9/11 Debate Tonight - Mike Berger v. Roger Schlueter

This was sent in by Benaton;

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you could spread the word about this. Tonight
there will be a debate on http://www.thedebatehour.com/ streaming live
over the internet. Michael Berger of 911truth.org will debate Roger
Schlueter who will try to debunk his beliefs.

The show starts promptly at 8pm Eastern Standard time and will run until
9pm. After that the broadcast is cut off, but the stream will still
continue on http://www.stickam.com/ for people watching the live video

Listen live (streaming audio):

Watch live at the following link:
http://www.stickam.com/profile/infidelguy **Recommended

During the broadcast you can click the magnifying glass to open the video
stream + chat room to ask questions. No registration is required.

Or Call in at 888-503-0802.

The Debate Hour is hosted by Reginald Finley Sr., who recently had Scott
Horton, a contributor to anti-war.com, discuss the war in Iraq and global

who exactly is Roger

who exactly is Roger Schlueter and what is his backround?

I think he writes articles...

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

dont they all......

dont they all......

He wrote "Yes U.S. Helped Iraq Get Chemical, Biological Weapons"

If it is the same person, interestingly enough, he wrote this on 4/20/03 in the The Belleville News-Democrat:

"You don't have to dig deep to find that from 1982 to 1990 the United States supplied Iraq with not only conventional arms and cash but also chemical and biological materials, including the precursors for anthrax and botulism."

see the full text here:

Berger King

Michael Berger spoke in St. Louis for the Tea Party event we had there.... he gave a very fine speech.... was expecting to see it on YouTube... but I have yet to see it.

He seems very informed and well spoken... whomever that other guy is... should be a good listen

I'm assuming...

This is him...


He's a trivia expert apparently.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Host just announced the

Host just announced the Schlueter has a Ph.D. in Applied Math and ?? from Caltech. I'm thinking this is different than the "Lifestyle" writer in Belleville. Please be prepared to call in and IC this host... also, check out the host's website, thedebatehour.com, giving a sense of who he is maybe.

Show "It may be another Roger" by Mark Roberts

hey Mark, i was just

hey Mark, i was just wondering, are you a mason? someone here said you were after you shilled here the other day.

Show "68th degree. I'd have to" by Mark Roberts


They'll let anyone perform ritualistic satanic ceremony anymore

Did that guy just bail out and say....."I have got to go rub something on my sore ass"???

You're a master mason,

You're a master mason, whatever degree that is. Saw it corrorborated on a listing somewhere.

You're obviously hoping to score some brownie points with "the system" by working to serve to guard the Big Lie. What a disgrace, and what a disgrace the 33rd degree of Freemasonry is, and that Albert Pike who wrote it.

You should be ashamed.

Michael is owning this interview

You must tune in. For the past 15 minutes, he's made several great points!!!

- Landed the WTC 7 anomaly
-mentioned the fact that no steel-fram skyscraper ever collpased from fire
-mentioned that man-power and hours required to take the buildings down as mentioned by the opposition could easily be refuted
-cited Steven Jones scientific studies showing sulfidation and themite residue on the few beams that were not shipped away
-he also scaffolded many of his points using the very souces Roger is trying to stand on (FEMA and NIST reports)

Micahel is using precise, logically deductive language. It's been great so far!

Ad Hominem

Of course, here we go... let's attack Steven Jones for his religious beliefs, because they can't really dismiss his theories... And then claim that Mike's "going in circles..."

If you were listening...

I was the caller who got in the mention of the neglected 9/11 heroes who have micronized dust in their lungs.

Michael still owns this interview.

Michael Berger

Kicking butt and taking names!

What's this other guy's name again?

More on Masonry's

More on Masonry's anti-Christian orientation.


Show "Is Berger the most ignorant" by Mark Roberts

Blah blah blah blah?

Blah blah blah blah?

Mr. Roberts, you're welcome to deconstruct everything

Mr. Berger says and post your rebuttal here.

Just saying something is false without backing it up is pretty silly, don't you think? Come on, you can do better than that.

Happy Truth Year!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

the interview radio feed

the interview radio feed just ended, but you can still follow the debate via the 'watch live' link above, or here:

I owned this Roger clown :-)

I was the caller who mentioned www.patriotsquestion911.com and the following points:

Could Bin Laden and Al Qaeda:

1. make NORAD standdown?

2. call U.S. public officials and tell them not to fly on and prior to 9/11?

3. do insider trading traced back to former CIA ties?

4. schedule war games on 9/11?

5. put war plans on Bush's desk on 9/9/01 for invading Afghanistan?

6. conveniently put U.S. troops in the Caspian Basin countries just north of Afghanistan and two aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea just prior to 9/11?

Who did those things Roger? I don't know! LOL

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Show "Owned him? 1) NORAD didn't" by Mark Roberts

Care to discuss this with facts?

Mark, I'll go up against your BS arguments any day. My email address is Cincy911Truth@hotmail.com. Email me if you want to actually discuss facts...don't bother if you just want to call names because you're too ignorant of the real facts.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

From the mouths of those in the 9/11 Commission:

"For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history" - Senator Mark Dayton

"There's something wrong here, something tragically wrong. The American people, the families, the country and the Congress need to know the truth, the whole truth, the complete truth. And so far we haven't gotten it. … Somebody's got to connect the dots and answer the questions. If the 9/11 Commission won't do it, then Congress has to do it." - Rep. Curt Weldon


Show "Why Should He Debate You Via Email?" by Brainster (not verified)

Why don't you hand her her

Why don't you hand her her butt then brainster? You need other people to do it for you? All her points are valid and none of douchebag Mark's comments seriously addressed them. Ad hominem might work for the twits that are still glued to their tv's but not here.

Way to refute her claims

Way to refute her claims man! Every single one of your points has an insult and does not address her claims. You're a complete douchebag and a waste of human life.

The fact that you are here shows you feel threatened....

...by the truth. By all means, keep it up.

1) If NORAD didn't stand

1) If NORAD didn't stand down, why were no planes scrambled in time to intercept any of the flights, when some were in the air over an hour after being hijacked and re routed?
Do you know who was put in charge of NORAD months before 9/11? Cheney! Marking the first time in history NORAD was in control of a non-military officer.

2) Not true. Willie Brown, mayor of San Francisco, said he received a warning not to fly at all on 9/11. Wrong again.

3) Wrong? It wasn't a statement, it was a question. Wow, you're a smart guy!

4) Exactly. They scheduled the exercises on the day of the biggest attack in America. The exercises just happened to have the same scenarios as the real attack, right? Just a coincidence, right?

5) So...they have war plans 2 days before the attack? How did they know they were going to get into a war?

6) You're just gonna say he's wrong and not say why? Hmmm I wonder why. You have no facts whatsoever, my lil friend!

Good try tho! Call us more names and throw your hissy fits, lil guy!

intheyearzero said it best:

"The fact that you are here shows you feel threatened....
...by the truth. By all means, keep it up."

Kudos to you

I wish I was as articulate as you. Great job!

Perfect Contribution Cindy!

Your questions and points and others' calls as well have won over many to the truth.

We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi

Easily Handled

1. NORAD didn't stand down; the NEADS tapes released for the Vanity Fair story make this clear. The most warning NEADS had for any of the hijacking was 9 minutes (for Flight 11).

2. If they knew which planes would be hijacked, why would they warn Willie Brown? No planes coming from SF were hijacked that day, remember?

3. That Buzzy Krongard's firm handled the trades is not unusual. More important, they have been looked into and discovered to be innocent. And if they were by people with foreknowledge, there were other, shorter-term trades they could have made that would have generated much more profit.

4. How many war games were scheduled for 9/10? For 9/9? You don't have a clue as to what is normal, so you have no way of knowing whether 9/11's war games were unusual.

5. Source for the 9/9 plans?

6. Source? This is a common fantasy, but nobody can ever back up the claim.

Here are just a few sources

1.) "The War on Truth" - Nafeez Ahmed (the best for information on NORAD procedures and timelines). "The New Pearl Harbor" - David Ray Griffin and Michael Ruppert " Crossing The Rubicon". Both Ruppert and Griffin cite Ahmed's book as one of their sources.

2.) The source for the call to Willie Brown was reported to be Condi Rice according independent media (KPFA radio I think). Also, see the three above sources. Newsweek also wrote an article about Pentagon officials canacelling their flight plans for 9/11. CBS News told of John Ashcroft only flying on private aurcrat starting in July 2001 due "high terrorism assessments".

3.) Source for CIA insider trading comes from all three books but check "Crossing The Rubicon" first.

4.) War games...check all three above sources plus even more detailed info from Webster Tarpleys' "9/11: Synthetic Terror".

5.) From an article written by British MP Michael Meacher in the UK's Guardian entitled "This War on Terrorism Is Bogus".

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

Source: http://tinyurl.com/zz5nu

This was also covered in "Crossing The Rubicon" and in an article by William Rivers Pitt at www. truthout.org.

Just google: "Afghanistan war plans prior to 9/11 + Bush"

6.) This was covered in "Crossing The Rubicon" and in the Ruppert video speech entitled "The Truth and Lies of 9/11".

I'm not going to search for the exact pages of these books. If you really want to know you'll read them yourself. ENJOY!

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow


A time of chaos and confusion....

LOL =)


He just justified Operation Northwoods and admitted that they probably have far worse plans in their dossier?

He said that a plan like 9/11 would have been stopped by a man with a head on his shoulders... like Kennedy stopped Operation Northwoods.....errrr a bullet from a rifle

I wish our President had a head on his shoulders..... then he may have stopped 9/11..... or maybe George knew what really happened to Kennedy and why.

"Poppy....tell us a bedtime story"


All this guy needs is the the CHAOS FACTOR....did he just say that?

Berger is OWNING this guy!!!!

Stepping to the plate like Kevin from Infowars


This guy speaks very well..... but he has no ammunition!

Laughing so hard it hurts....

Is someone recording this??? CLASSIC!

Two giant steps for TRUTH!

that's new

He said they were measuring the building with a New York City transit.... and that's how they knew it was leaning.... I had never heard that one.

I do know that if you are on the ground and you look up at a tall building.... especially when it is near another tall structure..... the buildings appear to lean... optical allusion... try it.

why was the structure groaning? thermite was eating it from the inside out.... there are steel samples in one of the reports about building 7 that show steel that had been eaten through....mysteriously?

And there's the "daddy" syndrome.

This is the attitude that prevails among so many who have upheld the official 9/11 story and when you mention Northwoods, they fall back on the "you can't handle the truth" line from A few Good Men.

Is it entirely impossible that the government could propose a plan to kill Americans to promote some secretive agenda?

if daddy is there to protect us, then we should not question him. If daddy beats my younger brother, than he probably deserved it. If Daddy touces sis in an inapproriate way, then I will pretend that I didn't see it.

If the CIA can carry out operations without the general public knowing, how is it impossible that others involved in the 9/11 attacks are still at large?

If daddy says so, then lets just listen to him.

Trust your government.

The earth is flat.

The host

He's getting pissed.... Is he waking up right in front of us?..... he didn't want to believe this and he's getting so frustrated.....

They are both listening very intently

This OT is setting himself up..... War Games..... HIT!

"I would plan it so all my people would be out of place...not right there to help ...doing drills"

Wow Mike Berger is kickin some serious A##!

The host, reggie, who's obviously biased against 9/11 skeptics is freaking out and panicking over Mike Berger's info and rebuttals...Wow...Go Mike !!! Go !!!


He just listed all of the OT supporters websites!


Yeah, it's so obvious Reggie is dishonest, his logic is severely flawed when he says that he needs information to then use rational thought with to come to a conclusion, then he immediately goes on to say, "I don't think this"..."why would this"..."It doesn't make sense"....blah blah blah...
Reggie, I was starting to like you, but I know your logic is nothing but good 'ole double-think, nothing more, nothing less.
Hat's off to Mike Berger, wow!

Oh and Mark "Straw Man" Roberts, you're a shameless liar...I've caught you on several lies regarding your attacks on Loose Change, and you never replied to that email of mine months ago.

This Host

He's as biased as anyone I have ever heard.... he's trying to appeal to the middle ground.... and then spews all kinds of double speak.

His little diatribe about Scientific Method was all but bizzare......

This guy is well coached in

This guy is well coached in the art of war.... oh he's playing every weak attack on character... then tellling people how they should think.

Telling people that if they didn't like any of Rogers points then you are closed minded....

He's getting hammered by our side and he's acting like he's open minded and then jumping all over Rogers's jock.

He's called us fundamentalists and nuts several times.

Now he's basing judgement on how the information is presented.

This guy is a master.... he's twisting and being condesending...... He's been to Rush Limbaugh school.

Pandering and Playing with words.... the hypnotic and calming voice.... sounding with all reason.

He's got all the arguments all lined up..... the strawmen are flowing.

and look at his name "Infidelguy"... perfect!

butchering our side then clearly stating how Roger's agument made sense.

Yes, This is CRAZY!!!

Ego/Denial driven arguments

"If I were the government and I were going to carry this out, I wouldn't need to bring three buildings down, I would just bring one building down, that would be enough, why three buildings, it just doesn't make sense to me."

"How could the incompetent Bush administration pull this off and keep it secret . . . . it just doesn't make sense . . . . " (By the way, they didn't, that's why millions of people really know what happened)

Here's a similiar question back at them . . .

"Why did Ronald Regean pick George Bush to be his VP when both he and his wife hated his guts?"

Will someone show me another building that dropped like building seven that wasn't brought down by controlled demolition?

The best way to counter this

The best way to counter this statement is:

If I were a terrorist, why would I risk hijacking planes with boxcutters, training to fly and not getting found out, hitting the actual targets with no FAA help, subduing all the passengers on all 4 airplanes, getting onboard the aircrafts (when some were on the no-fly list) and not getting the plane shot down by NORAD when they coulda all just suicide bombed 19 different cities and done MORE damage.

Why would the terrorists, in their decade long plan of starting a jihad against America choose an attack that would require almost utter failure from the U.S. defense system?

Makes about zero sense.

I'm listening to the post-cast

And he's carrying on about how other landmarks could have been hit, such as the Statue of Liberty and then he jokingly added that they could have put demolition charges there as well.

Then he says something to the effect of, "if there was a plan, it could have been done so much better.....it's all so ridiculous."

Why isn't his whole die-hard approach of skepticism aimed at the 9/11 Commission? Or FEMA? Or NIST? Has he eaten that bait, hook, line, and sinker?

It's simply a matter of world view.

He hasn't reached the point where it has clicked yet. I doubt that he has done much prior research on this topic and so a 1st exposure would definately box him in and bring out denial. We can only hope he will put his feelings aside and research this topic in much greater depth and breadth. Remember, most of us were at one time "9/11 Deniers" ;) before waking up to the issues.

You're right

I easily forget that. I was one t deny it as well and it didn't change overnight. For Reggie, the seed has been planted by all of us. Let's see how it sprouts.

Patience is the key when we expect people to wake up.

BTW - I'm stilllistening to his show and he asked rhetorically, "What's so odd about a building falling at near free-fall speed?"

Ojala, he'll get there.

Good job Mike

Berger did a commendable job of addressing a large number of the issues and questions. One important thing to remember in any debate is to not get pigeonholed into discussing one topic and having the audience get lost in the minutea of the discussion. Reggie and Roger were very much interested in only discussing the WTC collapses, and tried to avoid the issues of foreknowledge, war games, lack of air response, ISI, highjackers, etc. until Mike or knowledgable callers brought them up. These larger issues can really help cement the idea in the audience's mind that this isn't just about the towers, and that their are major discrepanacies in the offiicial theory wherever one cares to look in greater depth.

In general, Roger's response to most of the issues Mike brought up was to simply weave this massive straw man conspiracy argument and that everyone was involved. If Mike brought up a discrepeancy with the flight data recorders, it must meen the FBI and NTSB are in on it. If Mike brings up the shortcomings of the official reports in coming up with an adequante explanation, it must be that those NIST and FEMA boys are on the CIA payroll and on and on. Roger's primary response is to simply dismiss issues through continued threading of this "massive conspiracy" meme that he tries to plant in the audience's mind, and in the case of Reggie, it clearly worked.

When the argument of the consipiracy is then taken up, and Mike mentions that many whistleblowers have come forward who were later fired, Roger's response is simply incompetence + CYA. Roger is clearly forcing his world view (incompetence) of the event to dismiss evidence and muddy the water. It is also interesting that Roger often prefaces his statements with "I think" or "my guess is" or "my explanation" without really using any evidence to back his assertions up. My reading was that Roger had not actually done a large amount of research on this topic, similiar to the Berger-Rothschild debate earlier this year. It is clear that Roger had never even read the NIST/FEMA report (and of course Reggie has not as even he admits he is bad at physics) and so really could not offer any real debate on this point, other than appeal to the thousands of pages and engineers who worked on it. When Mike brought up the fact that in reality a small number of engineers was responsible for the critical sections of the reports, Roger was silent and simply moved on.

In addition, it is crystal clear that Roger had not read the FEMA report ch 5 on WTC7 or else he would not have claimed that it has been explained already and that essentially NIST's report would merely be windowdressing on this conclusion. In reality, FEMA categorically stated that their hypothesis was speculative and not "evidentiary" and that this hypothesis had a low probability of occurence. I don't know about you, but if someone's best explanation has only a low probability of occurence, I would not be inclined to then draw conclusions from that hypothesis. That however is what Roger and many other self professed "debunkers" continue to do.

Overall an excellent debate with a lot of good information. Berger should definately be commended. The only counter hypothesis that could be made (with no evidence by the way) was incompetence and that Berger is a kook because it would have to be a massive conspiracy of 1000s of people in multiple agencies all coordinating together, a ludicrous assertion. In reality if a conspiracy did indeed take place, it would most likely require a small (20 or less) number of people to carry out.

My humble offering


Check out Davin Coburn claiming that the FBI matched all the hijackers DNA. When Charles Goyette asks him where the FBI got the original DNA which to match against, Davin Coburn falls apart.

This is significant because Popular Mechanics is one of the main "debunking" resources.

Davin is a budding young sociopath.

I also have some of David Ray Griffin's links available.


Where'd they get the DNA?

It's pretty easy, actually. In some cases they got it from the hotel rooms where the hijackers stayed the night before, in others they got skin samples from rental car steering wheels:


The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

That's bullshit. Those

That's bullshit. Those sheets would have been washed by the time the FBI got to them.

Those tiny traces of skin on steering wheels

"The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms."

Actually, I was going to make fun of this one, since I don't feel any skin rubbing off onto the steering wheel of my car, but then I googled it and came up with this:


"Blood left on a broken apartment window or saliva found on a discarded beer bottle can be used to identify burglars, and the skin cells rubbed off onto the steering wheel of a stolen vehicle can solve car thefts."

Yeah but how long after the

Yeah but how long after the terrorists were identified before the FBI went and searched their old hotel rooms and cars for DNA?
This would not be done on the day of 9/11. And if it was, how did we know all 19 hijackers and their whereabouts within one day?
If it was more than one day (which I suspect to be at least a few days) then those cars and hotel rooms would have been used by then by someone else.
Maybe the cars, if they left them at the airport, would have been untouched.
But how many of the terrorists actually touched the steering wheel?

A further question: when

A further question: when even the FBI has admitted that there may have been some mistaken identity with regard to several of the hijackers (possible identity theft, multiple identities, etc.), how does that affect earlier claims of DNA identification?

Not to mention a seeming lack of will to nail this down once and for all. Big enough crime to activate and engage world-wide forces, not big enough to solve at the micro level.


"In reality if a conspiracy did indeed take place, it would most likely require a small (20 or less) number of people to carry out."

I prefer Mike Berger's own response, "I have no idea." We do not know the operational details of the day. We can only speculate.

I do know that an ongoing conspiracy has been importing massive amounts of drugs into the US using CIA contract operatives, at least back to the 1960s. That's a pretty large conspiracy over time. They also have a strong motivation to keep their mouths shut, as does anyone involved in the September 11th plot.

Further, I suspect the 200 Israeli agents arrested as being part of the plot. What their specific roles were I do not know. There were at least several "demolition experts" included in the roundup. Trucks that Israeli operatives were stopped in had residues of high explosives.

The number of operatives cannot be ascertained today, and maybe never. One would think their involvement has as little record as possible.

I can tell you that Dick Cheney was involved: "the order still stands."

I can tell you that Donald Rumsfeld was involved: No "approval" for launching interceptors as required by his own June 1st 2001 "Air Piracy" regulations.

I can tell you John Ashcroft was involved: "I don't want to hear anymore about (terrorism)" to Pickard, the acting head of FBI.

Why not start with what we know and move from there?

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:

You couldn't be more right

Thanks John.

I agree with you that speculation is not what we need. Too often that is what people think of as "Conspiracy Theory", with fantastical explantions for the most mundane (supposedly) of events. I believe that that is what we really should concentrate on, simply pointing out to people the massive number of inconsistencies in the story. As radio host Lionel pointed out, people will often react to this reasoned debate with "what are you getting at?" and the temptation is too easy sometimes on out part to speculate about what happened, even if it may be more probable than the current theory. We should thus avoid that and simply say "Look, this event caused the death of tens of thousands, is the basis for the change in our society's way of life, and is continuing to function as the ultimate justification for everything going on right now. Don't you think we should know as much as possible about that day and investigate all important aspects of it?" If they reply that only crazy conspiracy kooks still have questions, just point out that over 70% of the 9/11 victims family's question were left untouched by the Commision, and the fact that it is well known that NORAD lied. If they say, "blah, whatever its only to cover up their incompetence", simply ask them "isn't that enough to get to the bottom of it? If people screwed up shouldn't they be held to account? Shouldn't the problems that led to the failure be remedied? How can that happen if we don't have a complete accounting of what happened?" Either way you cut, there is no reason whatsoever to oppose an investigation, and to address the myriad of specific contradictions in the Commision's tale.


The host said Michael was hoggin all the time and he allowed him to speak and all that...

First he uses this to peg Michael as a bully ..... but the truth is that they had nothing to say.... Roger was a deer in the headlights.... he didn't hardly ever interject unless to throw in some off the cuff comment to disrupt the flow of argument.... or when the host interjected and asked Roger to speak

and then all Roger could muster was the mass chaos theory and the extreme confusion factor

"How did that fireman even know what a black box looked like?"....

because he was tasked to specifically go look for them with members of the FBI.... and when they returned they had three bright orange devices in the back of the vehicle..... and he probable overheard someone say we only found three of the things we specifically went to find.... come on man

the host said the discussion room was about 50/50.... yea.... does he not know that the people in the chat room are also those who are listening..... that was not anywhere near 50/50.... unless the truthers were just hoggin it...... you know by not letting others type and hit "submit"

Heard the debate

Schlueter's key point: Too many people would have had to know.

Similar to O'Reilly's key point from Fox in his debate with Kevin Barrett:
If this really happened, the mainstream media would be all over it.

And that's basically all they got.

Would have liked more people to raise Hopsicker's excellent investigative journalism on Mohamed Atta in Florida, video interviews with his girlfriend, meetings with German CIA-linked operatives, and the fact that the flight training took place at two flight schools with CIA links. These important points, as well as more info on the hijackers themselves, seems to be an unexplored area on most 911 truth sites.

Also, to me, the fact that the trade center collapse is an alleged "pancake collapse" without the pancakes I think might be something to bring up. I would have expected something similar to earthquake-damaged buildings with people squished between file cabinets and the like, and not just a lot of dust. This to me is the main argument against fire/pancake. Of course, the dust also is tough to explain with thermite, so to me the mechanism is unknown.

Also, I like the analogy that 20,000 gallons of jet fuel could be contained in two medium-sized bedrooms. This amount of "kerosene" would never be enough to destroy a 1/4 mile tall building weighing 500,000 tons.


I like long division: 20,000 gal dustifies 500,000 tons of building

Now let's take off 3 zeroes: 20 gallons to dustify 500 tons of building

So 20 gallons (four 5 gallon-cans of kerosene) would destroy / weaken/ dustify 500 tons of steel and concrete?

500 tons = 500 x 2,000 lbs/ton = 1,000,000 lbs.

So 20 gallons of jet fuel to dustify 1,000,000 pounds of steel and concrete.

So 1 gallon of jet fuel to dustify 50,000 lbs. of building.

Boy that's some powerful jet fuel.

where is "infidelguy"'s chat room? someone point me to it

and if you're in there, bring up Sibel Edmonds and ask them to stop talking about CD

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

You have to click on the

You have to click on the image and then insert your chosen screen name in the chat box... then you can enter the chatroom

Letter to the host...

My feedback:

You claim that you are undecided. You, however, at the end of your show posit your own conspiracy theory, that it was all "covering your ass," and it was incompetence. This is bunk.

You have discussed the dozens of warnings before the fact. Does that not compute?

You were informed about numerous war games occurring during the attacks (nine at last count by Paul Thompson). These were legally under the control of Dick Cheney, who was given the authority in May 2001 by executive order. Therefore Cheney was in charge during the 9/11 attacks, and the 911 commission lied about it.

If you want to know about 9-11 you need to know about P-Tech, where a company which one of its principal investors was Osama bin Laden's nephew was allowed to design an enterprise software system for the FAA and the Air Force for two years.

Further, you need to understand what was going on in Venice Florida. Get DANIEL HOPSICKER on your show to explain that in detail. The Huffman aviation operation imported drugs from Venezuela, and was busted by DEA for doing so. No one was prosecuted, ie. protected operation.

Mohamed Atta and his compatriots were involved with the covert drug smuggling. Atta's best friend, a German named Wolfgang Bohringer, has claimed to work for the CIA after he was arrested recently for trying to set up another flight school.

Another issue that has no airtime: 5 Mossad agents were arrested videotaping the towers collapsing because of too much celebrating, with "cries of joy and mockery." Reported in Haaretz.

200 Israeli agents were arrested, all of them released, and the entire matter made "classified" by Michael Chertoff.

You have very little understanding of the conspiratorial nature of the US federal government.

Apart from Operation Northwoods, there was Operation Gladio, with CIA dn NATO blowing up train stations across Europe. 73 people were murdered in this terrorism in Bologna. This was completely secret until the Italian Prime Minister disclosed it in 1991.

Iran Contra was a conspiracy. BCCI was a conspiracy. Iraqgate was a conspiracy.

These are the same people in charge! Get a clue, man. You need an extensive education on the real world of covert ops before you spout off.

You keep speculating about things you don't understand. You are using your own faith based belief system to promote the idea that there are no conspiracies in America.


RE: Daniel Pearl

The man who is on trial for allegedly killing him was the man who wired the $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, on orders of the Pakistani ISI chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad.

His name is Omar Saeed Sheikh. He has strong links to the Pakistani ISI. When he was exposed as the "money man" by the FBI, the head of Pakistani intelligence resigned immediately, 10-9-2001.

The CIA and the ISI have a working relationship going back to the Mujahadeen operation in the 1980s, which was the largest and most expensive operation in CIA history.

You shouldn't babble about things you know so little.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:

Wow, you said a mouthful! Great work!


Great post John!

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

We always win, well almost

We always win, well almost always, provided they don't put Fetzer or Reynolds on.

The harder they try to make it go away, and to ridicule, the more they only forward the truth through the three stages of truth.

So it looks like we took the cake on this one too eh? Could someone post the whole debate? Thanks.

I don't see a problem with

I don't see a problem with Fetzer at all. Reynolds strikes me as possibly a bit nutty with the no plane scenario. Fetzer is very well spoken and has performed pretty well on MSM.

I agree. I think Fetzer is

I agree. I think Fetzer is a great debater and a brilliant man.
However, I am very dissapointed in his actions lately in pushing the space beams theories and fueding with Stephen Jones.
But he really knows what he's talking about when it comes to 9/11 (speculations aside).

Missed it, will it be archived?

I'm guessing by the web site that it will be available in audio and video in the near future. Is this correct?


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Fetzer and Space Beams

I don't remember the details but Fetzer had a woman (Judy?) professor on his show who talked about space beams. My take is that Jim is a bit exhausted and just need to regroup. Alex Jones is in this same state, works too hard (good for us!).

If you haven't seen "Life of Brian", go rent it. There's a scene where the three opposing groups, "The Judean People's Front", "The Front of the Judean People" and the "People's Front of Judea" are battling each other and a small lone voice asks, "Shouldn't we be fighting the Romans". The response is, "Oh no, the Roman's are much too powerful."

We should keep our eye on the prize and not get distracted with in fighting. The real enemy lies within our own selfs and our ability to cope with this thing called "life".

Yes, I'm rambling.

Check out this short interview on my website:

Is the video archived?

I'd like to see the debate if it's saved somewhere. I thought Michael Berger did a great job with Improbable Collapse. If someone has a link, I'd appreciate it.


currently unavailable unless....

...you pay for infidel guy's subscritpion of $40. While his other programs are free to the republic like the existence of the soul and god, he probably figured from the debate with Berger how hot the topic of 9/11 is. If money can be made, he must figure, make them pay.

I can't help but also think about 9/11 on Hustler. I wonder if this will affect sales. O'Liely's last dabble with 9/11 and Mr. Barret was sequenced in such a way that you were left glued to the set, sitting through mindless Britney garbage until you got the meat of his show.

9/11 Truth is catching on. All these MSM snake oil guys want a piece of it. yet none will consider the integrity behind it all.

Audio now available

Now available for download from Mike Bergers site . http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=911truth_media

Mike Berger.... Top 9/11 Debater and Knowledge Base !!!

Thanks for the audio link... Great listening :)

I reckon Mike did a BRILLIANT job, that Roger was a one liner tool that always ended up saying too many people for a secret conspiracy.

I gotta agree with that psychologist who called in re slight host bias...it did seem a bit "two v one", but was still a brilliant showing.

Top job Mike Berger, not a criticism in the slightest but when Reggie was on about "Why".... PNAC would have been a good answer.

Top callers too... Ya'll ROCK !!!!!