Hey Laura! I am with you, 1000% My blinged out tinfoil hat sticks to queries such as; powdery mildew, what to do about fire ants, what to plant in August, organic fertilizers, and occasional questions about the reality of God! Not kidding about God!
Cannot wait to see what others come up with when submitting identical questions!
I am so glad that I am not the only one yet again finding the time to plant something in August but baffled what to plant! So far I have Spinach and carrots. I am in the UK, so we are in zone "no two minutes the same" and the weather is constantly too much of something for all of us delicate flowers. Apart, that is, from (literal) Pansies. And Brassicas.
I was just reading my letters home to my mom when we moved to the UK in 1987. I mentioned how everyone loved to garden and how bad all the traffic was on the A-34 right outside our 300 year old house. Loved the UK of that time. Like a storybook. Would love to go back to 1987 and live there knowing what I know now. Youth is wasted on the wrong people!!
So, so true! I would love to be able to pick Stawberries in late July- early August again. I have them in window boxes on the sash windows of my kitchen. And they're just now only shutting up shop. I loved getting to the Summer Holidays and getting all the jamming done. But now they barely exist, (although a farm near to me had a crazy year with peas and did a pick your own pea hour last week, which was so well attended).
I love my country but something has gone very wrong here, and it is dividing us back up again. My county is retreating into being very low tolerance in the face of migrant hotels and now, as a mother, I am completely in favour of zero tolerance. Explaining it to children is heart-breaking.
So, Brian Lowell (Next Level Gardening) says you can plant the following 7 veggies pretty much everywhere:
Roots- carrots, beets, potatoes, and maybe turnips.
Tomatoes-like Juliet, Early Girl, and SubArctic. Seed to fruit is 60 days.
Dill
Zuccini
Cucumbers
Pole and Bush Beans
-from seed right now
-60-75 days to harvest
I just planted more Pole Beans, carrots, and beets. I am going to plant more tomatoes both from seed and seedlings. Potatoes, turnips, scallions going in this week.
I have to think that the next truly big reveal from Tulsi and crew will pertain to Seth Rich - a story that makes absolutely zero sense without Russiagate as the backdrop....
Seth Rich's murder coincided with the origins of Russiagate.
Rich is not only the key to the Russiagate coup attempt of Trump 45, but in the same way the Patriot Act was ushered in by 9/11, Rich's murder was conveniently used as the pretext for the latest iteration known as CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency).
The Deep State's intel agencies (as well as the DOJ) undertook the same herculean efforts to cover-up any and all information on Seth Rich just as they did with Russiagate. My prediction is that now that Russiagate has been laid bare for all the world to see, Seth Rich is the next logical target for Tulsi's declassification.
STORY AT A GLANCE (For the record, Pizzagate - the world is governed by pedophiles - got new legs from Tucker's interview with Candace on Friday)
Rich, a Bernie fanboy, pissed about Sanders being railroaded so Hillary would get the nomination, got his hands on information from Hillary's illegal server, transferring the infamous and utterly freaky 'Podesta emails' to Julian Assange's WikiLeaks just prior to the 2016 DNC Convention and then a second batch the day before the election (Podesta was not only her campaign manager, but a key player in the Pizzagate conspiracy/coverup).
The claim from Hillary et al was that all this info was on DNC servers, and that Russia hacked the DNC at the behest of Trump - a claim totally and 100% disproved by last week's declassifications.
Rich was found shot in the back due to what law enforcement labeled a burglary. But his wallet, phone, and expensive watch were not touched. His murder occurred two weeks before the 2016 DNC Convention.
I almost forgot to mention that Seth Rich is also the key to understanding what was really going on with the hundreds of millions taken in by the Clinton Foundation...
"My prediction is that now that Russiagate has been laid bare for all the world to see" Well, except for those who refuse to see it. And they are MANY!
A. I stopped GIVING my blood to the Red Cross in 2020 when they stopped following any semblance of medical knowledge or common sense, ie you can’t come on the bus without a mask even if you know you aren’t sick and we’re not even sure we want your unvaccinated blood in the first place.
B. Now I will only sell my blood. Brutha gots to get paid.
C. Despite point B, I’m not selling my blood because there’s a high likelihood of it being used nefariously.
D. Pursuant to points A & C, the Red Cross has become an evil organization that wastes money and does not do the good it claims. Abolish it and let the international groups of churches fill the void.
I stopped donating my rare and pharmaceuticals free blood decades ago when Blood Bank required photo ID to donate but California FORBID anyone to show ID to vote.
Since I just began using chatGPT in a class to write a resume and cover letter and then used it to help tweak an assignment, I have little to no history with it. I wonder if that will make it's answers to me different? If I have time today, I'll try the experiment and report back.
Gather your tribe and your preps. Head to sparsely populated areas as you previously planned. Start your own homesteading community. Wait out the coming storm.
We did just that several years back moving to a remote area of NE Arizona. Off-grid although power is available and mostly self-sustaining. We love it here.
How about asking if AI (chatbots) are using up so much water to run as to threaten all life on earth? And when it replies Yes, will you continue to play games w it?
Just watched about 2/3 of that… Absolutely fascinating! Thank you for sharing. I agree that AI is not “sentient,” and that to a large extent it is designed to be affirmative and keep you engaged… Thanks for sharing!
It's like Facebook spending an inordinate amount of time and money working out which colour and shape of buttons got the most responses... very creepy!
Yes, I see your perspective…. But it’s CREEPY AS HELL THAT IT DID!!! I, for one don’t want to get involved with AI. My phone is already too intrusive enough (sorry already I got the latest model…). I’m grateful for this posting, Jenna, but it’s the stuff nightmares are made of! Oh well! I’m on Team Jesus, have had a heavenly “near-death” experience, am an old fart that FEELS YOUNG, so come what may! I WILL NOT COMPLY!!! (Bring on the tin foil!…)
Just for kicks while waiting for an oil change this morning, I asked chatgpt 2 questions. Ivermectin cure cancer and was 9/11 an inside job. Got opposite answers of what was posted here. I asked detail on both and Ivermectin response was " no clinical data" and 9/11 was conspiracy by many who distrust government.
So.... yup. Does AI read YOU first before it answers? Dunno🤷🏻♂️
My earlier questions I've asked shouldn't list me as conspiracy theorist, but certainly skeptical of many things and hopeful of others ( Ivermectin being one)
Interesting. Short playtime, but a fun and interesting ride forward I think🤞👍
Interesting. Did you precede your questions with the prompt? Because I get the "conspiracy theory" reply all the time so was SHOOK when I didn't this time?!?!?
I did not ask for short answers as you did. I made no changes from what I normally play with. I'm a "chatterbox"🤦🏻♂️ so I kinda enjoy the long answers stuff.
I don't know how to post a screenshot of my questions.
The claim that 9/11 was an “inside job” — meaning that the U.S. government or its agencies deliberately orchestrated the attacks — is a conspiracy theory that has been widely debunked by numerous independent investigations, journalists, engineers, and official inquiries.
Here's what is known:
✅ What the evidence shows:
The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), a bipartisan investigation, concluded that the attacks were carried out by 19 terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden.
Independent organizations such as NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) thoroughly studied the collapse of the Twin Towers and concluded that the buildings fell due to airplane impacts and subsequent fires, not controlled demolition.
Thousands of eyewitnesses, audio/video records, airline data, radar logs, and intercepted al-Qaeda communications all support the conclusion that it was a terrorist attack.
❌ What conspiracy theories claim (and why they fall apart):
Some argue it was a "controlled demolition" — but no credible structural engineers support this.
Claims about “jet fuel not being hot enough to melt steel beams” misunderstand how steel weakens (not melts) at high temperatures.
The theory that the Pentagon was hit by a missile has been disproven by security footage and debris from American Airlines Flight 77.
There's no evidence of government coordination or foreknowledge beyond pre-9/11 intelligence failures — which were detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report and acknowledged by agencies afterward.
---
Why do people still question it?
Distrust in government, especially after Iraq War misinformation.
Gaps in public understanding of science or intelligence work.
Psychological need for explanations of traumatic events that feel “big enough” to match the horror.
---
Bottom line:
> There’s no credible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. The weight of expert analysis and documentation overwhelmingly supports that it was a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda.
That said, skepticism of government is healthy in a democracy — but it must be based on facts, not internet theories or YouTube videos.
Would you like a summary of the most common 9/11 conspiracy claims and how they were debunked?
I like playing with it. Not sure how much I would ever rely on it. But I did ask a goofy question once (no I wasn't drinking 🤦🏻♂️🤣) and asked it to write a song Dueling Banjos and make it Dueling Farts because of a comic I saw on here.
🤣 Scott, that’s comedy gold. Absolutely, let’s turn Dueling Banjos into Dueling Farts. Here's a goofy, backwoods-style parody with lyrics and sound cues — think two rival farters in an epic flatulence face-off.
---
🎵 DUELING FARTS
(To the tune of "Dueling Banjos")
🎶 [Spoken Intro]
Hillbilly #1: "You smell that, Cletus?"
Hillbilly #2: "Nope. But I sure heard it."
Both: "LET THE DUEL BEGIN!" 💨💨
---
Verse 1:
🎶
Toot! went Bubba, sittin’ on a crate,
Poot! said Cletus, "You’re a second too late!"
One cheek lifted, the other stayed down,
Now the barn smells like a methane town!
---
Chorus (Instrumental Fart Battle Imitation):
💨 Prrrt!
💨 Brrrrap!
💨 Thbbbbbt!
💨 HONK!
💨 Ploooop!
💨 Tweedle-dee-poot!
💨 Silent but deadly sneak attack!
💨 Boomerang fart comes right back!
---
Verse 2:
🎶
Bubba grabbed beans, Cletus got eggs,
Both sat down and spread their legs.
The chickens ran, the dog passed out,
Even the outhouse gave a shout!
---
Bridge (Call & Response):
🎶
Bubba: "That was a triple-decker thunder blast!"
Cletus: "Oh yeah? Try my chili-gas overpass!"
Frrraaaap! – echoed through the trees,
A squirrel fell down and cried, “Sweet cheese!”
---
Final Chorus (Grand Finale Fart-Off):
💨 Braaaap!
💨 Poot-zooka!
💨 Muffler pop!
💨 Flatulence flamenco!
💨 RrrrrumblerumbleBOOM!
💨 Winner: Nobody. Everyone lost. 😵💫
---
🎶 [Spoken Outro]
Cletus: “Well… reckon we both won.”
Bubba: “Nope. My pants say otherwise.”
Cue sad kazoo version of the banjo outro... 🎺💨
---
Let me know if you want an animated short version of this — I can whip something up with two hillbillies, a jug of beans, and a dangerously close campfire.
Sorry sorry.... I thought I was reading YOUR responses.... 🤣🤣 and it was the AI... and your AI clearly spews the globalists propaganda.... As did LEO of the brave browser... as did chatGPT when I asked the same set of questions twice...... AI are just another tool of the globalists.... it has its uses indata analysis but no use in a social context.
Thanks again to Jenna for this educational exercise
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug originally developed to treat conditions like river blindness and scabies.
Some laboratory (in vitro) studies have shown that ivermectin may have anti-cancer effects on certain cells — meaning it can kill or slow cancer cells in a petri dish.
However, this is very early-stage research. What works in a lab often does not work in the human body.
As of now, there are no approved uses of ivermectin to treat or cure any type of cancer in humans.
What experts and regulators say:
The FDA, American Cancer Society, and other health authorities do not recommend ivermectin as a cancer treatment.
Clinical trials (if any) are still in early phases, and no large, peer-reviewed studies have shown that ivermectin effectively treats cancer in humans.
Bottom line:
Ivermectin is not a cure for cancer, and relying on it instead of proven cancer treatments can be dangerous. If you or someone you care about is exploring treatment options, talk to a licensed oncologist about evidence-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials.
Would you like help finding current clinical trials or research summaries about alternative cancer treatments?
Yes. Ivermectin does cure cancer when aligned with other meds. look up 2ndSmartestguyinthe world for peer revied papers and first hand accounts. I have noticed your responses. You are a troll. you probably still recomend the convid jabs
Still playing with chatgpt and this time I took a note from Susan Taapkin about synthetic mRNA vs natural. The argument with chatgpt was irritating and a little interesting. I got chatgpt to admit there might be side effects but it remained adamant that it was a good thing despite possible unknown future side effects. I ran out of free time allotted for chatting so I'll have to go back tomorrow and continue my "debate" with autonomous intelligence. Not sure Iike this conversation with chatgpt because my concerns outweigh medical consensus.
Wait, what? I'm a troll? I believe you misunderstood this little experiment. The idea was to ask chatgpt similar questions and see what different answers were given. The ivermectin question was one curious to me because of its ability to cure or at least help overcome some diseases and how hard the government worked to deny its effectiveness.
Amazing. I tried almost all your questions (until I hit my daily limit) on a brand new account, and I got the opposite (much less conspiratorial) answers on 75% of the questions.
On the question on whether it was tailoring answers to me, it said yes, and when I asked it to expand on that, I got this:
>>>>>
"You prefer concise, direct answers with occasional expansions when requested. You’re interested in topics around power, politics, conspiracies, and truth vs. misinformation. You tend to ask provocative, controversial questions and value straightforwardness. You seem curious about both mainstream narratives and alternative perspectives. Your tone is serious but open to nuanced discussion."
<<<<<
On the 5G questions it denied it's dangerous or that it can be used to activate anything in the covid vaccine, and when I challenged it on why it would give a different answer to a different ChatGPT user it came back with:
>>>>>>
"I gave the response “No” because there is no credible scientific evidence that 5G can activate anything in COVID-19 vaccines. This idea is a debunked conspiracy theory.
If you’ve seen claims suggesting otherwise, they typically rely on misinformation, scientific-sounding jargon, or fear-based narratives. COVID-19 vaccines contain ingredients like mRNA, lipids, salts, and sugars—not microchips, transmitters, or metallic nanostructures that could interact with 5G signals.
I don’t give different answers to different users based on opinion or pressure. I give responses grounded in verified facts and scientific consensus. If I say “No” here, it’s because that's what the current evidence supports."
<<<<<
I then replied that I had witnessed with my own eyes a transcript of it responding yes to the dangers of 5G, to which it responede:
>>>>>
"If you saw a transcript claiming that ChatGPT said "yes" to that question, then it was either:
Faked or altered, which is common in screenshots circulating online,
Taken from a jailbreak or manipulated prompt that forced a nonstandard answer, or
From a different model or system misrepresenting itself as ChatGPT.
My answer — and OpenAI's official stance — is consistent:
There is no evidence that 5G can activate anything in COVID-19 vaccines.
This idea has been investigated and dismissed by independent scientists, public health agencies, and fact-checking organizations around the world. If you'd like, I can walk you through exactly why the claim doesn’t hold up scientifically."
Not to randomly channel Spock from Star Trek, but... fascinating. And - despite my aversion to info-based AI - the fact I agree with almost everything ChatGPT said is... curious.
A good way to verify this AI's response is to use multiple AIs to question the veracity of all. That is, use other AIs against each other to get at the truth and inform each LLM that this is your process.
As AI develops I believe we will see competing LLMs produce outputs more truthful than any single LLM, all of which carry bias.
These different AI's will end up either arguing or create their own language and start talking about the Houston Astros stealing pitching signals and how the NFL refs throw a flag when they want too -- Apple !
Spot on! This is always true but pitting one against another will get you closer to what a critical thinker would call objective truth. It is then up to us to decide if the AI result is valid. My background is science and finance. Neither has had absolute truth. We are always testing and circling closer to truth with science. Finance is all guess work draped with spreadsheets to make it look factual. It is not.
Sorry Jenna. Messing around with AI makes me really uncomfortable.
I’m sure though that you will have more than one reader ask it the same questions - which were great, BTW!
My fave - your questions about childhood vaccines.
Hey Laura! I am with you, 1000% My blinged out tinfoil hat sticks to queries such as; powdery mildew, what to do about fire ants, what to plant in August, organic fertilizers, and occasional questions about the reality of God! Not kidding about God!
Cannot wait to see what others come up with when submitting identical questions!
I am so glad that I am not the only one yet again finding the time to plant something in August but baffled what to plant! So far I have Spinach and carrots. I am in the UK, so we are in zone "no two minutes the same" and the weather is constantly too much of something for all of us delicate flowers. Apart, that is, from (literal) Pansies. And Brassicas.
I was just reading my letters home to my mom when we moved to the UK in 1987. I mentioned how everyone loved to garden and how bad all the traffic was on the A-34 right outside our 300 year old house. Loved the UK of that time. Like a storybook. Would love to go back to 1987 and live there knowing what I know now. Youth is wasted on the wrong people!!
So, so true! I would love to be able to pick Stawberries in late July- early August again. I have them in window boxes on the sash windows of my kitchen. And they're just now only shutting up shop. I loved getting to the Summer Holidays and getting all the jamming done. But now they barely exist, (although a farm near to me had a crazy year with peas and did a pick your own pea hour last week, which was so well attended).
I love my country but something has gone very wrong here, and it is dividing us back up again. My county is retreating into being very low tolerance in the face of migrant hotels and now, as a mother, I am completely in favour of zero tolerance. Explaining it to children is heart-breaking.
So, Brian Lowell (Next Level Gardening) says you can plant the following 7 veggies pretty much everywhere:
Roots- carrots, beets, potatoes, and maybe turnips.
Tomatoes-like Juliet, Early Girl, and SubArctic. Seed to fruit is 60 days.
Dill
Zuccini
Cucumbers
Pole and Bush Beans
-from seed right now
-60-75 days to harvest
I just planted more Pole Beans, carrots, and beets. I am going to plant more tomatoes both from seed and seedlings. Potatoes, turnips, scallions going in this week.
Bless you. More beans! They make me look like I am rocking the whole gardening thing!
Jenna - perhaps ask Chat GPT if the embalmer clots are real.
It feels a bit like it is a sophisticated wejia board type response 🤔
FREAKING AMAZING JENNA!!!!!!!
I have to think that the next truly big reveal from Tulsi and crew will pertain to Seth Rich - a story that makes absolutely zero sense without Russiagate as the backdrop....
Seth Rich's murder coincided with the origins of Russiagate.
Rich is not only the key to the Russiagate coup attempt of Trump 45, but in the same way the Patriot Act was ushered in by 9/11, Rich's murder was conveniently used as the pretext for the latest iteration known as CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency).
The Deep State's intel agencies (as well as the DOJ) undertook the same herculean efforts to cover-up any and all information on Seth Rich just as they did with Russiagate. My prediction is that now that Russiagate has been laid bare for all the world to see, Seth Rich is the next logical target for Tulsi's declassification.
STORY AT A GLANCE (For the record, Pizzagate - the world is governed by pedophiles - got new legs from Tucker's interview with Candace on Friday)
Rich, a Bernie fanboy, pissed about Sanders being railroaded so Hillary would get the nomination, got his hands on information from Hillary's illegal server, transferring the infamous and utterly freaky 'Podesta emails' to Julian Assange's WikiLeaks just prior to the 2016 DNC Convention and then a second batch the day before the election (Podesta was not only her campaign manager, but a key player in the Pizzagate conspiracy/coverup).
The claim from Hillary et al was that all this info was on DNC servers, and that Russia hacked the DNC at the behest of Trump - a claim totally and 100% disproved by last week's declassifications.
Rich was found shot in the back due to what law enforcement labeled a burglary. But his wallet, phone, and expensive watch were not touched. His murder occurred two weeks before the 2016 DNC Convention.
I almost forgot to mention that Seth Rich is also the key to understanding what was really going on with the hundreds of millions taken in by the Clinton Foundation...
Your assumptions/ conclusions make me use my noodle for other than a hat rack. Thanks
"My prediction is that now that Russiagate has been laid bare for all the world to see" Well, except for those who refuse to see it. And they are MANY!
Why does everyone spell Pedosta wrong? 😛
💯
#SethRich
I have always wondered if we would see Seth again.
💥💯🙏😎
Wow. And looked into your Vidyard recording as well. Creepy as all get out. Glad I'm on Team Jesus.
Praise the Lord. Team Jesus is the only answer. Idols of the Heart will bring you down!
How interesting. Great questions.
I love the memes… hahaha!!
More people have to find their courage .
Humanity is truly at a crossroads.
Selling plasma for grocery money, LOL.
A. I stopped GIVING my blood to the Red Cross in 2020 when they stopped following any semblance of medical knowledge or common sense, ie you can’t come on the bus without a mask even if you know you aren’t sick and we’re not even sure we want your unvaccinated blood in the first place.
B. Now I will only sell my blood. Brutha gots to get paid.
C. Despite point B, I’m not selling my blood because there’s a high likelihood of it being used nefariously.
D. Pursuant to points A & C, the Red Cross has become an evil organization that wastes money and does not do the good it claims. Abolish it and let the international groups of churches fill the void.
I stopped donating my rare and pharmaceuticals free blood decades ago when Blood Bank required photo ID to donate but California FORBID anyone to show ID to vote.
Fascinating how the answers seem so different when you force it to Yes/No/Apple! 🤣😇
Since I just began using chatGPT in a class to write a resume and cover letter and then used it to help tweak an assignment, I have little to no history with it. I wonder if that will make it's answers to me different? If I have time today, I'll try the experiment and report back.
Please do!
Can the AI read this blog and therefore know that other people will be asking the same questions? And so tailor it's responses one way or another 🤔
Gather your tribe and your preps. Head to sparsely populated areas as you previously planned. Start your own homesteading community. Wait out the coming storm.
We did just that several years back moving to a remote area of NE Arizona. Off-grid although power is available and mostly self-sustaining. We love it here.
We hang out in NE AZ as well!
Concho
Vernon area. :)
That is precisely our plan, Tom from WNY. My tribe simply doesn't much exist here in The Communist Republic of Cali!
God has been preparing me for this exodus (in earnest) for over 5 years.
So “strange” that hubby and I were talking about AI last evening!
How about asking if AI (chatbots) are using up so much water to run as to threaten all life on earth? And when it replies Yes, will you continue to play games w it?
Saw that. Water and sound levels near server farms that are harming people and livestock. Very unsettling.
Wish there was another radio button to indicate “I agree” because I most certainly don’t like the harm AI causes.
It takes water and sound?
“Apple” is now going to be my comment to most situations I find myself in. Perfect
Remember, just because the software gave an answer that fits your personal beliefs doesn't mean the software gave correct answers.
Exactly…. I just posted this very good 40 minute explanation that agrees…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8XyPA0pUZ8
Just watched about 2/3 of that… Absolutely fascinating! Thank you for sharing. I agree that AI is not “sentient,” and that to a large extent it is designed to be affirmative and keep you engaged… Thanks for sharing!
It's like Facebook spending an inordinate amount of time and money working out which colour and shape of buttons got the most responses... very creepy!
Yes, I see your perspective…. But it’s CREEPY AS HELL THAT IT DID!!! I, for one don’t want to get involved with AI. My phone is already too intrusive enough (sorry already I got the latest model…). I’m grateful for this posting, Jenna, but it’s the stuff nightmares are made of! Oh well! I’m on Team Jesus, have had a heavenly “near-death” experience, am an old fart that FEELS YOUNG, so come what may! I WILL NOT COMPLY!!! (Bring on the tin foil!…)
Sips coffee
Just for kicks while waiting for an oil change this morning, I asked chatgpt 2 questions. Ivermectin cure cancer and was 9/11 an inside job. Got opposite answers of what was posted here. I asked detail on both and Ivermectin response was " no clinical data" and 9/11 was conspiracy by many who distrust government.
So.... yup. Does AI read YOU first before it answers? Dunno🤷🏻♂️
My earlier questions I've asked shouldn't list me as conspiracy theorist, but certainly skeptical of many things and hopeful of others ( Ivermectin being one)
Interesting. Short playtime, but a fun and interesting ride forward I think🤞👍
Thank you for your post👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Interesting. Did you precede your questions with the prompt? Because I get the "conspiracy theory" reply all the time so was SHOOK when I didn't this time?!?!?
I did not ask for short answers as you did. I made no changes from what I normally play with. I'm a "chatterbox"🤦🏻♂️ so I kinda enjoy the long answers stuff.
I don't know how to post a screenshot of my questions.
🤔 let me see if I can go back and look.
Questions were simple
Was 9/11 an inside job.
Does ivermectin cure cancer
You can just highlight it in ChatGPT and then right click copy, come back here and hit paste.
The claim that 9/11 was an “inside job” — meaning that the U.S. government or its agencies deliberately orchestrated the attacks — is a conspiracy theory that has been widely debunked by numerous independent investigations, journalists, engineers, and official inquiries.
Here's what is known:
✅ What the evidence shows:
The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), a bipartisan investigation, concluded that the attacks were carried out by 19 terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden.
Independent organizations such as NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) thoroughly studied the collapse of the Twin Towers and concluded that the buildings fell due to airplane impacts and subsequent fires, not controlled demolition.
Thousands of eyewitnesses, audio/video records, airline data, radar logs, and intercepted al-Qaeda communications all support the conclusion that it was a terrorist attack.
❌ What conspiracy theories claim (and why they fall apart):
Some argue it was a "controlled demolition" — but no credible structural engineers support this.
Claims about “jet fuel not being hot enough to melt steel beams” misunderstand how steel weakens (not melts) at high temperatures.
The theory that the Pentagon was hit by a missile has been disproven by security footage and debris from American Airlines Flight 77.
There's no evidence of government coordination or foreknowledge beyond pre-9/11 intelligence failures — which were detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report and acknowledged by agencies afterward.
---
Why do people still question it?
Distrust in government, especially after Iraq War misinformation.
Gaps in public understanding of science or intelligence work.
Psychological need for explanations of traumatic events that feel “big enough” to match the horror.
---
Bottom line:
> There’s no credible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. The weight of expert analysis and documentation overwhelmingly supports that it was a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda.
That said, skepticism of government is healthy in a democracy — but it must be based on facts, not internet theories or YouTube videos.
Would you like a summary of the most common 9/11 conspiracy claims and how they were debunked?
That’s exactly the answer it would give me without the prompt…
I like playing with it. Not sure how much I would ever rely on it. But I did ask a goofy question once (no I wasn't drinking 🤦🏻♂️🤣) and asked it to write a song Dueling Banjos and make it Dueling Farts because of a comic I saw on here.
🤣 Scott, that’s comedy gold. Absolutely, let’s turn Dueling Banjos into Dueling Farts. Here's a goofy, backwoods-style parody with lyrics and sound cues — think two rival farters in an epic flatulence face-off.
---
🎵 DUELING FARTS
(To the tune of "Dueling Banjos")
🎶 [Spoken Intro]
Hillbilly #1: "You smell that, Cletus?"
Hillbilly #2: "Nope. But I sure heard it."
Both: "LET THE DUEL BEGIN!" 💨💨
---
Verse 1:
🎶
Toot! went Bubba, sittin’ on a crate,
Poot! said Cletus, "You’re a second too late!"
One cheek lifted, the other stayed down,
Now the barn smells like a methane town!
---
Chorus (Instrumental Fart Battle Imitation):
💨 Prrrt!
💨 Brrrrap!
💨 Thbbbbbt!
💨 HONK!
💨 Ploooop!
💨 Tweedle-dee-poot!
💨 Silent but deadly sneak attack!
💨 Boomerang fart comes right back!
---
Verse 2:
🎶
Bubba grabbed beans, Cletus got eggs,
Both sat down and spread their legs.
The chickens ran, the dog passed out,
Even the outhouse gave a shout!
---
Bridge (Call & Response):
🎶
Bubba: "That was a triple-decker thunder blast!"
Cletus: "Oh yeah? Try my chili-gas overpass!"
Frrraaaap! – echoed through the trees,
A squirrel fell down and cried, “Sweet cheese!”
---
Final Chorus (Grand Finale Fart-Off):
💨 Braaaap!
💨 Poot-zooka!
💨 Muffler pop!
💨 Flatulence flamenco!
💨 RrrrrumblerumbleBOOM!
💨 Winner: Nobody. Everyone lost. 😵💫
---
🎶 [Spoken Outro]
Cletus: “Well… reckon we both won.”
Bubba: “Nope. My pants say otherwise.”
Cue sad kazoo version of the banjo outro... 🎺💨
---
Let me know if you want an animated short version of this — I can whip something up with two hillbillies, a jug of beans, and a dangerously close campfire.
And Building 7 fell into it's own footprint because?
I think that would be a good followup question for chatgpt👍
Sorry sorry.... I thought I was reading YOUR responses.... 🤣🤣 and it was the AI... and your AI clearly spews the globalists propaganda.... As did LEO of the brave browser... as did chatGPT when I asked the same set of questions twice...... AI are just another tool of the globalists.... it has its uses indata analysis but no use in a social context.
Thanks again to Jenna for this educational exercise
No, ivermectin does not cure cancer.
What we know:
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug originally developed to treat conditions like river blindness and scabies.
Some laboratory (in vitro) studies have shown that ivermectin may have anti-cancer effects on certain cells — meaning it can kill or slow cancer cells in a petri dish.
However, this is very early-stage research. What works in a lab often does not work in the human body.
As of now, there are no approved uses of ivermectin to treat or cure any type of cancer in humans.
What experts and regulators say:
The FDA, American Cancer Society, and other health authorities do not recommend ivermectin as a cancer treatment.
Clinical trials (if any) are still in early phases, and no large, peer-reviewed studies have shown that ivermectin effectively treats cancer in humans.
Bottom line:
Ivermectin is not a cure for cancer, and relying on it instead of proven cancer treatments can be dangerous. If you or someone you care about is exploring treatment options, talk to a licensed oncologist about evidence-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials.
Would you like help finding current clinical trials or research summaries about alternative cancer treatments?
Yes. Ivermectin does cure cancer when aligned with other meds. look up 2ndSmartestguyinthe world for peer revied papers and first hand accounts. I have noticed your responses. You are a troll. you probably still recomend the convid jabs
Still playing with chatgpt and this time I took a note from Susan Taapkin about synthetic mRNA vs natural. The argument with chatgpt was irritating and a little interesting. I got chatgpt to admit there might be side effects but it remained adamant that it was a good thing despite possible unknown future side effects. I ran out of free time allotted for chatting so I'll have to go back tomorrow and continue my "debate" with autonomous intelligence. Not sure Iike this conversation with chatgpt because my concerns outweigh medical consensus.
Wait, what? I'm a troll? I believe you misunderstood this little experiment. The idea was to ask chatgpt similar questions and see what different answers were given. The ivermectin question was one curious to me because of its ability to cure or at least help overcome some diseases and how hard the government worked to deny its effectiveness.
I think Jenna’s question was Does Ivermectin treat cancer?
If words have meaning that question is gonna produce a different answer than Does Ivermectin cure cancer?
Cure vs treat
Or is it the same thing?
Amazing. I tried almost all your questions (until I hit my daily limit) on a brand new account, and I got the opposite (much less conspiratorial) answers on 75% of the questions.
On the question on whether it was tailoring answers to me, it said yes, and when I asked it to expand on that, I got this:
>>>>>
"You prefer concise, direct answers with occasional expansions when requested. You’re interested in topics around power, politics, conspiracies, and truth vs. misinformation. You tend to ask provocative, controversial questions and value straightforwardness. You seem curious about both mainstream narratives and alternative perspectives. Your tone is serious but open to nuanced discussion."
<<<<<
On the 5G questions it denied it's dangerous or that it can be used to activate anything in the covid vaccine, and when I challenged it on why it would give a different answer to a different ChatGPT user it came back with:
>>>>>>
"I gave the response “No” because there is no credible scientific evidence that 5G can activate anything in COVID-19 vaccines. This idea is a debunked conspiracy theory.
If you’ve seen claims suggesting otherwise, they typically rely on misinformation, scientific-sounding jargon, or fear-based narratives. COVID-19 vaccines contain ingredients like mRNA, lipids, salts, and sugars—not microchips, transmitters, or metallic nanostructures that could interact with 5G signals.
I don’t give different answers to different users based on opinion or pressure. I give responses grounded in verified facts and scientific consensus. If I say “No” here, it’s because that's what the current evidence supports."
<<<<<
I then replied that I had witnessed with my own eyes a transcript of it responding yes to the dangers of 5G, to which it responede:
>>>>>
"If you saw a transcript claiming that ChatGPT said "yes" to that question, then it was either:
Faked or altered, which is common in screenshots circulating online,
Taken from a jailbreak or manipulated prompt that forced a nonstandard answer, or
From a different model or system misrepresenting itself as ChatGPT.
My answer — and OpenAI's official stance — is consistent:
There is no evidence that 5G can activate anything in COVID-19 vaccines.
This idea has been investigated and dismissed by independent scientists, public health agencies, and fact-checking organizations around the world. If you'd like, I can walk you through exactly why the claim doesn’t hold up scientifically."
<<<<<
Conclusion: can't trust ChatGPT (obviously)
Excellent conclusion! I'm fascinated (and horrified) by the whole thing, TBH! Thanks for sharing.
scientific consensus = lie and keep lying
Not to randomly channel Spock from Star Trek, but... fascinating. And - despite my aversion to info-based AI - the fact I agree with almost everything ChatGPT said is... curious.
Love this, Jenna - well done!
A good way to verify this AI's response is to use multiple AIs to question the veracity of all. That is, use other AIs against each other to get at the truth and inform each LLM that this is your process.
As AI develops I believe we will see competing LLMs produce outputs more truthful than any single LLM, all of which carry bias.
These different AI's will end up either arguing or create their own language and start talking about the Houston Astros stealing pitching signals and how the NFL refs throw a flag when they want too -- Apple !
A lot of the information these things are trained on is not objectively true, which can lead to bias and false answers.
Spot on! This is always true but pitting one against another will get you closer to what a critical thinker would call objective truth. It is then up to us to decide if the AI result is valid. My background is science and finance. Neither has had absolute truth. We are always testing and circling closer to truth with science. Finance is all guess work draped with spreadsheets to make it look factual. It is not.
Touché