1:11:53 Yeah, because I had seen a range of analysis that had suggested it was very difficult due to the altitude to blow up the balloon. So that's why I was curious about that. Well, we definitely knew they were successful doing so. The degree to which whether the balloon just came down to a lower altitude that made it more manageable. It came over us at 80,000 feet went down to 60. The F 16s can go up to about 60 especially if they only fill up their tanks halfway. Okay. All right. So it came down far. That would suggest the—it's a fascinating story because deciphering exactly what everybody's intentions were is something that I find difficult in this particular context. Because you have—why would China blow up their meeting on the eve of the meeting by doing this?
1:12:45 Was it a point of China trying to show leverage to the United States that they had technology the United States doesn't have? We've been trying to develop spy balloons of this type for a while that are actually steerable. We haven't had success doing so, but there's a big budget for it within the Defense Department. Was this China showing off and bragging on the eve of Blinken's supposed to go there? Is it somebody within China that wanted to destabilize that meeting? Is it somebody within the US that wanted to destabilize that meeting by having this event? Exactly. This is like the Pentagon allowing Lee Harvey Oswald to give the technicals on the U-2 spy plane ahead of peace deals to get a U-2 shot down.
1:13:26 Yeah, exactly. Exactly. I mean, that's why I was like, there's some story within a story here that's different than the official media narrative is my takeaway. That when you see a sort of orchestrated narrative like this, where people's incentives don't quite line up, The Pentagon's incentives don't quite line up with what they said. The China's incentives don't quite line up with what they're accused of doing here. So something is anomalous, but I thought one of the key point you raised yesterday that most people don't know, like if the China's point was they have weapons beyond the technology that the United States claims, there's some within the Pentagon that believe China's totally backwards militarily and that consequently a war with China would be easily won.
1:14:10 People like Colonel McGregor has been saying that's nonsense for a while, and that while China has limitations, particularly in submarines and naval airfare, it's actually very well defended, and it's designed its weapons to be defensive. And they prove when they're willing to lose. I mean, in Korea, we were defeating the North Koreans and a million Chinese, so they sent in five million and began to kick our ass. MacArthur wanted to drop atomic bombs. He then got removed of command. by Harry Truman. And so the truth is, is that if you actually get in a fight with, and all groups are tough, all groups will fight. But people look at Asians and they think, oh, nice, polite Asians. Once Asians get in a war, they just, I mean, it's hell. And so that's what's happening right now is China is fully mobilized, ready to go, and they're willing to lose a lot of troops.
1:15:01 Well, and you know, I had, I, you know, the, one of the reasons why I love watching InfoWars is there's always something I discover that I consider myself well read and well informed in a wide range of topics. But I was completely unaware of the big Japan plan to use balloons as bombs over the United States. I didn't even know that existed until you mentioned it yesterday. I was like, now that would be—but my guess is that China has full awareness of it. If there's a nefarious intention of what China did here, I assume it's exactly what you were talking about. China wanted to say, you think that we have limits, you think we can't do things, you think we can't counterattack, you think you can bully us like you bully Russia. This is from the China mindset.
1:15:45 And so China's like, well, remember when Japan was trying to design 9,000 balloon bombs to fly over the United States and create fires all across the country? Oh, well guess what? We actually now have weapons that can do precisely that. We now have the steerage, because always been the technological hurdle with these balloons has been that, has been the ability to steer them. That's right. And this thing's been changing course everywhere. Not going up and down like a regular weather balloon. This is a gigantic thing, bigger than a football field. Just the stuff hanging off of it is three school buses long, multiple school buses wide.
1:16:22 I believe from their past statements, I have a stack of articles here from them, that they're looking to deliver EMPs via these. Because again, a satellite detonates one, it bounces off the magnetic field. You've got to detonate it below the magnetic field. That's why a balloon is the perfect delivery device. Well, and I thought your point made more sense than all of this. Because I was like, the spy balloon stuff didn't make much sense to me. Because I was like, you get a little bit of an edge with a balloon in the sense that it can linger a little bit longer than a satellite. But generally, satellites, drones, spy planes are all going to be more effective at getting that information than something you can spot from the ground. The only real reason to send this over is if you're sending, not saying, hey, look at our new spy technology that's really not that sophisticated. It's if what you're talking about, by the way, we have a weapon where we can do what Japan was trying to do but failed to do.
1:17:12 and that it's a game-changing potential operation as to what we can do. And that made a lot more explanation that China was making a leverage play, trying to say on the eve of the Blinken Summit, we have a, and they had to protect the- Just like the US did before the collapse of the Soviet Union, showing all the advanced satellite technology to shoot down ICBMs. That's exactly right. Remember the whole U2 incident? You've talked about this. The U2 incident was designed to derail aspects of certain peace negotiations that were being considered at the time. What happened there, whether that was done deliberately, whether that was done by
1:17:51 the Russians, people within the Soviet Union who didn't want to talk about reducing nuclear conflict, whether it was people within the deep state in the United States that did it. I think you may have that attribute here, but the most logical explanation of this is that this was somebody within China, maybe Xi, maybe the more hardliners within China, that wanted to show off to the United States on the eve of these big discussions that, yeah, we actually have very dangerous weapons That would make more sense of how the mainstream media has been talking about everything except the weapons aspect. They've been talking about this being a spy balloon, which did not make a tremendous—that wouldn't be all that impressive that they had a spy balloon. What would be impressive is if they had a balloon they could steer that could be an airship carrying and delivering, as you point out, weapons, and China would be the kind of
1:18:45 country that would have memory of what the Japanese tried because of their long, brutal war with Japan, they would be intimately aware that, okay, this was a means by which you could show off unique weapons, particularly because there's people within the Pentagon who are encouraging actual war with China. Trump was always smart. Trump said, let's politically isolate them, let's economically demand fair trade from them, let's not expand their social credit system. But he said, but there's no reason to get into a ground war with them or a nuclear war with them. That doesn't make sense. So that would suggest what you're talking about makes a lot more sense about what this really is designed for. It's like Russia designing those Poseidons, those little nuclear submarines, those mini submarines that are actually drone operated that can induce a tsunami.