Bill Maher and Guests Discuss Bush's Response on 9/11

Wow, this clip is definitely worth the watch. It seems that neither the host Bill Maher nor Dana Rohrabacher (Rep. California) had any clue what they were talking about. Both continually showed their lack of knowledge on the subjects by stating imaginary information as fact. Unfortunately the two other guests, Seth Green and Erica Jong, barely got in a word edgewise - but at least they weren't just pulling 'facts' out of the air.

It is great to see shows now discussing the subject of 9/11, but it is of no real use when those speaking about it make up their own 'facts' to fit their arguements. Why not invite some 9/11 researchers on the show?

Please check out the clip, and post some relevant links to the statements made regarding Bush's action/inaction on 9/11.

Special thanks to our friends at for the clip!

Bill comments to that lady

Bill comments to that lady when she was suggesting complicity were so down right ignorant it made me mad.

Contact Bill Maher's show and ask them questions about WTC 7 and the wargames.


did you listen to Republican

did you listen to Republican from california?


his reasoning was that Massoud was killed in Afghanistan -- the guy who repelled the Soviets by "al-quada." Why the hell would al quada kill Massoud if he was such a smart military strategist? They KNEW they were going to attack Afghanistan! Whose interest was it in to kill the guy who beat the Soveits in Afghanizstan if your going to invade a week later??????

I have always been very

I have always been very curious about Moussads death. It just dawned on me that if Moussad had been alive after the war, he would be elected as PM, not Hamid Karzai. And Moussad would of course have had the Afghanies interests in mind, not UNIcal.

I wrote in to the show

I wrote in to the show complaining about his(Mahers) ignorance on the subject. I took issue to the joke about somebody lies worse than Charlie Sheen.

Basically the quests were

Basically the quests were trying to convice Maher of LIHOP. Maher said he disliked Bush, but couldn't believe Bush could stoop that low. Maher introduce the whole seqment by gloating over the resignation of Andrew Card. There must be people on Maher's staff at HBO that understand the issues. Maher does have a vested interest in OBL as the bad guy. He wrote a book called "when you ride alone you ride with bin laden" a humorous and serious effort to help understand linkage between oil addition and problems in the middle east.

Its def a start!

Its def a start!

The two silent guests, Erica

The two silent guests, Erica Jong and the small boy were also guests of A.J. Hammer on his show Showbiz Tonight when he was covering the Charlie Sheen comeout. Watch the charlie sheen /cnn videos again.

Obviously, after having been interviewed by Hammer about Charlie Sheen's ideas, they didn't have the curiosity to go and investigate the facts.

Erica was at least very supportive of Charlie Sheen, but the small boy would only keep politics "for private conversation" lest it disturbs his business plans...

"Bill comments to that lady

"Bill comments to that lady when she was suggesting complicity were so down right ignorant it made me mad."

me as well

"Contact Bill Maher's show and ask them questions about WTC 7 and the wargames.


while i think its a great idea to contact his show, i dont think its a good idea to start off with WTC7. Wargames yes, extreme foreknowledge of the details of the attack yes. But WTC7 implies, especially to people unfamilair with the rest of the 9/11 truth movement, that it was an inside government job with much planning. This is too extreme of a thought for most people to digest, and will cause most to scoff at the thought immediatly. Especially for people on the left, i usually open the floodgates with forewknowledge and wargames first, then slowly lead them to WTC7.

Andy White, You might be

Andy White,

You might be right about Moussad I don't know enough about him. But one Afghan I do know about was a man named Abdul Haq. It was through watching a documentary on this guy that I realised that not everyone in Afghanistan was a "terrorist", and that this man actually stood for something, something that was good and inspiring and exactly what the West supposedly stands for. But yet he was sold out by the CIA, while trying to start a revolt against the Taliban. This guy met Ronald Ragan and Margaret Thatcher back in the 80s who assured him that they'd help Afghanistan out after the fighting was over, but they went back on that and left Afghanistan to become a barren country divided up by warlords, after they poured thousands of foreign Islamic militants into the country to the fight the Soviets. This guy Abdul Haq just loved his country and didnÂ’t want any of these Islamic radicals getting involved though, because he feared that the post war climate would destroy Afghanistan, and turn it into a shattered nation controlled by warlords. Which is exactly what happened, Abdul Haq was exiled by the Taliban for trying to stop his country form being ruined. And it's then you find out that, although he felt massively betrayed by the US for selling him and his country out, he was still getting in touch with US authorities and informing them about the exact state his country was in. So even if it was just through Abdul Haq, (which is wasnÂ’t because the Pakistani ISI also knew what was happing in Afghanistan) the US knew exactly what was going on in that country and so canÂ’t use the excuse of saying "ow well, we couldnÂ’t see it coming". Now though knowing what's really up with 9/11, it's obvious that although Afghanistan was becoming unstable, and the US knew all about that, Afghanistan, "Al-Qaeda" and the Taliban etc were all obviously scapegoated.

But the main thing that really inspired me about this man was that once the US had invaded Afghanistan, he got his men back together and went back into the country, because he knew he could topple the Taliban. He had all the support of the Pashtun people and could have overthrown the Taliban just through his presents in Kabul. But he informed the US military about the mission he was about to do, and although they gave him a satellite phone for evacs if he was in trouble, the US must have then told the Pakistani ISI who worked with the Taliban to try and trap Abdul Haq while he tried to attempt the over through of the Taliban. To cut a long story short he met up with this guy over the boarder who was there to sell him out, but told him to run because the Taliban were coming. Abdul Haq and his men evaded this huge search party of Taliban fighters for days, and for days they called the US military using the satellite phone they gave him, and for days they gave the same reply that they couldnÂ’t send a helicopter over, despite the fact that they were literally just a few miles away. Eventually the Taliban caught up with him, and killed him. And you just felt astounded about why would the US sell him out like that, but the answer to that question I think comes when you realise that Mohammad Karzai, the man in place running Afghanistan today, was Dick ChaneyÂ’s bitch and an ex executive at Uncoal the oil company. So the US had no intention of making Afghanistan democratic, they have no intention of making Iraq democratic either, because if they did theyÂ’d support true real men like Abdul Haq. Instead they sell people like him out and make deals with tin pot dictators and militia death squads. Anyway I just think Abdul Haq was a really cool guy, you can find out more about him here;

"Why not invite some 9/11

"Why not invite some 9/11 researchers on the show?"

The same reason they don't invite UFOlogists or Lochness monster scholars...

Actually, I thought tackling

Actually, I thought tackling one thing (the 7 minutes) was tactically successful. If nothing else, people walked away from that segment also wondering why Bush sat there, and that is enough to get anyone started.

Just to shine the light the other way, it is interesting how many folks in the movement talk about the need to have a honed message and hit only on a few key points when starting conversations with folks about 9/11, yet when it is done here, on a major show, the guests are ridiculed for there lack of in-depth knowledge.

I think that the show was a success because the 7 minute issue was the focus, and all participants stayed on topic for more than 4 minutes. That's gonna create some momentum.

I believe the point of this

I believe the point of this show was disinfo: The final statement that when "They knew it was a major attack and not just an accident, Bush was whisked out" That is simply not true. Why did they not discuss what Bush (and the secret service)did after being informed of the second imapact--Nothing, sat there for another 20 minutes!? ( Card was certainly aware at this point that additional highjacked jets in the air yet his whisper to Bush was too brief to convey this info. The Secret Service should have definitely whisked him away at this point unless it was known for sure that the school was not a target--end of story

Augustin, the "small boy" is

Augustin, the "small boy" is Seth Green. He is a very accomplished actor (check his credits on any showbiz website.) I believe Green is into 9/11 truth, and he would be a good ally.

Maher demonstrats the typical know-it-all additude of a smart person who has done about 5 minutes total 9/11 truth research. He needs to watch a few 9/11 videos & read a book or two.

Don't expect Bill Maher -

Don't expect Bill Maher - who can't even wrap his head around the possibility of simple vote fraud in Presidential elections - to come onboard 9/11 any time soon.

I love him for his comedy, but he's the typically clueless mainstream. I was also, 2 short years ago.

He needs more Erica Jong's to come on, and there will be.

One problem 9/11 has, as far as roundtable discussion shows, is that it's not blatantly partisan enough. If we could blame it on one political party, it would make for better TV screaming matches, and would get more air time.

And oh yes - the Massoud hit

And oh yes - the Massoud hit was definitely a planned rubout by the CIA. Print it.

Erica Jong wasn't doing us

Erica Jong wasn't doing us any favors but Bill Maher is still doing the blind monkey act. I like Erica but it's clear that she's done just surface research mostly based on what her kids have told her and her heart's in the right place. She should just stick to calling Bush a dictator.

I wonder how it was that two

I wonder how it was that two of the same people from the Showbiz Tonight segments - Erica Jong & Seth Green (is that his name?) both happened to be on Bill Maher's show at the same time, and Maher happened to bring up the 7 minutes thing. Its seems like Maher may have wanted to provoke the 9/11-truth question without having to agree.

Celebs do the circuit

Celebs do the circuit whenever promoting a new product. She's got a new book and Seth has a new show. Their management booked them to as many media outlets as they could. Most are all done in the same day. Time is $ :)

I've been emailing Maher's show since 2002...this is the closest I've seen to any discussion of the topic. I think it's going to take a mass group to actually go to the show and make a stink....get dvd's to the everyone in the crew you can access, hand them out to everyone in line before you go in.....

We should organize a snail mail campaign. If 500 of us send a letter each week to the same recipient, it will open a few eyes in each of the selected offices and only cost us a few cents a week.

Disregard the info contained

Disregard the info contained in Dennis Lapchis post above. I am frantically emailing dz and SBG now. You will be hearing much more about this later. Most of that post should be deleted immediately.

^^^ i like that Idea..but

^^^ i like that Idea..but 1st we have to have a unison message (eg. pentagon attack, flash planes, holograms..and other stuff has to be ommitted) and we have to all be in align with straight facts

ya, that's what I mean. Each

ya, that's what I mean. Each week, select a recipient and then in each writer's own words, briefly explain the 911 hoax and recomend a guest for their show. The producers of each show we mail to will have no choice but to notice. After that, it's on their shoulders and conscience....whether they have one or not.

I agree with you. That is

I agree with you. That is quantity, attacking it at a large scale, or like Tony Robbins like to say (Massive Action)
But what about Massive Quality, LITERALY, I was thinking about how about somebody sending a 4 ft x 4 ft sq box Nicely designed with 9/11 information inside of it. The box alone would catch anybody's attention. and then on the inside i would include a smaller box about 8 inches x 5 inches sq and lined with velvet that includes a dvd (9/11 revisted, edited versions of loose change, edited versions of the greatest conspiray, and another one that talks about WTC7 all on one dvd) and also include a book (that i will produce) that will have over 500 rebuttals to each and every question they could ask.

example. If they ask:
Q: well what about the plane slaming into the building at 500 mph that had to have an effect
A: No, here is a WTC manager talking about a plane impact 8 months before the strike (see chapter x, at time x:xx for video,) or
Q: well what about the weight of the floors above, wouldnt they have weakened and caused the progressive collapse
A: No, this how buildings are designed, (show scientfic analysis but explain it to them in both laymans and expert terms) and if that is true how come these buildings (Caracas, Madrid, Philly, LA, etc) all burned longer, and hotter, and the building did not collapse. Also if they were going to collapse, the parts of the building that were not on fire (show creative picture) would of provided resistance and slowed the collapse, and if some how they were going to progressively "pancake" all the way down it would of took a lot longer than 15 secs. (show more proof)

I would love to do this, but this would take a lot of money and time. and it would be over 2000 pages because of all the research behind it, and trying to rebut EVERY POSSIBLE question. and this book would include the actual newspaper clippings and pieces so they could view the information for themselves

but maybe one of you guys could do it, and i could be of some assitance. but i do think thats what we need. a creative, flashy, professionally marketed and designed, glossy, full color book, as well as a flashy website (similiar to a new movie website) that would both be entertaining and informational for newbies and some experts

The thing about 9/11 is how

The thing about 9/11 is how brazen it was. They really got away with the "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" routine. Even after the NY Times sued for the release of the oral testimonies and got them last year, the Times did nothing with all the first person, eye witness accounts of seeing and hearing explosives go off.

For phone call purposes,

For phone call purposes, it's tough to beat Bush's own 2 incriminating 9/11 witness statements:

The two MP3s (download them and share them with your friends...), and supportive/corroborative evidence, can be found at

The 9-11 Commission did not refer to Bush's incriminating witness statements in its "complete and final report".

The fake-opposition Dems (sorry, that's redundant!) have never referred to Bush's incriminating witness statements.

The 'news' media has successfully kept most people from having ever become aware of the existence of Bush's remarkable revealing statements.

Plenty of the participants in the apparently-fake-opposition 911 truth movement (including Mike Rivero of, Barrie Zwicker in his DVD, "Paul Thompson" in his 9/11 timeline, etc.) tell lies about and dismiss, rather than question, Bush's incriminating, self-implicating, 9/11 witness statements. ( know, the old evidence-hiding gatekeeper line which goes something like, "Nothing to see here, Citizen. Move along!")

But honest 911 truthers have been known to say, "Wait a minute! What video could Bush have been referring to? The only known video of the 1st tower impact did not surface until more than 15 hours after Bush said he'd watched the 1st impact on TV that morning!"

I think contacting Bill Mars

I think contacting Bill Mars show is a good idea, I would suggest we refer him to the experts. Morgan Reynolds for a start. Members of These people have more credibility, then we wont have these actors left to twist in the wind about a subject they are not prepared to argue/discuss.

"The bigger the lie the

"The bigger the lie the easier its acceptance" - Adolph Hitler

I just can't understand why most Americans are so damned stubborn to attempt to even look at the evidence. "They just can't believe that their own government would stoop so low".

Well, it's time to BELIEVE. Because this is exactly what's happened. Your government has stooped this low!

After undertanding this administration's agenda for globalization and a new world order, after looking at the mounds of evidence suggesting not only coverup but complicity, upon reviewing all the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, upon understanding of the Keane commission Neocon members and conflicts of interest, after seeing the constitution being torn up in front of your eyes, and after being fed all the lies and deliberate attempts to create confusion, you must BELIEVE!

Well, now it is time. For if you refuse to believe, you hand over your freedoms and your liberties and your individuality into the hands of the monsters, the very terrorists who have taken oath to protect your liberties and your freedoms - foreign and domestic.

I beg you all. Please BELIEVE.