TF
TruthOrFake

Fact Check: How nuts is Mark Carney? Perhaps nuttier than you think. Have a read of this piece in the Financial Post, by Matthew Lau. "Having left his gig as UN Special Envoy for Climate and Finance to lead the federal Liberal government, Mark Carney is now in a position to focus his and Greta Thunberg’s global climate crusade squarely on Canada. The crusade, Carney boasted back in 2021 while in his previous role, is worth many trillions of dollars. As he told CBC News at that year’s UN climate conference, “We have banks, asset managers, pension funds, insurance companies from around the world — more than 45 countries — and their total resources, totalling US$130 trillion” dedicated to transitioning the world’s economy away from fossil fuels. That dollar figure is higher than global GDP. Last month, Carney laid out Canada’s required contribution to his climate ambitions: “Canada must invest $2 trillion by 2050 — about $80 billion per year — to become carbon competitive and achieve Net Zero. However, investments in decarbonisation currently run between $10–20 billion annually.” The implication is that another $60-70 billion a year will need to be wrung out of Canadian businesses and consumers, either through direct taxation and government spending or with regulatory browbeating to push Canadians’ savings and investments into global warming initiatives. Carney has made no effort to hide his agenda to browbeat businesses into joining his and Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade. In a 2021 interview he declared, “We need a sustainable economy, and is your business aligned with that? Are your hiring practices consistent with that? Are you developing people in a way that’s consistent with that? Ultimately, what’s being asked of businesses when it comes to climate is, do you have a plan for net-zero? Canada has a legislated objective for net zero alongside another 130 countries.” “A Swedish teenager,” Carney continued, referring to Thunberg, “can figure out the carbon budget and that we have less than 10 years and you have to get to net-zero to stabilize it and if you’re a company and you have purpose, well, what’s your plan? And all these plans need to come together.” This is utter insanity: under Justin Trudeau Canada suffered rapidly declining business investment and now his successor wants the country’s business leaders to take financial planning directives from Greta Thunberg. While the federal government barrels down the road to net-zero impoverishment for Canada, everyone else is looking for the exit ramp. In January, six of the largest U.S. banks — JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — quit the Carney-led net-zero banking alliance. Canada’s Big Six Banks — RBC, TD Bank, BMO, Scotiabank, CIBC and National Bank — have quit the initiative as well. Even Europe is beginning to back off on government piling climate obligations onto businesses in the name of fighting global warming. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the EU is watering down its climate accounting policies “amid pushback from member states and companies within the bloc over the new rules, which they say would have increased costs and reduced the competitiveness of their business.” Specifically, regulations previously scheduled for this year would have forced companies “to report in detail on their environmental, social and corporate-governance performance while making significant cuts to the emissions from within their supply chain.” The EU is now dropping, weakening or postponing many of these climate regulations, so that businesses will be able to better “grow, innovate, and create quality jobs.” This is effectively an admission that piling climate obligations and environmental reporting mandates onto businesses prevents them from growing, innovating and creating good jobs. Unfortunately, Mark Carney is all about climate obligations and reporting mandates. The road Canada is currently marching down for climate-related financial disclosures is based on a framework proposed by a task force Carney initiated in 2015. His aforementioned Thunberg-praising interview was not with an environmental journalist, but with Pivot Magazine, which is published by CPA Canada, the accounting industry’s national association. “We cannot get to net-zero without proper climate reporting,” he insisted, speaking of the need for “one core global standard” for climate accounting and reporting. A global climate reporting standard to help push trillions of dollars — yes, trillions with a “T” — from Canadian workers and taxpayers into Mark Carney and Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade? After a decade of Justin Trudeau’s ruinous policies weakening Canada from coast to coast, there could be little worse for the country and its economy than a Liberal government led by Mark Carney." The Financial Post Cape Breton Politics Jason Boudreau · 1h · Big numbers in unions. 😁😁

Published March 25, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Claim Analysis: Mark Carney's Climate Agenda and Its Implications ## 1. Introduction The claim under scrutiny discusses Mark Carney's role as a pro...

Claim Analysis: Mark Carney's Climate Agenda and Its Implications

1. Introduction

The claim under scrutiny discusses Mark Carney's role as a proponent of climate finance and his recent statements regarding Canada's financial commitments to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The assertion raises concerns about the economic implications of Carney's agenda, suggesting that it may lead to increased financial burdens on Canadian businesses and consumers. The claim also references Carney's past statements about the global financial commitment of $130 trillion towards climate initiatives and critiques his alignment with climate activist Greta Thunberg.

2. What We Know

Mark Carney, a prominent figure in global finance, served as the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, where he advocated for significant financial commitments to combat climate change. At the COP26 climate conference, he announced that over 450 financial institutions from more than 45 countries had pledged a total of $130 trillion to transition the global economy away from fossil fuels 39.

In a 2021 interview, Carney emphasized the need for Canada to invest approximately $2 trillion by 2050 to achieve net-zero emissions, highlighting that current investments in decarbonization range between $10 to $20 billion annually, indicating a potential shortfall of $60 to $70 billion each year 68.

The claim also mentions that several major U.S. banks and Canada's Big Six Banks have withdrawn from the net-zero banking alliance, which Carney led, suggesting a shift in the financial sector's commitment to climate initiatives 68. Furthermore, it notes that the European Union is reconsidering its climate regulations due to pushback from member states and businesses, which the claim interprets as a sign of growing skepticism towards stringent climate obligations 6.

3. Analysis

Source Evaluation

  1. Financial Post: The original claim comes from an opinion piece in the Financial Post, which is known for its conservative editorial stance. While it provides a platform for diverse opinions, its potential bias should be considered when interpreting the claims made about Carney's agenda 6.

  2. Washington Post and New York Times: These sources report on the $130 trillion commitment and provide context about the challenges and criticisms associated with such pledges. They are generally considered reliable and well-researched, although they may have their own biases depending on the topic 35.

  3. CBC News: This source provides a balanced view of Carney's initiatives and the financial commitments made by institutions. CBC is a public broadcaster in Canada and is typically regarded as a credible source, although it may also reflect Canadian governmental perspectives 8.

  4. UN News: This source outlines Carney's role and the commitments made at COP26, providing an official perspective on climate finance. However, as a UN-affiliated outlet, it may emphasize positive aspects of climate initiatives while downplaying criticisms 7.

Methodological Concerns

The claim suggests that Carney's agenda will lead to significant financial burdens on Canadians. However, it lacks specific details on how these investments would be implemented and the mechanisms through which the additional funding would be sourced. The assertion that businesses will be "browbeaten" into compliance is also an opinion rather than a substantiated fact.

The withdrawal of major banks from the net-zero alliance is presented as evidence of a broader retreat from climate commitments. However, the reasons for these withdrawals are complex and may involve various factors, including economic considerations and differing priorities among financial institutions.

Conflicting Perspectives

While the claim emphasizes the potential negative economic impacts of Carney's climate agenda, other sources highlight the necessity of transitioning to a sustainable economy to mitigate the long-term risks associated with climate change. For instance, proponents argue that investing in green technologies can lead to job creation and economic growth in the long run 59.

4. Conclusion

Verdict: Partially True

The claim regarding Mark Carney's climate agenda contains elements that are substantiated by evidence, particularly his advocacy for significant financial commitments to combat climate change and the projected investment needs for Canada to achieve net-zero emissions. However, the assertion that these commitments will unequivocally lead to increased financial burdens on Canadians lacks comprehensive evidence and relies on subjective interpretations of the potential economic impacts.

While it is true that some financial institutions have withdrawn from the net-zero banking alliance, the motivations behind these decisions are multifaceted and not solely indicative of a retreat from climate commitments. The complexities surrounding climate finance and the varying perspectives on its economic implications necessitate a nuanced understanding of the situation.

It is important to acknowledge that the evidence available is limited and often subject to interpretation. The potential benefits of transitioning to a sustainable economy, such as job creation and long-term economic growth, are not fully captured in the claim. Therefore, readers should approach this topic with a critical mindset and consider the broader context when evaluating the implications of Carney's climate agenda.

As always, it is advisable for readers to critically evaluate information themselves and seek out diverse perspectives to form a well-rounded understanding of the issues at hand.

5. Sources

  1. Mark Carney UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory https://lamont.columbia.edu/events/mark-carney-un-special-envoy-climate-action-and-finance
  2. Mark Carney UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance | Columbia University in the City of New York https://www.columbia.edu/content/events/mark-carney-un-special-envoy-climate-action-and-finance
  3. Financial firms announce $130 trillion in commitments for climate transition, but practical questions loom - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/11/03/climate-glasgow-bloomberg-carney/
  4. Mark Carney - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney
  5. Global finance industry says it has $130 trillion to invest in efforts to tackle climate change. (Published 2021) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/world/europe/cop26-climate-change-finance-industry.html
  6. Mark Carney is as climate crazy as Steven Guilbeault | Financial Post https://financialpost.com/opinion/mark-carney-climate-crazy-steven-guilbeault
  7. COP26: ‘Not blah blah blah’, UN Special Envoy Carney presents watershed private sector commitment for climate finance | UN News https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1104812
  8. New net-zero alliance of banks, funds prioritizes green investment, but key emitters are absent | CBC News https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cop26-130-trillion-net-zero-gfanz-1.6235060
  9. Mark Carney Unveils $130 Trillion in Climate Finance Commitments - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-02/carney-s-climate-alliance-crests-130-trillion-as-pledges-soar
  10. Episode 269: A Report from COP26 with Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance https://www.ice.com/insights/conversations/inside-the-ice-house/a-report-from-cop26-with-mark-carney-un-special-envoy-on-climate-action-and-finance

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: It's actually on TikTok. Welcome to the cookout. You see, our people are now claiming our indigenous status. Look at our brother here. Tax exemption ID. Government ID of the Chihamaru Republic. This is really happening. We got another beloved sister here who received her tribal screening back. Positive Indigenous to the Americans. And even myself, I was able to get my screening done. Positive to the Americans. Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to know how I did this, all I need you to do is share this video, repost it, like, and comment. That's all I need from you, okay? And I'll show you guys how to correct your status back to Indigenous American. I love you. This is what I got on my momma. Let's do it. All right, so we corrected your status. We're not talking about the usual runaround you get where you're paying people and they're sending you templates and you gotta mail all of it, no. All right? What we're doing is we're taking a tribal screening through the Aboriginal Ministry of Justice. These are the requirements you will need to pass that tribal screening. You must currently domicile within the United States, born within America, North, Central, or South, parents or grandparents born within America, directly or indirectly experienced genocide, which for us, slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights, directly or indirectly experienced denationalization. Now, this right here is when they strip you of your nation, if you're black, Negro, Cherokee, mulatto, all type of different names, okay? So the cost of this is $75 for adults, $50 for kids.
Partially True

Fact Check: It's actually on TikTok. Welcome to the cookout. You see, our people are now claiming our indigenous status. Look at our brother here. Tax exemption ID. Government ID of the Chihamaru Republic. This is really happening. We got another beloved sister here who received her tribal screening back. Positive Indigenous to the Americans. And even myself, I was able to get my screening done. Positive to the Americans. Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to know how I did this, all I need you to do is share this video, repost it, like, and comment. That's all I need from you, okay? And I'll show you guys how to correct your status back to Indigenous American. I love you. This is what I got on my momma. Let's do it. All right, so we corrected your status. We're not talking about the usual runaround you get where you're paying people and they're sending you templates and you gotta mail all of it, no. All right? What we're doing is we're taking a tribal screening through the Aboriginal Ministry of Justice. These are the requirements you will need to pass that tribal screening. You must currently domicile within the United States, born within America, North, Central, or South, parents or grandparents born within America, directly or indirectly experienced genocide, which for us, slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights, directly or indirectly experienced denationalization. Now, this right here is when they strip you of your nation, if you're black, Negro, Cherokee, mulatto, all type of different names, okay? So the cost of this is $75 for adults, $50 for kids.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: It's actually on TikTok. Welcome to the cookout. You see, our people are now claiming our indigenous status. Look at our brother here. Tax exemption ID. Government ID of the Chihamaru Republic. This is really happening. We got another beloved sister here who received her tribal screening back. Positive Indigenous to the Americans. And even myself, I was able to get my screening done. Positive to the Americans. Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to know how I did this, all I need you to do is share this video, repost it, like, and comment. That's all I need from you, okay? And I'll show you guys how to correct your status back to Indigenous American. I love you. This is what I got on my momma. Let's do it. All right, so we corrected your status. We're not talking about the usual runaround you get where you're paying people and they're sending you templates and you gotta mail all of it, no. All right? What we're doing is we're taking a tribal screening through the Aboriginal Ministry of Justice. These are the requirements you will need to pass that tribal screening. You must currently domicile within the United States, born within America, North, Central, or South, parents or grandparents born within America, directly or indirectly experienced genocide, which for us, slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights, directly or indirectly experienced denationalization. Now, this right here is when they strip you of your nation, if you're black, Negro, Cherokee, mulatto, all type of different names, okay? So the cost of this is $75 for adults, $50 for kids.

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
🔍
False

Fact Check: Some insane breaking news coming out of the White House as we are now learning that President Joe Biden 73 days between his transition of him leaving office and President Donald Trump becoming president there was a discrepancy in which they actually gave out over $73 billion dollars in loans to small and medium businesses. However, they can't find the list of who they gave the money to. They are now doing congressional hearings on what happened to the money whether or not the money was actually ever given to any 00:32 small or medium businesses. Of course, Joe Biden had no comment as he doesn't recall any of those situations going at the time and now is admitted that his staff was using an auto pen in order for them to sign whatever they need from him in order to move forward and that these loans were likely a part of that auto pen

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Some insane breaking news coming out of the White House as we are now learning that President Joe Biden 73 days between his transition of him leaving office and President Donald Trump becoming president there was a discrepancy in which they actually gave out over $73 billion dollars in loans to small and medium businesses. However, they can't find the list of who they gave the money to. They are now doing congressional hearings on what happened to the money whether or not the money was actually ever given to any 00:32 small or medium businesses. Of course, Joe Biden had no comment as he doesn't recall any of those situations going at the time and now is admitted that his staff was using an auto pen in order for them to sign whatever they need from him in order to move forward and that these loans were likely a part of that auto pen

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.
Partially True

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.

Aug 4, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks