How to Give a Successful 9/11 Interview

Webster Tarpley's performance on Hannity and Colmes strengthens my belief that the most effective thing anyone can do when interviewed by the mainstream media is to list all of the highly-credible people who conclude that 9/11 was an inside job.

Tarpley is a very smart guy, and somewhat of an expert on false flag terror. But by failing to mention the names of the "authority figures" who believe the same as him, Hannity and Colmes were able to paint the 9/11 debate as "Tarpley versus everyone else". In other words, no matter how smart you are, the MSM will paint you as a "lone conspiracy nut" or part of a bunch of "nutty, uninformed, people" unless you throw out the names of some heavyweights who are recognized "authority figures". Many Americans only listen to arguments if "authority figures" endorse them.

So my advice to anyone appearing on an MSM program is to bring a list of the following types of "authority figures":

Military Leaders who question 9/11

Congress people who question 9/11

Leading conservatives who question 9/11

Leading liberals who question 9/11

Scientists who question 9/11

Family members and first responders who question 9/11

Christians who question 9/11

Jews who question 9/11

911 Commissioners who question 9/11

Psychiatrists and Psychologists who question 9/11

Then, when the interviewer asks "what do YOU believe" or "what facts do YOU have", you can respond:

"Well, high-level military leaders, congress people, scientists, Christians, Jews, family members, first responders, 9/11 Commissioners, and many other highly-credible people believe 9/11 was an inside job".

And then I'd start naming people. Personally, I would actually pull out my written lists and start reading and I'd calmly hold up the lists to the camera so that -- even if the host talked over me -- the camera might get the names.

Americans are used to having things spoon-fed to them, and we often only listen to arguments if "authority figures" endorse them. So this technique might be very effective, psychologically, in reaching Americans with 9/11 truth.

This advice holds true even if you, yourself, are an authority figure. For example, if you are a former military leader or high-level scientist, naming other such people will help to show that you haven't gone off your rocker.

There is strength in numbers.

If you need a starting place for highly-credible people to put on your lists, you can start here.


Are you a mind-reader now?



It is very smart for us to collect our thinking on this.

Your advice is good. Thanks.

I disagree...

Although I think you raise a good point. The problem with that technique is they can easily say, "so you're saying that if these people told you to jump off a bridge, you would do it?"

Also, when the Times Herald interviewed me, I cited some individuals, and they wrote it as such...

When asked for proof, he calmly rattles off a long list of like-minded people, and what he called a growing body of "evidence" that the government orchestrated the attacks as a pretext for the global war on terror.

Granted, television interviews are different, but like minded people aren't proof of complicity.

I HIGHLY recommend getting whichever pundit you're talking to, to get away from the topic they were supposed to talk about (ex... Kerry said WTC7 was CD), and once you've done that, start reciting any of the following talking points.

  • Mention the families' call for a new investigation.
  • Mention the families' petition for the declassification of pertinent information regarding the 9/11 attacks.
  • Mention the families' petition with NIST.
  • Mention the first responders that are sick and dying as a result of the White House, and Lower-Level Government's actions.
  • Mention the obstruction of justice by the Administration into investigating the 9/11 attacks.
  • Mention the number of whistle-blowers that have come forward, and were turned away by the 9/11 Commission.
  • Mention the 2004 Zogby Poll of NY residents. Mention the 2006 Zogby poll of 70,000 eligible voters. Mention the CBS/NYTimes Poll. Mention the Scripps Howard Poll.
  • Mention the fact that Eliot Spitzer ignored a petition from the family members, and citizens of these United States to re-open the 9/11 investigation.
  • Mention the fact that a documentary endorsed by the family members that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission was released that calls into question the entire 9/11 Report.
  • Mention the fact that Philip Zelikow, a man the families insisted on resigning his position as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, is a self described expert at creating "public myths", is a good friend of Condoleeza Rice's, was a member of the Bush Transition Team, and recently refused to comment on the fact that he was briefed on the July 10th Meeting between Tenet, Black, & Rice that never made it into the 9/11 Report.
  • Mention the fact that the 9/11 Commission considered filing criminal charges against NORAD.
  • Mention the fact that Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton admitted to the fact that they were "set up to fail."
  • Mention the fact that Max Cleland, a former 9/11 Commissioner, said the commission itself was a "sham."
  • Mention the fact that the 9/11 Report itself, has become "Exhibit A" because of all of the blatant cover-ups, the blatant omissions, the blatant distortions, and the blatant lies it represents.
  • Mention how going to war was at the top of this Administration's list upon coming into office, and how they WOULD NOT have been able to do so without 9/11.

The list goes on and on... Most importantly, ask ________ when he or she covered ANY of this information.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


I respectfully disagree with you. Here's why.

Most Americans are overwhelmed and are innundated from information from advertising, from propaganda, from their kids chattering at them, etc. etc.

When they hear that former high-level military leaders, the families themselves, etc., question 9/11, it will cut through the info-soup like a foghorn through fog.

THEN . . . once we've got their attention ... we can start citing some of the excellent facts you raise.



Let's get Fox to have me on tonight, and you on tomorrow, and may the best man win. :)

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Probably best to be ready to

Probably best to be ready to do a bit of both of what you guys suggest.
Your techniques can be combined so that a fact is further supported by a well-known person who also says it.
We could probably make a list of twenty main repsonses that would serve in most situations. The response would best be short and contain one main fact and cite either a study or a well-known person who agrees with it.

GW--this is right up your alley.

You might be right --

maybe some combination of the two approaches.

One thing that I have to add

One thing that I have to add to this. Fox is notorious for editing “undesirable” comments and material out of their segments. O’reilly is the worst violator. It is possible that much of the original Tarpley interview was scrubbed.


you're talking.

If people approach interviews this way,

then it might force the MSM interviewer to have some of the other people on the lists on...


Good Point GW, and more importantly good post on discussing the preparation necessary to make the most of any public appearances we get. Brainstorming on presentation is a worthy way to spend a little time. Good on ya' mate.

At this point...

I barely trust anyone but myself, and if myself gets on National TV, I'm going to blast them with everything I've got. I'm not going to sprout names just so those individuals MIGHT have the chance to get on National TV, and MAYBE say something I MIGHT agree with... no way.

I would give it my all, and pray to whatever God exists for me that day that I don't screw up.

My two cents.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Actually GW...

I figured it out... what is the point of getting on National TV? To get as much good information out as possible, right? I thought of simply doing this...

No matter WHAT they talk about, simply respond by saying:

"Actually "media pundit", I would rather talk about..."

And then fill in the blanks with any of the talking points above.

For instance, "Duh, hi... my name is Alan Colmes, and I'm here tonight to talk about the Cockamamy idea that John Kerry thinks WTC7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition... as our guest, we have Webster Tarpley... So Webster, do you think John Kerry thinks WTC7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition?

Webster Tarpley: Actually Alan, I'd rather talk about how family members called for a new investigation this past anniversary at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.


Webster Tarpley: Actually Alan, I'd rather talk about how the family members that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, declared that very commission "derelict in its' duties", and questioned the "entire veracity" of the 9/11 Report.

You get the idea... you get out good information, and control the conversation at the same time.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


I think your suggestion SOUNDS like a good alternative to mine. However, my experience is that each person that gets on the MSM tries to do it all themselves, and they all run into this "lone conspiracy theorist" attack.

I think that a few people have pulled it off, but most have been shot down on this "lone conspiracy theorist" basis.

Moreover, even the few people who have pulled it off would have -- imho -- done better by naming bunches of authority figures. I believe that would really awake up the American couch potato watching the MSM.

Of all...

The individuals I've seen get on the MSM, the best, at least to me, was Mike Berger from I think he actually did what I recommended... I don't remember exactly.

Actually, Mike is in a league of his own.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Putting it another way,

the MSM hides the truth by showing one little piece at a time over many years, so people can't put it together and see the big picture.

Our job -- as 9/11 activists -- is to put the big piece together so people can see what really is going on.


and thanks for posting this, Mr. Gold.

Mr. Berger does an excellent job here. Stays on task, knocks all the lame questions down and brings in first responders and family members.

Isn't Michael Smerconish the guy that got in trouble with MSNBC for showing WTC 7 going down in this segment? I think he knows he's in trouble when Mr. Berger starts rolling on WTC 7 and he changes the subject to the Pentagon and the "what happened to the passengers" rhetorical trap.

I also think Kevin Smith did a good job on the ridiculous Mancow show, despite the fact that he was framed against a FDNY firefighter.

For these kinds of shows you have to be a quick, calm counter-puncher and keep moving the debate in the direction you want to go at all times.

As long as we can honestly analyze and constructively critique these opportunities we'll do just fine.

I hope that you and yours are well.

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

learn from your mistakes

You can really learn a lot from your mistakes, if not then you learn the hard way. It is very responsible and very strategic to have a crash course in how to control the out come of a media interview. Tarpley should have stuck to the statements that Jon and George wrote very good. Tarpley is not talking to a RBN or a GCN audience.


Listen carefully. The next time you're on TV, remember a few things:

1. Never, ever say something you can't back up, and back up in one sentence.

Tarpley blew this by essentially relying on a fake bin Laden confession angle. Colmes called him on it. There was no back up. Bin Laden may have been involved with 9/11, maybe not -- it really doesn't matter -- but we didn't get that from the interview. We got that Tarpley believes there's an acting troupe of fake bin Ladens running around. Bad approach.

2. Stick with known facts, and facts that people can look up. Prompt them to "google" them.

3. Push the 9/11 Truth vs. 9/11 Lies dichotomy. There would not be a need for a 9/11 truth movement if the government did not tell so many lies about this event.

4. COVER UP, COVER UP, COVER UP. Our job is uncovering the cover up. Whatever you can do to instill doubt in the viewer's mind is a plus.

5. If you're going to talk about controlled demolition, refer to OUR experts: Kevin Ryan, William Rice, Danny Jowenko, etc. Damage to one face of WTC7 would not produce a symmetrical collapse into its footprint. Other steel framed towers have fallen: IN ONE PIECE, OVER ONTO THEIR SIDES. Reiterate that fire cannot account for all of the columns failing simultaneously. Fire can only attack a small number of columns, and has never produced a total global collapse scenario, either before or after 9/11. That makes it highly suspicious.

5. Many witnesses reported explosions, and firefighters told of demolition, "like they were prepared to take down the building. Boom, boom, boom..." Check Youtube and Google video for world trade center explosions and bombs.

We need fast, one liners that can get around the sneering Nazi tactics of Fox et al. Preparation is key.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

The best argument

I believe that almost every argument for 9/11 Truth should follow this format:

The official story is wrong and therefore we need a new investigation immediately.

This argument has the advantage of being true, logical, reasonable, practical, concrete, having emotional appeal, and most of all, being in perfect accord with the scientific method (if the theory is wrong, find a new one).

This basic argument has three parts and can be stated in many different ways.

The parts are:

1) The official theory is wrong...
This can be put in many ways, e.g. the official theory is not supported by the facts, it is contradicted by the evidence, it ignores evidence, or as Webster might say, it is the perverse creation of neocon madmen who wholly disregard the evidence.

2) ...therefore...
One can also say, thus, and so, due to this, fact, because of this, etc.

3) ...we need a new investigation immediately.
This is the right goal, or conclusion, for this argument as it is in accord with good science and politics as they should be practiced. Furthermore, it offers a practical solution and one that appeals to the reason of the speaker's audience.

This basic argument has the added benefits of being fairly easy to defend. If this basic structure is kept in mind, it is difficult for anyone to throw you off balance because you will always know right where to steer the discussion. And your basic point will be well-organized and rationally convincing.

I think that if Webster had stuck to this format he would have done better on Fox.

Add to this, the many insights posted in this string.