John Albanese Interview on FoxNews

This is my interview on 09/10/06. As you would expect, I was given very little time to make any real points, but, it is what it is.



Good job John. Regardless.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I'm sickened...

By the fact that all they have to do is say, with their little smirk, "Structural Engineers, the people who built this, say that it came down as it should." or whatever, and that manages to make whomever is on the other side of the screen look stupid.

From now on, I hope that ANYONE who gets a national TV spot says something to the effect, "Do you want to talk about theories, or do you want to talk about facts", and then DRILL them.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

indeed sickening

was thinking the same. its so easy for them, that way.
hm, you know, those 'campaign-strategy-manager-advert-heads', as much as i hate them, i whish one of em was a truther dedicated to this problem ...

Just imagine...

The kinds of things you could say with the opening I mentioned...

"Do you want to talk about theories, or do you want to talk about facts? Let's talk about how this Administration did not want to investigate 9/11, and ultimately created a commission headed by a self described expert at creating "public myths." Let's talk about how the Secret Service protected the Vice President, but didn't bother protecting the President, at a time when America was under attack by kamikaze hijackers in commercial airliners. Taking into account that he was in a highly publicized location not 5 miles away from an international airport. Let's talk about the time of Dick Cheney's arrival at the PEOC. Let's talk about the wargames that were taking place that day that only received a footnote in the back of the 9/11 Report, but mirrored the events of that day, and was mentioned by several different air traffic controllers because of the confusion caused by them. Let's talk about orders being given by Dick Cheney at 9:25, even though by 10:10:31, no shoot-down orders were issued. Let's talk about the fact that the Commission said it was "of little practical signifance" to find out how 9/11 was funded. What kind of investigation doesn't bother to follow the money?"

Anyway, you get the idea...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

good ideas

everythin left out of the omission report is a double-point, as long as it can make a point by itself.
but, youd still get the 'but thousands would need to be involved' argument, that they like to paint so massive. i know, this breaks apart with closer looks, but to put that in easily understandable 'slogans'

Easily understandable "slogans"...

Why do you say "thousands would need to be involved", when according to you, only 19 men pulled it off?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


yep, and also, the wargames. Integrate that directly when talking about the wargames. Dont even let em ask. Explain how this is one of the methods to keep many out of the know but in the loop. Quick and clear. I think the 'thousand-conspirators' argument truly kills. it needs good killer contra arguments.

You could also...

Make references to people in the military willing to do illegal things in the past. Ollie North for instance. Or the guy Henry Kissinger got to bomb Cambodia...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


Old faithful...

We're still fighting the "they would never" argument.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."



Blurt out AT FIRST BUILDING 7 and Where is the Plane at Pentagon. This should be your first ammo...and Stick to it... THE OFFICIAL STORY DOES NOT FIT!

Larry Silverstien admitting PULL IT.....Come on this is your chance......

If they say YES??? Then say this!!!!

WTC 7 that was not hit by a plane came down in 10 seconds and was admitted to be "PULLED" by the owner on TV, I dare you to roll the tape on that building...YOU WON'T. And You can't explain it with the official story PERIOD! This is the smoking GUN!

That in my opinion should be the lead into the debate.

This interview just made me MAD. Sorry..... You had a chance and I feel you blew it!

I was referring to...

The media pundits.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


Iam so sick of two minute hit & run interveiws! They try and come across as interested,but won't devote some serious time ,and hard hitting questions.

John, do us all a favor. When they start talking about...

the falling towers, kindly interject that WTC-7 was not hit by a plane, had a few small fires, & Larry Silverstein said it was "pulled." Then that massive building imploded, like the towers did, for no apparent reason!

You don't need to be a structural engineer to see that WTC-7 is a huge smoking gun!!!

anyone going on the msm

anyone going on the msm should ask the interviewer why their station didn't cover the press conference on 9/11/06 at the National Press Club where 9/11 family members demanded a new investigation. Also why they didn't cover the Zogby poll where half the country want a new investigation.

That's why PFT needs to hit Google's Top 100...

People need to realize there is plenty that their favorite MSM outlet ignored...

good points. after all, its

good points. after all, its about a new investigation. nothing else. and who could be against that ?

Stop Wasting Your Time

Well, Albanese did better than I would have expected, but people really need to stop wasting their time acting as the propagandists' straw dogs.
You can hear that they just turn Albanese's volume down to let Mr. Shillbeard spout his disinfo.
Give up. They're just using and manipulating you. The MSM are dead to this movement. We need to acknowledge that and work completely around them. You can't be featured on FauxNews without becoming an instrumentality of the Administration.

FucksNews interviews Albanese

Hey, don't look back, look ahead.
another 100.000 people FOR THE FIRST TIME realised that 911 COULD HAVE BEEN an inside job.

In my experience it takes up to a year before that thought even sinks in.
Once it has done so,

  • 20% will be immediately sceptical and search the truth
  • 30% will go with the official version, out of habit, mostly
  • 50% will not really think about it.

However after ANOTHER YEAR, well ... you know the statistic.
42% will smell a rat.. and join the other 42% to make 45%

and so on...

911 will come out regardless.

Eventually we will be able to check everyone's theory against the reality.
Like the Germans or SouthAfricans... a truth-commission and
thousands of publicly financed classy documentaries will tell the
story and separate myth from real-history.

The lesson will be that traditional media (MSM) are finished,
governments will have to embrace glasnost and democracy
will become a meaningful concept again.

(oh yeah.. being banned makes you feel free, and positive! ;-)

ACTION: Tell C-SPAN to air new 9-11 panel

C-SPAN is sitting on another 9/11 event it has taped. 9/11 activists might want to call in their morning show, Washington Journal, from 7 to 10am ET every day and ask them why they haven't aired this event yet.

C-SPAN Call-In Numbers Support Republicans: (202) 737-0001 Support Democrats: ... (202) 628-0205 Outside US: (202) 628-0184

Details from author, military journalist, and 9/11 researcher Barbara Honegger:


[On October 2], I attended an amazing panel event in Berkeley, Calif., based on Griffin and Peter Dale Scott's new book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (a MUST get) at the MLK School – packed to 1,500 standing room only and standing ovations – with Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Kevin Ryan, Peter Phillips, and Ray McGovern, with McGovern moderating.

IT WAS TAPED BY C-SPAN. The cameraman said he understood they’d air it 'in a week or two', and that was this PAST Sunday. Keep checking the C-SPAN schedules to BE SURE to watch AND TAPE this HISTORIC event. It’s EVEN STRONGER than the Alex Jones conference expert panel, the last 9/11 event aired nationally by C-SPAN.

Terror suspect says CIA recruited him


A former university professor charged with plotting to bankroll Hamas terrorists was once asked by the
CIA whether he wanted a job as a spy, his attorney told a jury Thursday.


Abdelhaleem Ashqar, 48, apparently never pursued the idea. But his defense attorneys say the offer shows federal agents were eager to recruit him to spy on fellow Palestinians before doing an about-face and indicting him.

Attorney William Moffitt showed jurors a June 17, 1996, letter on CIA stationary telling Ashqar, then a post-graduate business student at the University of Mississippi, that he might want a clandestine services job.

"Operations officers serve overseas as collectors of information," the letter said. It told him to "tick the box below" to pursue such a job.

But Moffitt said that when the job was suggested, federal agents already had searched his house, found the documents and tapped his phone.


the sadest thing about this

the sadest thing about this video is the very last seconds... "and next.. a reminder that terrorism remains a very serious threat.."

Ya that made me cringe...

Ya that made me cringe...

OFF TOPIC (but I don't have a blog here anymore!) is blocked..

sorry John, but I assume 911blogger-users would want to know this news snippet:

DEBKAfile reports: The American Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group joins US build-up opposite Iran

October 20, 2006, 12:37 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tuesday, Oct. 17, the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group steamed into the Persian Gulf to join the US naval, air and marine concentration piling up opposite Iran’s shores. It consists of the amphibious transport dock USS Nashville, the guided-missile destroyers USS Cole and USS Bulkeley, the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea, the attack submarine USS Albuquerque, and the dock landing ship USS Whidbey Island.

The Iwo Jima group is now cruising 60 km from Kuwait off Iran’s coast. As DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported exclusively two weeks ago, three US naval task forces will be in place opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by October 21. The other two are the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group and the USS Enterprise Strike Group.

Tough Job


You look unprepared to me.
Glad you are on our team.

How much time did you spend in preparation?
Did you rehearse before going on?

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Great job man, you held your

Great job man, you held your ground well!

Let's keep it real...

John, with all due respect, you got your ass handed to you. We have no business going on these shows unless we are prepared to disseminate the facts quickly and without delay.

Trash all the posturing and meaningless rhetoric. For God's sakes man, this is FOX NEWS!!! Dumb it down for crying out loud! We need a rapid fire "Alex Jones"-like dissemination of the major factual issues pertaining to our movement.

We know they are going to attack us. We know they are going to try and make us out to look like uninformed fools. Let's not help them.

You should have nailed him at the beginning when he brought up the UBL "confession video". Many people out there still do not realize that this video is an easily discernible FAKE. A better response would have been, the video you are referring to is a FRAUD. Anyone can google "fake 2001 osama video" and get the facts that PROOVE this video was a FRAUD. Next point.

When you are in the 'hotseat', it's hard to remember that these clips will take on a life of their own on the internet for many, many years to follow. Don't waste words. Be factual, concise and laser focused on getting out the most powerful points in the little amount of time that you will be given.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this fight is bigger than all of us. I thank you for your service to the cause. But when we get our moment in the sun, we have got to make the most of it.

A little harsh maybe?

They silenced his mike, they talked over him... they gave him all of 2 minutes to respond... he did fine considering how they were controlling the conversation.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Perhaps I was a little harsh

But then again, we are living in particularly harsh times.

John opened himself to scrutiny by appearing on Fox news, an outlet we all know to be extremely hostile to our cause. I agree with another poster here that John appeared to be distancing himself from the movement. I got the very same feeling from his opening remarks.

John also acknowledges that he made "few real points" during this interview, yet nevertheless, he posted a copy here for us to comment on.

I don't mean any disrespect to John Albanese, I believe he is very knowledgeable and otherwise highly committed to our cause. Unfortunately, these noble qualities were not apparent in this particular interview.

I distance myself...

From members of the movement as well. Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Nico Haupt, etc...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."




Does this imply. That any alternative theory advanced. Other than a conventional science point of view. Is to be marginalized?
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"


It means those who choose to say things that sound crazy don't speak for me.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Some people have...

What I think is a misunderstanding. Just because someone says that "9/11 was an inside job" doesn't mean they can put forward any theory they want, and we're supposed to accept it.

If I said UFO's caused the destruction of the WTC, that would sound crazy to those outside the movement. So, I wouldn't say it.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

No man I don't think he had

No man I don't think he had his ass handed to him, I think he stepped into what he knew was going to be a hostile environment and he did the best he could. I personally think it was a good appearance all things considered.

i agree. i think he did

i agree. i think he did alright, given all the circumstances. You cant expect every 911 researcher and documentarian to also be a media-superman who can 'fight' down Fox-tactics easily. That sure is no easy task.
But i do think we need more 'recipies' for such situations. Of course, there isnt an easy one that works 100%, but , im sure theres experienced people who could give tips.
I sorta wonder how Webster Tarpley would hold up on Fox news. Given what ive seen of him so far, i think he'd do really well....maybe.

With all do respect

I appeciate all the feedback.

But, i'd ask you to keep in mind that it is always easy to Monday morning quarterback.

I had an extremely limited amount of time to answer unknown questions on live TV. Until you've had a chance to sit under the hot lights on live TV - i would ask you to appreciate the situation.

In that time I managed to mention that the 911 commissioners - on August 2nd - admitted they were considering criminal charges against norad.

Hello? is this mic on?

i mentioned that there are over 20 whistleblowers. i mentioned that there is credible research out there from accredited universities challenging Larry Klein's work.

for anyone who cared enough to listen it was an obvious Foxnews hit job. but, the more they appear to trample on adocacy groups - such as ourselves - the more apparent it is that they have something they are trying to censor.

so i say - yes - lets continue to let them pull "O'Reillys" on us. each of us should continue to fight our way into the media's den - even if it is a den of enemies - and be prepared to take a bloody nose for the movement.

Turn the tables -- keep talking your own talking points

"I had an extremely limited amount of time to answer unknown questions on live TV."

I understand that.

My take on it is that you don't have any fair chance to get any point over in a consistent way in a hostile show like that, if you try to look nice and play by their rules. Hey, they don't even want you to realy answer their questions. So why not start every single response with something you want to talk about?

That's why I'd try to put in my own (pre-defined, prepared) talking points and statements -- whatever their "live" questions are!

Here's what John said.

John said, "I basically study the cultural phenomenon of this movement and why it exists." He made is sound like he had some kind of scientific distance from the movement. Like he was studying it but not participating in it. Seems a bit like he was making himself sound reputable at our expense. Does John consider himself an activist?

He also started the interview by using the the word 'panacea' incorrectly. I thought this made him look a little pompous.

Sure, give the guy credit for going on FOX news at all, but we can't be uncritical of his performance, just cause he's on our side. If nothing else, he should have talked about his movie, which more people should see.

People, if you get the chance to go on a mainstream media TV show, don't go on prepared to answer their questions. Go on to say your piece no matter what the host says of does. Interrupt them, cause you know they will interrupt you. Kevin Barrett gets props for handling this the best so far.

John, I know you can do much better than that

At least mention WTC-7 next time, for Christ's sake!


next time.

i don't appreciate the comments accusing me of distancing myself from the movement - and questioning if i am an activist.

i am a filmmaker activist. my sentiments are clear. my belief system is clear to anyone who has viewed my work, or who listens to me speak.

but i am also studying the phenomenon, as a filmmaker, without turning my heart over to every theory or opinion.

Sure - you would have mentioned Building 7. Thanks for the feedback. But, i do not appreciate being told i appear to be distancing myself from the movement when i am risking everything in my life, including my personal safety, to go on national television and speak up for accountability on the issue of 9/11. It is much more than i see many many other people here doing.

Now - get out there and go fight for 9/11 Truth instead of wasting yourt time doing a forensic analysis of my performance!!!


Be stubborn -- turn the tables!

First of all -- I do not know how I myself would fare in such an interview. I've never been asked to do one myself. So...

However, if I ever knew in advance that Fox (or any other "unfriendly" network) does invite me into their studio (like they did with John Albanese, James Fetzer, Kevin Barrett and others) to make me respond to 9/11 related questions, I'd do three most important things in advance:

1. Prepare
2. Prepare
3. Prepare

All these three points would be based on my assumption that they do not want me to answer any of their questions for real. The'd try to use my appearance to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

So my preparation would be to think about my own 3 most important talking points that I would try to fit into the interview at all costs. I would start giving a statement about my most important point in the strongest terms possible, regardless of the question they ask, and then draw the arc from that point...

Remember. whatever they ask, talk about what you want to talk about, not what they want. And make it fit into one 40 word sentence!

Prepare. Take notes. Do a dress rehearsal. Find the shortest sentence possible to make a strong statement for your first point. Memorize it. Find the shortest sentence possible to make a strong statement for your second point. Memorize it. Find the shortest sentence possible to make a strong statement for your third point. Memorize it.

Put in these points into your answers, whatever they ask you.

You don't have any other chance to get some atoms of truth mixed into the Fox stream of lies and propaganda with a different tactic. They don't let you.

It is not your job to appear as a polite debater, who responds exactly to the questions asked.

Learn some of their ruthlessness, and turn the tables.


...... i did. I had talking points on index cards that i studied for 2 days. LOL

my talking points were this: (and can be confirmed by watching the video)

1 - Mention that there are over 20 whistleblowers that the media is disinterested in investigating.

2 - The 911 Commissioners stated in an August 2nd interview that they considered criminal charges against NORAD. !!!

3 - That there is credible research from accredited universities challenging Larry Klein's work.

4 - That physicists content that the laws associated with the conservation of momentum were violated in the collapse.

I made all of these points.

You have to accept that i had very little time - under high pressure - to make these points. yet - i DID make each of the points listed above.

was i prepared?

we report - you decide.

Note, that I never asked for

Note, that I never asked for any *specific* talking point...

I think it is up to every one who gets a chance to have his nose punched by the Fox hitmen to select the talking points for himself, and pick the ones he knows best and is most confident about.

Of course I understand you had very little time, and high pressure, and a hostile environment to cope with.

Now here comes my personal taake on the 4 points you selected for yourself. Don't take it as a gospel -- just a thought to consider for every one who gets his chance on TV at another time:

* I think they are "intellectual" talking points. They are only really understood by people who are already "insiders" in the 9/11 truth movement. And not even most of these.... (Take me: I didn't really "get" your 2nd point without further investigating. My first thought when hearing this was: "WTH is John Albanese talking about??". Same with point 3. I don't know who Larry Klein is...)

* I think the general selection for talking points on such occasions should always be the ones that
--> are the easiest to remember for first-time listeners; they need to "stick" even if you are interrupted half-way through
--> do not need additional background/detail knowledge about 9/11

Not bad.

I won't be as harsh as some of the critics here, because I think just getting the name of your film mentioned on Fox was a major coup. Also, in the NOVA special they refer to, the PBS people basically handed themselves their own asses, by recanting the pancake collapse and not offering a substitute (bearing in mind that NIST only describes events up to "collapse initiation" and an observant viewer would notice that.)

And funny, all this time I've been thinking "Al-bahn-neh-seh."

thought you did pretty well

thought you did pretty well considering the controlled enviroment of the discussions...people have to understand, most activist (as I like to call them) are not
lawyers and therefore do not argue for a living. What we really could use is someone who littigates for a living involved in this movement. There is alot that can be accomplished by someone who knows how to argue and shut someone up with very direct line of question and responses... such as, " ill answer you that, if you answer me this...." type stuff.
Just a thought.
And this is in no way meant to slam or undermine anyone who has had the courage to make MSM appearances.

notice the segment that came

notice the segment that came on right after Albanese. it even had a shot of a terrorist putting a knife up to some guys throat. what psy-op? hahahaha. f*ck Rupert Murdoch.

911 truthers = Terrorists

911 truth can never be allowed to come out, hence the grouping with terrorism.

My advice for next time:

Just ridicule FOX:

"Fox is to be lauded for a fair and balanced exposing of the background of 911 inside job ha ha ha ha"

Construct clever short sentences, where the interviewer is given the wrong lead and
does not know which way you are going until the last word in the sentence,
which is the operative word, and a devastating one.

bad examples:

Fox News' interest in the details of the terrorist crime of 911 is DISTORTED.
The terrorists that killed 3000 Americans on 911were operating from caves inside the PENTAGON

Then learn 10 of these sentences off by heart, train to speak clear & loud.

bingo. Every school-child will sing your sentence the next day.

ahem ... DZ .. can you unban me?


maybe someone should go on Fox , wearing a Dick Cheney mask, and blow the whistle.
Someone else in the know will see it, and blow the whistle too immediately, in the hope of 'milder circumstances' being given in the trial.

Okok, i go to bed now..

Camera shots

Notice how most off the time Albanese is talking, FOX switches to a random ground zero shot?

They don't do it as much for the other 911-hostile guest.

I find that Fox tends to do that. It's very distracting and most of the time the video snippets are unrelated.

In any case, I've come to realise that these 4min mini-debates is really great if you are the organizer (i.e. Fox). You can make anyone look flat wrong or retarded with spin, hostile opponent, fake-neutral yet collusive interviewer, spin and deceptive camera/audio work.

You did well, but clearly

You did well, but clearly you were only there to be a whipping boy.