 5:28 A flare is—what's even happening— 5:29 what range could it have? 300 meters. 5:31 And that's not going to bring down any helicopter. 5:34 But of course, it must be because the helicopter had come closer precisely 5:38 to the Russian warship in international waters. 5:42 But they're searching, they're only looking for the incident that will make all this blow up completely, 5:46 when, on top of that, they're deceiving us every day with the whole drone issue, 5:50 about Russian drones in the middle of Germany, 5:52 about not knowing, knowing where they came from and they just appear out of nowhere, 5:55 almost as if in, in a space-time shortcut. 5:58 And, and it's like that all the time. And we have loads of information. 6:01 But look, but the thing is there is a fact right now that strikes me as devastating 6:04 to show us how they're speeding this up by the minute, Ambassador, 6:09 Today's news 6:10 that Ukraine has launched drones 6:13 against a Russian nuclear power plant inside Russia. 6:17 Because remember that every so often, he launches strikes on Zaporizhia and 6:19 on top of that, they accuse the Russians of being the ones 6:22 launching drones at their own nuclear plant, 6:24 because they currently have it in their possession. 6:27 No, no, we're talking about inside, inside Russia, 6:31 at a nuclear power plant, Ukraine has launched drones. 6:34 In other words, what they're looking for now is for 6:36 Russia to blow up, 6:38 I mean, for them to say, look, this is where we draw the line, 6:41 I've had enough of you. 6:42 And, and, and on top of that, so that we Europeans can play the victim, see? 6:45 We had already warned you that Russia could attack us at any moment. 6:48 If they're provoking them with the, 6:51 the ones living in the Baltic states, 6:54 whose civil rights have been taken away, 6:55 who have been banned from speaking Russian. 6:57 In other words, they're constantly provoking it so that Russia finally snaps, 7:01 and specifically, 7:02 so that it's the one to take the first step in this war, 7:05 and today's statements from everyone, from Donald Tusk, 7:08 from Macron, from Merz they're honestly chilling. 7:13 That is, they're already openly talking to us about war, 7:16 they're openly talking to us about war. 7:18 And besides, the case of Poland, 7:20 which we'll discuss later too and give the exact data, 7:25 but what's happening with Poland is, is also spectacular. 7:27 And by the way, Trump, 7:30 who used to say he was going to leave Europe, 7:31 and now says no, that he's going to create a massive mega-base in Poland, 7:36 which is a plan that's already been in motion for some time. 7:39 But later, since he said he was going to leave Europe, 7:40 What is going to leave Europe? 7:41 And what we're talking about is quite the opposite, 7:43 about an absolutely warmongering Europe, 7:46 with reckless warmongering. 7:48 Because also, as you were saying, from a military point of view, 7:52 this is madness. 7:53 Where are we going up against a nuclear power? 7:56 They could wipe us out 7:58 in a matter of minutes, 8:00 in a matter of minutes, they could wipe out all of Europe. 8:02 But where are we going? 8:03 Does anyone think 8:05 that if Russia is massively attacked 8:09 within its territory, it will just sit back and do nothing? 8:12 Obviously not. So, what are we trying to achieve? 8:14 That they'll get really tired and launch two or three, 8:18 nuclear bombs on some of the main European capitals? 8:21 What are they trying to do? 8:22 I really don't know. 8:24 And you say, "But let's see." 8:25 Also, here no one, absolutely no one, is talking about diplomacy. 8:29 No one is talking... And you are a diplomat, an ambassador. 8:32 You know how important, vital, essential diplomacy is. 8:35 And let's not forget that the First World War, 8:38 which today is more than proven, was a failure of diplomacy. 8:42 It was a failure of diplomacy in entering the First World War. 8:45 So, what are they trying to do? 8:47 No one, no one speaks of negotiation, no one speaks of, of peace, 8:50 no one speaks of diplomacy, starting with the Kaja Kallas, 8:52 who is the head of European diplomacy. 8:54 So, it's a situation that's not, no, not, truly tremendously delicate, 8:58 and we're not paying enough attention to it. 9:00 But those of us who know something about these issues, 9:02 in your case as a diplomat, in my case as a soldier, 9:05 since we've traveled a lot around the world, 9:07 we know how populations are prepared psychologically for war. 9:12 And that's what they've been preparing us for, for some time now, 9:14 but right now, in an absolutely accelerated way. 9:17 That preparation is blatant now, absolutely blatant, 9:21 how they're preparing us for, 9:23 of course, because you have to convince people how positive war was. 9:27 We've already done many programs on this topic, 9:27 We've already done many programs on this topic, 9:30 about how, yes, how the adversary is demonized 9:33 so that in the end, people are convinced 9:35 that it's even, even good, 9:37 even logical, even "Christian," to, to attack, to attack the enemy 9:42 because he's so bad, so bad, truly evil, that he deserves to be attacked, right? 9:45 Without us realizing, the ones who suffer the consequences are us. 9:49 Mrs. von der Leyen, the president of the Commission, 9:52 has already said that none of her seven children will go to war, 9:54 because they're not prepared for that. 9:56 It will be the children of the poor, right, who go to war, 9:59 they're the ones who get sent. 10:00 So, of course, the, concern is immense, Ambassador. 10:04 But look, today itself, for example, the statements 10:07 from, we can talk about here, 10:10 from Figaro, it says here Macron says, 10:14 he says, "The president of the Republic's alert regarding the Russian threat." 10:19 It would be a mistake by Russia to continue 10:22 acting like this toward Europeans." 10:23 You say, "But look, you're the ones pressuring Russia." 10:26 Or the same thing, here on BFM, 10:29 it says, Macron says: 10:30 "The Russian hybrid threat towards Europeans and France has intensified." 10:36 Well, now they don't even know what to make up. 10:37 Or actually, here too, the EFE News Agency, which says: 10:40 "Macron warns of a shift in Russian aggression and threats in Europe." 10:46 In other words, they are preparing the ground, Ambassador, 10:48 they are preparing the ground. 10:50 When they haven't been able to prove anything 10:52 about these threats, not even the helicopter with the flares, 10:55 nor the drone issue. 10:57 In fact, there's information saying it's all staged. 10:59 There are no videos, no clear images, no remains of those drones. 11:04 And the only piece that exists, one from Poland, 11:06 seems to be all staged, 11:07 it's a shame I can't show the image, 11:10 but we'll talk about it later. 11:11 That is to say, but this really worries me, 11:13 knowing how wars are prepared, 11:15 knowing how populations are prepared, 11:17 specifically so they go to those wars gladly 11:21 and without understanding the goals behind them, 11:23 which certainly have nothing to do 11:25 with the evilness of Russia, 11:26 nor that Russia is out to kill us all, 11:28 they have been feeding us this story, 11:29 since when, Ambassador, for the past four years, 11:32 when they told us that Russia at any moment 11:33 was going to invade all of Europe. 11:35 Anyway, in any case, I find this issue absolutely extremely serious, Ambassador. *Pedro Baños Bajo is a retired Spanish Army colonel, writer, and prominent geopolitical analyst specializing in defense, intelligence, and international relations.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

36,945 views • 7 days ago

*** Test Your 9/11 Knowledge: The Explosive Evidence at the 3 WTC Towers The 50 Questions NIST Should Have Asked 20 Years Ago! WTC Building 7 Free-fall 1. How is it possible that 47-story Building 7 fell suddenly, symmetrically in free-fall acceleration, without any resistance from any of its 81 columns? 2. Why did NIST deny its free-fall for 7 years, only to be proven wrong and be forced to officially admit that it did collapse in free-fall? Symmetry 3. How, if Building 7 was damaged asymmetrically in the north-east corner on floor twelve, as per the NIST report, could it fall symmetrically downward? Shouldn’t the building have tilted toward its damaged side – and not fall straight down through the path of what was the greatest resistance? Fires 4. How could a few, small, and scattered ordinary office fires have brought this Type-1 fire-protected steel-frame skyscraper down, when several dozen examples of much hotter, much larger, and longer-lasting fires have never in history brought down such a building? 5. How could normal office fires take out all the columns in the building sequentially floor by floor, in 7 seconds? 6. Why did NIST claim that the fires were still burning, up until the time of the collapse, when the photos show that they were burnt out more than an hour before the collapse? 7. Why aren’t all the firefighters concerned, in the wake of the NIST report during the last 24 years, that such ordinary fightable fires can now bring skyscrapers down on top of them, and on top of the public who are told to “defend in place” in the building (and not obstruct access by firefighters)? 8. Why are many of these same firefighters calling for a new investigation of the NIST report itself? Controlled Demolition 9. Since the collapse of Building 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition, why did NIST avoid any serious consideration of this hypothesis? 10. How could a 40,000-ton moment-resisting and X-braced structural steel frame collapse like a house of cards in 7 seconds, with most of its columns and beams severed – one from another? 11. Why does WTC 7 have all of the key features of typical controlled demolition, and none of the features of collapse by fire? Explosions 12. Why didn’t NIST include in its report on WTC 7 the half-dozen witnesses of explosions prior to its collapse, and even claim that there were no witnesses? 13. What could have caused an elevator cab to be “blown 30 feet out of its hoistway,” as Deputy Director of NY-Office of Emergency Management, Richard Rotanz, reported at Noon, when the building didn’t collapse for another 5 hours. 14. What caused Barry Jennings and Michael Hess to be injured by explosions and subsequently trapped in the building before either Twin Tower collapsed? Foreknowledge 15. Why did Fire Chief Nick Visconti declare, “We’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down!”? 16. How could Fire Chief Hayden’s engineer declare, upon being asked, “how long until the building comes down?” – then accurately state, “In its current state you have about 5 hours,” when no steel-frame fire-protected high-rise had ever come down due to fire alone? 17. Why did construction workers, while walking away from Building 7 and upon hearing an explosion from the building, look straight into the CNN camera saying, “You hear that? Keep your eye on that building. That thing’s coming down. The building is about to blow up, flame and debris coming down”? 18. Why did former Air Force medic Kevin McPadden hear a “3-2-1” countdown on the radio, and subsequently hear explosions before Building 7 collapsed? 19. How could the BBC have announced, live on TV, the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it collapsed? 20. Why did CNN announce, 7 hours early, the 10:45 AM collapse of a 50-story building (obviously referring to Building 7)? Expert Statements 21. Why have more than 3,600 Architects & Engineers signed onto the petition at demanding a new 9/11 WTC investigation? 22. Why are dozens of structural engineers making statements such as: “A localized failure in a steel-framed building like WTC 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards, without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the building”? 23. Why did the top European controlled demolition expert declare: “That is controlled demolition. It’s been imploded. It’s a hired job. A team of experts did this? 24. Why did top forensic structural engineer, Prof. Leroy Hulsey from the University of Alaska, following a 4-year study of WTC 7, declare: “The collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse, as claimed by NIST. Extreme Heat Molten Metal 25. What does it mean that FEMA, in its 2002 Report, including a metallurgical examination of the WTC 7 steel, revealed “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires….a liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel...” Why did NIST eliminate this metallurgical report from their final report? 26. Did Fire Protection Engineer Jonathan Barnett know, when he said, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated,” that it takes 4,000°F to evaporate steel? And that jet fuel and office fires don’t even rise to a third of that temperature? 27. Why is there bright yellow molten steel or iron pouring out of the crab claw excavators in the WTC pit? And out of the South Tower just minutes before its collapse. 28. Why did the first responders in the pit report, “you get down in the pile, and you see molten steel – flowing down the channel rails, like lava from a volcano”? Did they know that it takes 3,000°F to melt steel, and that office fires and jet fuel can only achieve half of this temperature? 29. What can explain the well-documented 3,000°F temperatures that are well-documented in the WTC Twin Towers collapse aftermath? Why is there evidence of ignited thermite found by so many first responders in the WTC pile? Previously Molten Iron Microspheres 30. What does it mean that the US Geological Survey and RJ Lee Group independently documented billions of previously molten iron-rich microspheres in ALL of the WTC dust samples? Where would the required 3,000°F come from? Could the ignited thermite have created those molten iron microspheres? 31. Why is bright yellow molten steel or iron pouring out of the South Tower just minutes prior to its collapse? 32. What explains the 2009 peer-reviewed findings from the Niels Harrit research team of dual-layered red-gray chips of nano-thermite in all the independently-collected dust samples they analyzed? Why do they ignite at the same temperature as military grade “super-thermite”? Why do they produce molten iron-rich microspheres when ignited? 33. What does it mean that Harrit’s international research team found that the “red layer of the red/gray chips in all of their WTC dust samples is active unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material”? The Twin Towers Official Explanation 34. How can the official explanation of the Twin Towers’ collapse be true (that an intact top section drove down the rest of the building after weakening of some of the structural steel in the impact zone) when this top section had already been destroyed in the first 3 seconds of the collapse (telescoping in on itself) and so was not even available to drive anything down to the ground? NIST claims that the top part of the building drove the rest of the building down to the ground. Why then do none of the photos or videos show such a top part driving anything down? And why didn’t that top “pile driver” drive down the 800-foot-tall group of columns standing for 6 seconds after the overall collapse? 35. Why did Zdenek Bazant, in his calculations for his controversial paper submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 9/13/01( only two days after 9/11) use twice the actual mass of the upper section of the North Tower above the impact floors and only one third of the actual column strength of the larger building section beneath it in his support for NIST collapse theory? a. Why is this paper still today the key theoretical basis of NIST’s column failure theory? 36. Why does the destruction of the towers look more like a volcanic eruption (than a straight-down gravitational collapse) with upward and outward arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying solid molten objects trailing thick white smoke clouds? Witnesses of Explosions 37. Why are there 156 First Responder witnesses of explosions – seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions – many of them BEFORE the towers ever came down? 38. Why did NIST claim that there were “no witnesses of explosions” when there were as many as 200 publicly recorded testimonies – many before the collapse? What could explain Fire Chief Frank Cruthers’ testimony that, “… an explosion… appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay, before you could see the beginning of the collapse”? 39. Why did 36 reporters on the day of 9/11 report the WTC destruction as an explosion-based event, most of them actual witnesses of explosions? a. Why did the mainstream national media change the story the next day from explosion-based collapses to “fire-induced collapses”? 40. Why did the FBI, NYPD, and FDNY on the day of 9/11 all state that they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the towers, but change their story in the following week to fire-induced collapse? Seismic Evidence 41. Why did the Richter Scale recordings from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory document significant seismic events for both towers, more than a dozen seconds before the planes hit either tower – corroborating the explosive testimony of William Rodriguez and others of massive explosions in the basement prior to the plane hitting the buildings? 42. Why did the seismic evidence from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory document significant seismic events, in the North Tower, 5 seconds before the heaviest debris from each tower struck the ground? And in the South Tower, 7 seconds before any debris struck the ground? Wouldn’t this seismic evidence corroborate the testimony of the first responders that saw, heard, and/or felt explosions before the towers fell? 43. Why did at least 3 of the tripod-mounted cameras (two on the ground and one on the rooftop) “shake” 3 to 10 seconds before each of the towers fell? Would the camera evidence corroborate the seismic evidence and the first responder's explosive testimony? Explosive Evidence 44. Since the damage from the planes and fires was so asymmetrical, why was the destruction itself so precisely symmetrical – all the way down each face of each tower? Why do the videos show precise rows of individual explosions progressing down the towers – floor by floor? 45. Why do we see in the videos isolated pin-point explosive ejections occurring 20, 40, and even 60 stories down below the downward-traveling zone of destruction in each tower? Descent Profile and Speed 46. Why did the top sections of each tower descend suddenly, smoothly, down with no stoppage or “jolt” upon impact with the cold, hard, intact steel columns below the floors of the plane impacts? 47. How was it possible that the top section of each Tower descended without slowing at all, but instead accelerated, as if 80,000 tons of steel beneath wasn’t even there? What happened to the steel? Lateral Ejection of Steel 48. Why do we see in the videos the lateral ejection out of both of the Towers of hundreds of freely flying structural steel sections each weighing 4 to 8 tons, at 80mph, landing up to 600 feet in every direction, impaling all of the surrounding skyscrapers? Why are they trailing thick white smoke clouds when steel is not flammable in office fires, or under jet fuel conditions? Could this be due to the other byproduct of thermite – aluminum oxide ash? 49. Since FEMA officially documented a 1200-foot diameter zone of flying, fallen, and impaled structural steel beyond the footprints of both Towers, how could that steel, which comprised 1/3 of the weight of the falling section of each building, have still been available to crush the lower part as NIST claimed? Missing Floors 50. Since there were 110 concrete floors, each an acre in size, and since they were not stacked up in pile of “pancakes” at the bottom, and since a third of the WTC dust in the 3” thick blanket across Lower Manhattan from river to river is powdered concrete, then how could the concrete floors (also 1/3 of the weight of each Tower) be available to crush the building below? 51. What extreme-high temperature could have reduced 90,000 tons of concrete in each Tower back to its original aggregate, sand, and cement powder? Demolition Access 52. How could the perpetrators have gained access to the Towers to plant high energy explosives and incendiaries? Could a massive fireproofing upgrade project in the months and years prior to 9/11 have provided access to the underside of the floor systems to apply sprayed-on nano-thermite? Is it a coincidence that the WTC fireproofing upgrades occurred mostly on the floors that were hit by the planes on 9/11? Could the largest elevator modernization in the world in the 9 months prior to 9/11 have provided access to the core columns and beams? Is it just a coincidence that Ace Elevator employees were pulled out of the Towers on 9/11 for “union meeting”? Destruction of Evidence 53. Why was 99% of the WTC structural steel crime scene evidence loaded onto barges starting just 2 weeks after 9/11 and shipped to China for recycling before structural engineers and metallurgists could get their hands on it to do a proper forensic investigation? We encougage you to ask these questions of your elected representatives and the media. We address most of these questions in our presentations and podcast and radio interviews. So get is in front of them! Who do you know that might interview RichardGage911 about the explosive destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Skyscrapers on 9/11?
0:22

*** Test Your 9/11 Knowledge: The Explosive Evidence at the 3 WTC Towers The 50 Questions NIST Should Have Asked 20 Years Ago! WTC Building 7 Free-fall 1. How is it possible that 47-story Building 7 fell suddenly, symmetrically in free-fall acceleration, without any resistance from any of its 81 columns? 2. Why did NIST deny its free-fall for 7 years, only to be proven wrong and be forced to officially admit that it did collapse in free-fall? Symmetry 3. How, if Building 7 was damaged asymmetrically in the north-east corner on floor twelve, as per the NIST report, could it fall symmetrically downward? Shouldn’t the building have tilted toward its damaged side – and not fall straight down through the path of what was the greatest resistance? Fires 4. How could a few, small, and scattered ordinary office fires have brought this Type-1 fire-protected steel-frame skyscraper down, when several dozen examples of much hotter, much larger, and longer-lasting fires have never in history brought down such a building? 5. How could normal office fires take out all the columns in the building sequentially floor by floor, in 7 seconds? 6. Why did NIST claim that the fires were still burning, up until the time of the collapse, when the photos show that they were burnt out more than an hour before the collapse? 7. Why aren’t all the firefighters concerned, in the wake of the NIST report during the last 24 years, that such ordinary fightable fires can now bring skyscrapers down on top of them, and on top of the public who are told to “defend in place” in the building (and not obstruct access by firefighters)? 8. Why are many of these same firefighters calling for a new investigation of the NIST report itself? Controlled Demolition 9. Since the collapse of Building 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition, why did NIST avoid any serious consideration of this hypothesis? 10. How could a 40,000-ton moment-resisting and X-braced structural steel frame collapse like a house of cards in 7 seconds, with most of its columns and beams severed – one from another? 11. Why does WTC 7 have all of the key features of typical controlled demolition, and none of the features of collapse by fire? Explosions 12. Why didn’t NIST include in its report on WTC 7 the half-dozen witnesses of explosions prior to its collapse, and even claim that there were no witnesses? 13. What could have caused an elevator cab to be “blown 30 feet out of its hoistway,” as Deputy Director of NY-Office of Emergency Management, Richard Rotanz, reported at Noon, when the building didn’t collapse for another 5 hours. 14. What caused Barry Jennings and Michael Hess to be injured by explosions and subsequently trapped in the building before either Twin Tower collapsed? Foreknowledge 15. Why did Fire Chief Nick Visconti declare, “We’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down!”? 16. How could Fire Chief Hayden’s engineer declare, upon being asked, “how long until the building comes down?” – then accurately state, “In its current state you have about 5 hours,” when no steel-frame fire-protected high-rise had ever come down due to fire alone? 17. Why did construction workers, while walking away from Building 7 and upon hearing an explosion from the building, look straight into the CNN camera saying, “You hear that? Keep your eye on that building. That thing’s coming down. The building is about to blow up, flame and debris coming down”? 18. Why did former Air Force medic Kevin McPadden hear a “3-2-1” countdown on the radio, and subsequently hear explosions before Building 7 collapsed? 19. How could the BBC have announced, live on TV, the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it collapsed? 20. Why did CNN announce, 7 hours early, the 10:45 AM collapse of a 50-story building (obviously referring to Building 7)? Expert Statements 21. Why have more than 3,600 Architects & Engineers signed onto the petition at demanding a new 9/11 WTC investigation? 22. Why are dozens of structural engineers making statements such as: “A localized failure in a steel-framed building like WTC 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards, without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the building”? 23. Why did the top European controlled demolition expert declare: “That is controlled demolition. It’s been imploded. It’s a hired job. A team of experts did this? 24. Why did top forensic structural engineer, Prof. Leroy Hulsey from the University of Alaska, following a 4-year study of WTC 7, declare: “The collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse, as claimed by NIST. Extreme Heat Molten Metal 25. What does it mean that FEMA, in its 2002 Report, including a metallurgical examination of the WTC 7 steel, revealed “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires….a liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel...” Why did NIST eliminate this metallurgical report from their final report? 26. Did Fire Protection Engineer Jonathan Barnett know, when he said, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated,” that it takes 4,000°F to evaporate steel? And that jet fuel and office fires don’t even rise to a third of that temperature? 27. Why is there bright yellow molten steel or iron pouring out of the crab claw excavators in the WTC pit? And out of the South Tower just minutes before its collapse. 28. Why did the first responders in the pit report, “you get down in the pile, and you see molten steel – flowing down the channel rails, like lava from a volcano”? Did they know that it takes 3,000°F to melt steel, and that office fires and jet fuel can only achieve half of this temperature? 29. What can explain the well-documented 3,000°F temperatures that are well-documented in the WTC Twin Towers collapse aftermath? Why is there evidence of ignited thermite found by so many first responders in the WTC pile? Previously Molten Iron Microspheres 30. What does it mean that the US Geological Survey and RJ Lee Group independently documented billions of previously molten iron-rich microspheres in ALL of the WTC dust samples? Where would the required 3,000°F come from? Could the ignited thermite have created those molten iron microspheres? 31. Why is bright yellow molten steel or iron pouring out of the South Tower just minutes prior to its collapse? 32. What explains the 2009 peer-reviewed findings from the Niels Harrit research team of dual-layered red-gray chips of nano-thermite in all the independently-collected dust samples they analyzed? Why do they ignite at the same temperature as military grade “super-thermite”? Why do they produce molten iron-rich microspheres when ignited? 33. What does it mean that Harrit’s international research team found that the “red layer of the red/gray chips in all of their WTC dust samples is active unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material”? The Twin Towers Official Explanation 34. How can the official explanation of the Twin Towers’ collapse be true (that an intact top section drove down the rest of the building after weakening of some of the structural steel in the impact zone) when this top section had already been destroyed in the first 3 seconds of the collapse (telescoping in on itself) and so was not even available to drive anything down to the ground? NIST claims that the top part of the building drove the rest of the building down to the ground. Why then do none of the photos or videos show such a top part driving anything down? And why didn’t that top “pile driver” drive down the 800-foot-tall group of columns standing for 6 seconds after the overall collapse? 35. Why did Zdenek Bazant, in his calculations for his controversial paper submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 9/13/01( only two days after 9/11) use twice the actual mass of the upper section of the North Tower above the impact floors and only one third of the actual column strength of the larger building section beneath it in his support for NIST collapse theory? a. Why is this paper still today the key theoretical basis of NIST’s column failure theory? 36. Why does the destruction of the towers look more like a volcanic eruption (than a straight-down gravitational collapse) with upward and outward arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying solid molten objects trailing thick white smoke clouds? Witnesses of Explosions 37. Why are there 156 First Responder witnesses of explosions – seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions – many of them BEFORE the towers ever came down? 38. Why did NIST claim that there were “no witnesses of explosions” when there were as many as 200 publicly recorded testimonies – many before the collapse? What could explain Fire Chief Frank Cruthers’ testimony that, “… an explosion… appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay, before you could see the beginning of the collapse”? 39. Why did 36 reporters on the day of 9/11 report the WTC destruction as an explosion-based event, most of them actual witnesses of explosions? a. Why did the mainstream national media change the story the next day from explosion-based collapses to “fire-induced collapses”? 40. Why did the FBI, NYPD, and FDNY on the day of 9/11 all state that they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the towers, but change their story in the following week to fire-induced collapse? Seismic Evidence 41. Why did the Richter Scale recordings from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory document significant seismic events for both towers, more than a dozen seconds before the planes hit either tower – corroborating the explosive testimony of William Rodriguez and others of massive explosions in the basement prior to the plane hitting the buildings? 42. Why did the seismic evidence from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory document significant seismic events, in the North Tower, 5 seconds before the heaviest debris from each tower struck the ground? And in the South Tower, 7 seconds before any debris struck the ground? Wouldn’t this seismic evidence corroborate the testimony of the first responders that saw, heard, and/or felt explosions before the towers fell? 43. Why did at least 3 of the tripod-mounted cameras (two on the ground and one on the rooftop) “shake” 3 to 10 seconds before each of the towers fell? Would the camera evidence corroborate the seismic evidence and the first responder's explosive testimony? Explosive Evidence 44. Since the damage from the planes and fires was so asymmetrical, why was the destruction itself so precisely symmetrical – all the way down each face of each tower? Why do the videos show precise rows of individual explosions progressing down the towers – floor by floor? 45. Why do we see in the videos isolated pin-point explosive ejections occurring 20, 40, and even 60 stories down below the downward-traveling zone of destruction in each tower? Descent Profile and Speed 46. Why did the top sections of each tower descend suddenly, smoothly, down with no stoppage or “jolt” upon impact with the cold, hard, intact steel columns below the floors of the plane impacts? 47. How was it possible that the top section of each Tower descended without slowing at all, but instead accelerated, as if 80,000 tons of steel beneath wasn’t even there? What happened to the steel? Lateral Ejection of Steel 48. Why do we see in the videos the lateral ejection out of both of the Towers of hundreds of freely flying structural steel sections each weighing 4 to 8 tons, at 80mph, landing up to 600 feet in every direction, impaling all of the surrounding skyscrapers? Why are they trailing thick white smoke clouds when steel is not flammable in office fires, or under jet fuel conditions? Could this be due to the other byproduct of thermite – aluminum oxide ash? 49. Since FEMA officially documented a 1200-foot diameter zone of flying, fallen, and impaled structural steel beyond the footprints of both Towers, how could that steel, which comprised 1/3 of the weight of the falling section of each building, have still been available to crush the lower part as NIST claimed? Missing Floors 50. Since there were 110 concrete floors, each an acre in size, and since they were not stacked up in pile of “pancakes” at the bottom, and since a third of the WTC dust in the 3” thick blanket across Lower Manhattan from river to river is powdered concrete, then how could the concrete floors (also 1/3 of the weight of each Tower) be available to crush the building below? 51. What extreme-high temperature could have reduced 90,000 tons of concrete in each Tower back to its original aggregate, sand, and cement powder? Demolition Access 52. How could the perpetrators have gained access to the Towers to plant high energy explosives and incendiaries? Could a massive fireproofing upgrade project in the months and years prior to 9/11 have provided access to the underside of the floor systems to apply sprayed-on nano-thermite? Is it a coincidence that the WTC fireproofing upgrades occurred mostly on the floors that were hit by the planes on 9/11? Could the largest elevator modernization in the world in the 9 months prior to 9/11 have provided access to the core columns and beams? Is it just a coincidence that Ace Elevator employees were pulled out of the Towers on 9/11 for “union meeting”? Destruction of Evidence 53. Why was 99% of the WTC structural steel crime scene evidence loaded onto barges starting just 2 weeks after 9/11 and shipped to China for recycling before structural engineers and metallurgists could get their hands on it to do a proper forensic investigation? We encougage you to ask these questions of your elected representatives and the media. We address most of these questions in our presentations and podcast and radio interviews. So get is in front of them! Who do you know that might interview RichardGage911 about the explosive destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Skyscrapers on 9/11?

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

44,559 views • 1 year ago

Mark Levin is a National Treasure: Megyn Kelly is an Unserious Amateur Podcaster! Compare Kelly’s credentials to Mark Levin; hands down he wins! Mark Levin is a former Chief of Staff for the Attorney General, a conservative American lawyer, NYT best selling author, political commentator, and #1 radio/television host. Levin has authored at least 11 non-fiction books**, most of which are *New York Times* bestsellers. Sources vary slightly on the exact count of "#1" bestsellers (often cited as 7–8 consecutive ones), but the full list of his major works includes: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto* (2009, often listed with 2004 in some contexts but widely 2009; massive bestseller with over 1.5 million copies sold). Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America* (2005). Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish* (2007). Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (2012). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic* (2013). Plunder and Deceit: Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the Future* (2015). Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism* (2017). Unfreedom of the Press (2019). American Marxism (2021). The Democrat Party Hates America (2023). On Power (2025) His earlier books like *Men in Black* and *Rescuing Sprite* were also *New York Times* bestsellers. He is frequently described as the author of seven or eight consecutive #1 *New York Times* bestsellers, with additional titles bringing the total higher. Levin began his radio career in 2002 with a local Sunday afternoon slot on WABC-AM in New York City. He took over a weekday evening timeslot (initially 6–8 p.m.) on September 2, 2003, and the show quickly rose to #1 in its slot. National syndication of The Mark Levin Show launched in 2006 via Cumulus Media Networks (later Westwood One). The program expanded to three hours (6–9 p.m. ET) in 2009 and continues today on nearly 400 stations, heard by millions weekly. As of 2026, he has been on air for approximately 24 years, and nationally syndicated for about 20 years. Levin has signed multiple contract extensions, including one in 2024, and is a National Radio Hall of Fame inductee. He earned a B.A. in political science (magna cum laude) from Temple University at age 19 and a J.D. from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 1980. Levin worked in the Reagan administration starting in 1981, serving in roles such as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education, Deputy Solicitor at the U.S. Department of the Interior, and ultimately as Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. He was a top adviser to several cabinet members. He later served as president (or chairman emeritus) of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm, and has practiced law privately. He also clerked early in his career. Before his own show, Levin was a frequent guest and legal contributor on shows like *The Rush Limbaugh Show* and Sean Hannity's program. His radio success led to television: He hosts *Life, Liberty & Levin* on Fox News and previously launched LevinTV. He has contributed to outlets like National Review Online and was the first Editor-in-Chief of Conservative Review in 2015. Levin is known for his passionate, constitutionally focused conservative commentary, often emphasizing originalism, limited government, and critiques of progressivism. Levin combines legal scholarship with broadcasting and authorship, earning awards like the American Conservative Union's Ronald Reagan Award and the Media Research Center's William F. Buckley Award for Media Excellence. His career spans law, government service under Reagan, bestselling authorship, and dominant talk radio/TV presence, making him one of the most influential voices in conservative media for over two decades.
0:46

Mark Levin is a National Treasure: Megyn Kelly is an Unserious Amateur Podcaster! Compare Kelly’s credentials to Mark Levin; hands down he wins! Mark Levin is a former Chief of Staff for the Attorney General, a conservative American lawyer, NYT best selling author, political commentator, and #1 radio/television host. Levin has authored at least 11 non-fiction books**, most of which are *New York Times* bestsellers. Sources vary slightly on the exact count of "#1" bestsellers (often cited as 7–8 consecutive ones), but the full list of his major works includes: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto* (2009, often listed with 2004 in some contexts but widely 2009; massive bestseller with over 1.5 million copies sold). Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America* (2005). Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish* (2007). Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (2012). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic* (2013). Plunder and Deceit: Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the Future* (2015). Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism* (2017). Unfreedom of the Press (2019). American Marxism (2021). The Democrat Party Hates America (2023). On Power (2025) His earlier books like *Men in Black* and *Rescuing Sprite* were also *New York Times* bestsellers. He is frequently described as the author of seven or eight consecutive #1 *New York Times* bestsellers, with additional titles bringing the total higher. Levin began his radio career in 2002 with a local Sunday afternoon slot on WABC-AM in New York City. He took over a weekday evening timeslot (initially 6–8 p.m.) on September 2, 2003, and the show quickly rose to #1 in its slot. National syndication of The Mark Levin Show launched in 2006 via Cumulus Media Networks (later Westwood One). The program expanded to three hours (6–9 p.m. ET) in 2009 and continues today on nearly 400 stations, heard by millions weekly. As of 2026, he has been on air for approximately 24 years, and nationally syndicated for about 20 years. Levin has signed multiple contract extensions, including one in 2024, and is a National Radio Hall of Fame inductee. He earned a B.A. in political science (magna cum laude) from Temple University at age 19 and a J.D. from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 1980. Levin worked in the Reagan administration starting in 1981, serving in roles such as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education, Deputy Solicitor at the U.S. Department of the Interior, and ultimately as Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. He was a top adviser to several cabinet members. He later served as president (or chairman emeritus) of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm, and has practiced law privately. He also clerked early in his career. Before his own show, Levin was a frequent guest and legal contributor on shows like *The Rush Limbaugh Show* and Sean Hannity's program. His radio success led to television: He hosts *Life, Liberty & Levin* on Fox News and previously launched LevinTV. He has contributed to outlets like National Review Online and was the first Editor-in-Chief of Conservative Review in 2015. Levin is known for his passionate, constitutionally focused conservative commentary, often emphasizing originalism, limited government, and critiques of progressivism. Levin combines legal scholarship with broadcasting and authorship, earning awards like the American Conservative Union's Ronald Reagan Award and the Media Research Center's William F. Buckley Award for Media Excellence. His career spans law, government service under Reagan, bestselling authorship, and dominant talk radio/TV presence, making him one of the most influential voices in conservative media for over two decades.

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

15,227 views • 6 months ago

Stargate Trivia: Casting Stargate: Atlantis While SG-1 was my first love (We were together for seven years!), my time on Atlantis proved equally memorable. The show was possessed of a similar tone in its mix of high adventure and humor, yet proved distinct in its exploration of Ancient mythology and an unfamiliar galaxy as seen through the eyes of a new set of heroes. Atlantis offered a sense of wonder and camaraderie born of isolation and constant danger. Whereas team SG-1 could always go home at the conclusion of their adventures, the members of the Atlantis expedition (at least for those first few seasons) could only draw comfort from the city of Atlantis itself – and, of course, each other. It was unique and compelling yet, at the same time, comfortingly familiar. Nowhere is this more evident than in its opening theme, composed by the late Joel Goldsmith, which is, at turns fresh, haunting, stirring and, throughout, discernibly Stargate. Stargate: Atlantis wasn’t envisioned as a companion to Stargate: SG-1. It was intended to replace the long-running series. The only problem was, with eight seasons under its belt, SG-1 wasn’t quite done yet. And fans (and the network) weren’t done with it either. And so, instead of passing the torch and segueing to a new Stargate series, we ended up producing both. In retrospect, it was quite an achievement: 40 hours of television! Today's productions can barely manage a third that output, but Stargates SG-1 and Atlantis delivered two fantastic 40 episode seasons before SG-1 took it’s final bow. It wasn’t easy, but it was certainly made easier by all of the enormously talented individuals who made it happen, from the office staff and crew to the cast and my fellow writer/producers. Still, it was not without its challenges. Take casting, for instance. It may surprise you to know that, when it comes to producing a show, not everybody cares about costumes or set design or whether the script’s fifth act denouement is emotionally satisfying - but everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, has an opinion on casting. Studio and network execs, producers, hell, even your significant other peering over your shoulder as you screen the auditions on your home computer, will want to weigh in. Of course, the more voices in the mix the more likely there are to be disagreements. So it is with every production and Atlantis was no different. Different individuals envisioned these characters in very different ways and, as a result, consensus was only achieved after many auditions, calls-backs, heated discussions, and not-so-gentle reminders that our start date was fast-approaching and we really needed someone to say the lines on camera. The part of Carson Beckett was one of the first we cast. The other producers were in Rob’s office, screening the first batch of local auditions when Brad called me in and told me to check out the guy onscreen. I hadn’t imagined Beckett with a Scottish accent but, after watching Paul McGillion in the role, I couldn’t imagine him without one. He’d brought something unexpected to the part, something we all responded to. Elizabeth Weir was not an easy character to pull off. She had to be smart, confident and strong yet needed to exude a certain warmth and empathy we were looking for in the civilian leader of the expedition. When it came time to (re)casting the role, several established names were considered (One had her own hit genre show back in the day while another went on to break out on a hit show soon after), but it was Torri Higginson who managed to strike just the right balance and vault her name to the top of the list. The role of Teyla Emmagan was a tough one to cast. Like Weir, she needed to be a strong, empathetic leader. But she also required something even more important – quite literally, an other-worldly quality that made her unique. Some equally talented actresses auditioned for the role but, as good as they were, they were never quite able to achieve that gravitas Rachel pulled off with such grace and seeming ease. Former VJ Rainbow Sun Francks won the role of Lieutenant Ford on the strength of a great audition, preceded by an equally great audition with a funny hat. I recall Brad Wright on the phone with our casting agent, advising him to ensure there would be no hat worn in the callback for fear the network would fixate on it. There wasn't, they didn't, and Rainbow delivered. The role of John Sheppard was the second to last one cast. It came right down to the wire and there were several candidates in play. The character was originally envisioned as a good ole southern boy, so it only made sense that Ben Browder’s name was bandied about early. However, he was too busy shooting Peacekeeper Wars to warrant consideration. A number of other actors were considered (one went on to play the lead in a hugely popular show the following year while another made his mark as a handsome heart throb on another hugely popular medical series) but it was Joe Flanigan who won the part based on his ability to pull off the devil-may-care attitude Brad and Robert were looking for. We come to the final role cast, a character who, in many ways, embodied everything Atlantis was about: exploration, discovery, fun, humor, and seat-of-your-pants-Holy-Sh&%-how-the-hell-am-I-going-to-get-out-of-this-adventure. And, as I mentioned in a previous post, he almost didn’t make the trip to Pegasus. Originally, the casting call went out for a completely different character, an earnest young doctor who would lend the team much-needed medical support on their off-world ventures. Unfortunately, no one could agree on who that actor should be. If the casting of Sheppard went down to the wire, then the casting of this final role went a step past it. Finally, days away from production, Robert Cooper had an idea: Forget the doctor character. Why not use an established character from SG-1? How about Rodney McKay? The writers were on board, but some executives weren't weren’t sold on the idea. They found him annoying! Hell yeah, but he’d be sooo much fun to write for! Rob got on the phone and went to bat for Rodney, pointing out that the character had come a long way since first being introduced way back in SG-1’s 48 Hours. He’d evolved, going from annoying jerk to endearingly irritating. To this day, I’m convinced that they weren’t totally convinced but, with production poised to commence, they relented, I suppose figuring they could just replace the character somewhere down the line. No one, even those who loved the idea of having the endearingly irritating Rodney McKay on board could have predicted how hugely popular the character would become.
0:57

Stargate Trivia: Casting Stargate: Atlantis While SG-1 was my first love (We were together for seven years!), my time on Atlantis proved equally memorable. The show was possessed of a similar tone in its mix of high adventure and humor, yet proved distinct in its exploration of Ancient mythology and an unfamiliar galaxy as seen through the eyes of a new set of heroes. Atlantis offered a sense of wonder and camaraderie born of isolation and constant danger. Whereas team SG-1 could always go home at the conclusion of their adventures, the members of the Atlantis expedition (at least for those first few seasons) could only draw comfort from the city of Atlantis itself – and, of course, each other. It was unique and compelling yet, at the same time, comfortingly familiar. Nowhere is this more evident than in its opening theme, composed by the late Joel Goldsmith, which is, at turns fresh, haunting, stirring and, throughout, discernibly Stargate. Stargate: Atlantis wasn’t envisioned as a companion to Stargate: SG-1. It was intended to replace the long-running series. The only problem was, with eight seasons under its belt, SG-1 wasn’t quite done yet. And fans (and the network) weren’t done with it either. And so, instead of passing the torch and segueing to a new Stargate series, we ended up producing both. In retrospect, it was quite an achievement: 40 hours of television! Today's productions can barely manage a third that output, but Stargates SG-1 and Atlantis delivered two fantastic 40 episode seasons before SG-1 took it’s final bow. It wasn’t easy, but it was certainly made easier by all of the enormously talented individuals who made it happen, from the office staff and crew to the cast and my fellow writer/producers. Still, it was not without its challenges. Take casting, for instance. It may surprise you to know that, when it comes to producing a show, not everybody cares about costumes or set design or whether the script’s fifth act denouement is emotionally satisfying - but everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, has an opinion on casting. Studio and network execs, producers, hell, even your significant other peering over your shoulder as you screen the auditions on your home computer, will want to weigh in. Of course, the more voices in the mix the more likely there are to be disagreements. So it is with every production and Atlantis was no different. Different individuals envisioned these characters in very different ways and, as a result, consensus was only achieved after many auditions, calls-backs, heated discussions, and not-so-gentle reminders that our start date was fast-approaching and we really needed someone to say the lines on camera. The part of Carson Beckett was one of the first we cast. The other producers were in Rob’s office, screening the first batch of local auditions when Brad called me in and told me to check out the guy onscreen. I hadn’t imagined Beckett with a Scottish accent but, after watching Paul McGillion in the role, I couldn’t imagine him without one. He’d brought something unexpected to the part, something we all responded to. Elizabeth Weir was not an easy character to pull off. She had to be smart, confident and strong yet needed to exude a certain warmth and empathy we were looking for in the civilian leader of the expedition. When it came time to (re)casting the role, several established names were considered (One had her own hit genre show back in the day while another went on to break out on a hit show soon after), but it was Torri Higginson who managed to strike just the right balance and vault her name to the top of the list. The role of Teyla Emmagan was a tough one to cast. Like Weir, she needed to be a strong, empathetic leader. But she also required something even more important – quite literally, an other-worldly quality that made her unique. Some equally talented actresses auditioned for the role but, as good as they were, they were never quite able to achieve that gravitas Rachel pulled off with such grace and seeming ease. Former VJ Rainbow Sun Francks won the role of Lieutenant Ford on the strength of a great audition, preceded by an equally great audition with a funny hat. I recall Brad Wright on the phone with our casting agent, advising him to ensure there would be no hat worn in the callback for fear the network would fixate on it. There wasn't, they didn't, and Rainbow delivered. The role of John Sheppard was the second to last one cast. It came right down to the wire and there were several candidates in play. The character was originally envisioned as a good ole southern boy, so it only made sense that Ben Browder’s name was bandied about early. However, he was too busy shooting Peacekeeper Wars to warrant consideration. A number of other actors were considered (one went on to play the lead in a hugely popular show the following year while another made his mark as a handsome heart throb on another hugely popular medical series) but it was Joe Flanigan who won the part based on his ability to pull off the devil-may-care attitude Brad and Robert were looking for. We come to the final role cast, a character who, in many ways, embodied everything Atlantis was about: exploration, discovery, fun, humor, and seat-of-your-pants-Holy-Sh&%-how-the-hell-am-I-going-to-get-out-of-this-adventure. And, as I mentioned in a previous post, he almost didn’t make the trip to Pegasus. Originally, the casting call went out for a completely different character, an earnest young doctor who would lend the team much-needed medical support on their off-world ventures. Unfortunately, no one could agree on who that actor should be. If the casting of Sheppard went down to the wire, then the casting of this final role went a step past it. Finally, days away from production, Robert Cooper had an idea: Forget the doctor character. Why not use an established character from SG-1? How about Rodney McKay? The writers were on board, but some executives weren't weren’t sold on the idea. They found him annoying! Hell yeah, but he’d be sooo much fun to write for! Rob got on the phone and went to bat for Rodney, pointing out that the character had come a long way since first being introduced way back in SG-1’s 48 Hours. He’d evolved, going from annoying jerk to endearingly irritating. To this day, I’m convinced that they weren’t totally convinced but, with production poised to commence, they relented, I suppose figuring they could just replace the character somewhere down the line. No one, even those who loved the idea of having the endearingly irritating Rodney McKay on board could have predicted how hugely popular the character would become.

Joseph Mallozzi 🏴‍☠️

28,063 views • 2 years ago

Where are we in the consumer AI cycle? I went on Bloomberg Technology to discuss what we a16z are seeing from studying the data since 2023. So far, a rising tide has lifted all boats. But, we're starting to see ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini diverge in approach to winning the consumer. My main takeaways 👇 1. ChatGPT is still dominant - but the race for "default AI" is on. On web, ChatGPT is 2.7x larger than #2 Gemini. On mobile, 2.5x larger. But, ~20% of weekly ChatGPT users are now also using Gemini in the same week - and Claude is growing quickly with developer and prosumer use cases. 2. AI is going global - but not where you'd expect. We built a per-capita adoption index by country - Singapore ranks #1, followed by Hong Kong, the UAE, South Korea. The U.S. is down at #20 - with both a smaller % of white collar workers for whom AI is valuable, and more cultural pushback. 3. The creative tool category has completely transformed. In our first edition, 7 of 9 creative tools were image generators. Today only 3 remain - video, music, and voice have taken their slots. OpenAI and Google focusing on native image gen means you need to be specialized to standalone. 4. Agents are here. Manus and Genspark both made the web ranks - and if our data was for February (not January), OpenClaw would have debuted at #30! But, it has still not escaped containment to the mainstream consumer - expect more packaging around agents for specific use cases. 5. AI is leaving the browser. Between Cursor, Claude Code + Cowork, Granola, Wispr, and others, users are increasingly interacting with AI via desktop apps. We will have to evolve our methodology as AI becomes more ambient - and can't be measured by a website hit or app download. 6. AI-enhanced (not AI-native) players are waking up. For the first time, we included six legacy products that are now meaningfully AI enabled. Only 3 made the top 15 on web - including Notion, which reports 50% of ARR from AI. The others? Canva, Freepik, Grammarly, Capcut, and Picsart. Thanks to Caroline Hyde and Ed Ludlow for having me on - can't wait to see what the report looks like in another 6 months!
3:42

Where are we in the consumer AI cycle? I went on Bloomberg Technology to discuss what we a16z are seeing from studying the data since 2023. So far, a rising tide has lifted all boats. But, we're starting to see ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini diverge in approach to winning the consumer. My main takeaways 👇 1. ChatGPT is still dominant - but the race for "default AI" is on. On web, ChatGPT is 2.7x larger than #2 Gemini. On mobile, 2.5x larger. But, ~20% of weekly ChatGPT users are now also using Gemini in the same week - and Claude is growing quickly with developer and prosumer use cases. 2. AI is going global - but not where you'd expect. We built a per-capita adoption index by country - Singapore ranks #1, followed by Hong Kong, the UAE, South Korea. The U.S. is down at #20 - with both a smaller % of white collar workers for whom AI is valuable, and more cultural pushback. 3. The creative tool category has completely transformed. In our first edition, 7 of 9 creative tools were image generators. Today only 3 remain - video, music, and voice have taken their slots. OpenAI and Google focusing on native image gen means you need to be specialized to standalone. 4. Agents are here. Manus and Genspark both made the web ranks - and if our data was for February (not January), OpenClaw would have debuted at #30! But, it has still not escaped containment to the mainstream consumer - expect more packaging around agents for specific use cases. 5. AI is leaving the browser. Between Cursor, Claude Code + Cowork, Granola, Wispr, and others, users are increasingly interacting with AI via desktop apps. We will have to evolve our methodology as AI becomes more ambient - and can't be measured by a website hit or app download. 6. AI-enhanced (not AI-native) players are waking up. For the first time, we included six legacy products that are now meaningfully AI enabled. Only 3 made the top 15 on web - including Notion, which reports 50% of ARR from AI. The others? Canva, Freepik, Grammarly, Capcut, and Picsart. Thanks to Caroline Hyde and Ed Ludlow for having me on - can't wait to see what the report looks like in another 6 months!

Olivia Moore

10,964 views • 6 months ago

In the 1920s, a Stanford psychologist tracked genius children for 50 years. Malcolm Gladwell breaks down what he discovered: Rich families → successful. Poor families → failures. Not average. Failures. Genius-level IQs that produced nothing. He spent 60 minutes at Microsoft explaining why we're wrong about success: The psychologist was named Terman. He gave IQ tests to 250,000 California schoolchildren. He identified the top 0.1%. Kids with IQs of 140 and above. His hypothesis: these children would become the leaders of academia, industry, and politics. He tracked them. And tracked them. For decades. The results split into three groups. The top 15% achieved real prominence. The middle group had average, moderately successful professional lives. And the bottom group? By any measure, failures. The difference wasn't personality. Wasn't habits. Wasn't work ethic. It was simple: the successful geniuses came from wealthy households. The failures came from poor families. Poverty is such a powerful constraint that it can reduce a one-in-a-billion brain to a lifetime of worse than mediocrity. There's a concept called "capitalization rate." It asks a simple question: what percentage of people who are capable of doing something actually end up doing that thing? In inner city Memphis, only 1 in 6 kids with athletic scholarships actually go to college. If our capitalization rate for sports in the inner city is 16%, imagine how low it must be for everything else. Here's something stranger. Gladwell read the birth dates of the 2007 Czech Junior Hockey Team: January 3rd. January 3rd. January 12th. February 8th. February 10th. February 17th. February 20th. February 24th. March 5th. March 10th. March 26th... 11 of the 20 players were born in January, February, or March. This isn't unique to the Czechs. Every elite hockey team in the world shows the same pattern. Every elite soccer team too. Why? The eligibility cutoff for youth leagues is January 1st. When you're 10 years old, a kid born in January has 10 months of maturity on a kid born in October. That's 3 or 4 inches of height. The difference between clumsy and coordinated. So we look at a group of 10 year olds, pick the "best" ones, give them special coaching, extra practice, more games. We think we're identifying talent. We're just identifying the oldest. Then we give the oldest more opportunities, and 10 years later they really are the best. Self-fulfilling prophecy. The capitalization rate for hockey talent born in the second half of the year? Close to zero. We're leaving half of all potential hockey players on the table because of an arbitrary date on a calendar. Kids born in the youngest cohort of their school class are 11% less likely to go to college. 11% of human potential squandered because we organize elementary school without reference to biological maturity. Now here's the part about math. Asian kids dramatically outperform Western kids in mathematics. The gap is enormous and consistent across decades of testing. Some people say it's genetic. It's not. It's attitudinal. When Asian kids face a math problem, they believe effort will solve it. When Western kids face a math problem, they believe the answer depends on innate ability they either have or don't. Here's the proof. The international math tests include a 120-question survey. It asks about study habits, parental support, attitudes. It's so long most kids don't finish it. A researcher named Erling Boe decided to rank countries by what percentage of survey questions their kids completed. Then he compared it to the ranking of countries by math performance. The correlation was 0.98. In the history of social science, there has never been a correlation that high. If you want to know how good a country is at math, you don't need to ask any math questions. Just make kids sit down and focus on a task for an extended period of time. If they can do it, they're good at math. Why do Asian cultures have this attitude? Gladwell's theory: rice farming. His European ancestors in medieval England worked about 1,000 hours a year. Dawn to noon, five days a week. Winters off. Lots of holidays. A peasant in South China or Japan in the same period worked 3,000 hours a year. Rice farming isn't just harder than wheat farming. It's a completely different relationship with work. There's a Chinese proverb: "A man who works dawn to dusk 360 days a year will not go hungry." His English ancestors would have said: "A man who works 175 days a year, dawn to 11, may or may not be hungry." If your culture does that for a thousand years, it becomes part of your makeup. When your kids sit down to face a calculus problem, that legacy of persistence translates perfectly. Now consider distance running. In Kenya, there are roughly a million schoolboys between 10 and 17 running 10 to 12 miles a day. In the United States, that number is probably 5,000. Our capitalization rate for distance running is less than 1%. Kenya's is probably 95%. The difference isn't genetic. The difference is what the culture values and where it spends its attention. Here's the most fascinating finding. 30% of American entrepreneurs have been diagnosed with a profound learning disability. Richard Branson is dyslexic. Charles Schwab is dyslexic. John Chambers can barely read his own email. This isn't coincidence. Their entrepreneurialism is a direct function of their disability. How do you succeed if you can't read or write from early childhood? You learn to delegate. You become a great oral communicator. You become a problem solver because your entire life is one big problem. You learn to lead. 80% of dyslexic entrepreneurs were captain of a high school sports team. Versus 30% of non-dyslexic entrepreneurs. By the time they enter the real world, they've spent their whole life practicing the four skills at the core of entrepreneurial success: delegation, oral communication, problem solving, and leadership. Ask them what role dyslexia played in their success and they don't say it was an obstacle. They say it's the reason they succeeded. A disadvantage that became an advantage. Here's what Gladwell wants you to understand: When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability. We forget how much poverty, stupidity, and attitude constrain what people can become. We refuse to admit that our own arbitrary rules are leaving talent on the table. We cling to naive beliefs that our meritocracies are fair. The capitalization argument is liberating. It says you don't look at a struggling group and conclude they're incapable. It says problems that look genetic or innate are often just failures of exploitation. It says we can make a profound difference in how well people turn out. If we choose to pay attention. This 60 minute Microsoft talk will teach you more about success than every self-help book you've ever read combined. Bookmark this & give it an hour today, no matter what.
1:14:47

In the 1920s, a Stanford psychologist tracked genius children for 50 years. Malcolm Gladwell breaks down what he discovered: Rich families → successful. Poor families → failures. Not average. Failures. Genius-level IQs that produced nothing. He spent 60 minutes at Microsoft explaining why we're wrong about success: The psychologist was named Terman. He gave IQ tests to 250,000 California schoolchildren. He identified the top 0.1%. Kids with IQs of 140 and above. His hypothesis: these children would become the leaders of academia, industry, and politics. He tracked them. And tracked them. For decades. The results split into three groups. The top 15% achieved real prominence. The middle group had average, moderately successful professional lives. And the bottom group? By any measure, failures. The difference wasn't personality. Wasn't habits. Wasn't work ethic. It was simple: the successful geniuses came from wealthy households. The failures came from poor families. Poverty is such a powerful constraint that it can reduce a one-in-a-billion brain to a lifetime of worse than mediocrity. There's a concept called "capitalization rate." It asks a simple question: what percentage of people who are capable of doing something actually end up doing that thing? In inner city Memphis, only 1 in 6 kids with athletic scholarships actually go to college. If our capitalization rate for sports in the inner city is 16%, imagine how low it must be for everything else. Here's something stranger. Gladwell read the birth dates of the 2007 Czech Junior Hockey Team: January 3rd. January 3rd. January 12th. February 8th. February 10th. February 17th. February 20th. February 24th. March 5th. March 10th. March 26th... 11 of the 20 players were born in January, February, or March. This isn't unique to the Czechs. Every elite hockey team in the world shows the same pattern. Every elite soccer team too. Why? The eligibility cutoff for youth leagues is January 1st. When you're 10 years old, a kid born in January has 10 months of maturity on a kid born in October. That's 3 or 4 inches of height. The difference between clumsy and coordinated. So we look at a group of 10 year olds, pick the "best" ones, give them special coaching, extra practice, more games. We think we're identifying talent. We're just identifying the oldest. Then we give the oldest more opportunities, and 10 years later they really are the best. Self-fulfilling prophecy. The capitalization rate for hockey talent born in the second half of the year? Close to zero. We're leaving half of all potential hockey players on the table because of an arbitrary date on a calendar. Kids born in the youngest cohort of their school class are 11% less likely to go to college. 11% of human potential squandered because we organize elementary school without reference to biological maturity. Now here's the part about math. Asian kids dramatically outperform Western kids in mathematics. The gap is enormous and consistent across decades of testing. Some people say it's genetic. It's not. It's attitudinal. When Asian kids face a math problem, they believe effort will solve it. When Western kids face a math problem, they believe the answer depends on innate ability they either have or don't. Here's the proof. The international math tests include a 120-question survey. It asks about study habits, parental support, attitudes. It's so long most kids don't finish it. A researcher named Erling Boe decided to rank countries by what percentage of survey questions their kids completed. Then he compared it to the ranking of countries by math performance. The correlation was 0.98. In the history of social science, there has never been a correlation that high. If you want to know how good a country is at math, you don't need to ask any math questions. Just make kids sit down and focus on a task for an extended period of time. If they can do it, they're good at math. Why do Asian cultures have this attitude? Gladwell's theory: rice farming. His European ancestors in medieval England worked about 1,000 hours a year. Dawn to noon, five days a week. Winters off. Lots of holidays. A peasant in South China or Japan in the same period worked 3,000 hours a year. Rice farming isn't just harder than wheat farming. It's a completely different relationship with work. There's a Chinese proverb: "A man who works dawn to dusk 360 days a year will not go hungry." His English ancestors would have said: "A man who works 175 days a year, dawn to 11, may or may not be hungry." If your culture does that for a thousand years, it becomes part of your makeup. When your kids sit down to face a calculus problem, that legacy of persistence translates perfectly. Now consider distance running. In Kenya, there are roughly a million schoolboys between 10 and 17 running 10 to 12 miles a day. In the United States, that number is probably 5,000. Our capitalization rate for distance running is less than 1%. Kenya's is probably 95%. The difference isn't genetic. The difference is what the culture values and where it spends its attention. Here's the most fascinating finding. 30% of American entrepreneurs have been diagnosed with a profound learning disability. Richard Branson is dyslexic. Charles Schwab is dyslexic. John Chambers can barely read his own email. This isn't coincidence. Their entrepreneurialism is a direct function of their disability. How do you succeed if you can't read or write from early childhood? You learn to delegate. You become a great oral communicator. You become a problem solver because your entire life is one big problem. You learn to lead. 80% of dyslexic entrepreneurs were captain of a high school sports team. Versus 30% of non-dyslexic entrepreneurs. By the time they enter the real world, they've spent their whole life practicing the four skills at the core of entrepreneurial success: delegation, oral communication, problem solving, and leadership. Ask them what role dyslexia played in their success and they don't say it was an obstacle. They say it's the reason they succeeded. A disadvantage that became an advantage. Here's what Gladwell wants you to understand: When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability. We forget how much poverty, stupidity, and attitude constrain what people can become. We refuse to admit that our own arbitrary rules are leaving talent on the table. We cling to naive beliefs that our meritocracies are fair. The capitalization argument is liberating. It says you don't look at a struggling group and conclude they're incapable. It says problems that look genetic or innate are often just failures of exploitation. It says we can make a profound difference in how well people turn out. If we choose to pay attention. This 60 minute Microsoft talk will teach you more about success than every self-help book you've ever read combined. Bookmark this & give it an hour today, no matter what.

Jaynit

1,589,189 views • 5 months ago