Members Of Cincinnati 9/11 Truth Talk On National Radio ,Mike McConnell (1:15:00 - 25 M)

Saturday January 19, 2008
Members Of Cincinnati 9/11 Truth Talk On National Radio With Mike McConnell (1:15:00 - 25 M)

* source =

More MP3 Audio Clips >

I commend you Cinncy 9/11 Truth!

First, thanks to alexjonesfan for posting this. I love the MP3s you post. :)

Second, and most important, GO CINNCY 9/11 TRUTH! Honestly, I don't know how you were able to handle such a hostile interview environment with such grace. Hearing the host of the show refer to you all as "tin foil" wearing conspiracy "nuts" really made my blood boil. The points made were good and hopefully the fence-riders listening in will start to do some of their own hunting despite McConnell's constant "don't believe this nonsense" he blathered on about throughout the interview.

And....lastly, as much as I hate to see more people march into the hostile mainstream, but we need to do more of it. Any amount of questioning helps, but it's tough to watch (or hear) fellow truthers be unjustly ridiculed throughout the process.

Anyone who has had 9/11

Anyone who has had 9/11 truth on ANY media, radio etc. GET ALTEN
Anyone who has had 9/11 truth on ANY media, radio etc. GET ALTEN ON!!!

Why aren't Mike McConnel, Thom Hartman (Air America) etc. interviewing Steve Alten on "The Shell Game"???

Anyone who has contacts with these people . . . Steve Alten, and "The Shell Game" should be PRIME REAL ESTATE FOR THESE SHOWS . . . WHAT'S UP.









Randi Rhodes, Lionel & Thom Hartman have all slipped in 9/11 truth. The network is very conservative about crossing into the truth space but some of their hosts talk using short bursts of sub-text. Randi openly questions th existence of Al CIADuh.

I monitor the network as closely as possible.

Saturday August 25, 2007
Air America Host Richard Greene Speaks With David Ray Griffin

* source =

Tuesday December 11, 2007
Caller Asks Air America's Lionel Not To Call "Truthers" Crazy And Lionel Delivers 9/11 Truth Sub-Text

* source =

Thursday June 14, 2007
Air America's Lionel Takes A Caller Who Gently Changes Subject from Rudy Guiliani to 9/11

* source =

Wednesday December 12, 2007
Caller Asks Air America's Randi Rhodes "Where Are The Terrorists?" And She Says There Are None

* source =

More MP3 Audio Clips >


You should know why Air America does not go there. It is because AAR is as fast becoming as much a part of the MSM as the more familiar culprits. In the main, AAR appears to cover officially sanctioned 'dissent' issues as do the other left wing gatekeepers. But they don't really focus on key issues - whether 9/11, election fraud, or the plutocratic oligarchy that runs the country.There are a few, a very few exceptions - enough to keep folks believing that AAR is actually confronting the real powers. They are not. Anymore when I listen to AAR, I have to turn it off because it disgusts me so much. Somewhat because of what they talk about but more by what they do not talk about. The most annoying shows I've listened to recently are Ring of Fire, Randi and the Young Turks. Shallow. Avoiding the hard issues. Staying with the conventional memes and offering - what is most likely - officially sanctioned dissent. The 'safe' disagreements with the powers that be.

That said, I have to comment on the Cincinnati broadcast ... McConnell is an loud and arrogant ass. I don't believe he would have lasted a minute with a good selection of posters here. Perhaps somebody else listened to the whole thing and can describe it but I couldn't stand McConnell more than a few minutes.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

Mike McConnell.... what a tool!!!

What can i say....

Mike, your a complete tool! Stop being a rude $#$% and get someone like alex jones, richard gage, steven jones and some of those firefighters who saw the explosions and put him in his place!!!

I cannot believe how stupid he is.... drives me mad!!!!!!

Keep up the good work 911 truthERs!!

The full radio show is here.

The full radio show is here. The group was on for two hours.

The Clip is the full interview

The clip is the full interview minus adverts. I also boosted the mids. raised the over-all volumn and compressed it.

My intention is to make the interviews more intelligible on computer speakers.


Thanks alexjonesfan....

luv what you're doing with the .mp3s! Thanks for your hard work. 911blogger is the better for it.

...don't believe them!

pretty edgy confrontation

Surprised by how good a confrontation (better than just an interview), Cincy 9/11 Truth held up well. It's amazing, again, how much a loud resolute voice airing total propagenda can sound persuasive, in this case, McConnell.

Guys calling in, who purported to be in the engineering field, did not impress as experts. They didn't score much in the way of points for 9/11 believers.

Cincy 9/11 Truth got around to the talking points which casts severe doubt on the government's argument. How can anyone not suspect something is amiss if the FBI rounds up all the video in the area of the Pentagon within a short period and only produce 5 frames? McConnell did well, however, casting doubt by offering, "well, did people want to see video footage with nothing on it?" or something, to that extent. He also added, "they held the tape because of the Moussoui trial and would've loved to have even better video." This is what the 9/11 fruth movement is up against. They simply don't care about getting at the truth. They just want to ground up any dissent like another piece of meat.

McConnell seemed well-rehearsed but almost felt, at times, he even treated the interview as little more than a game, which sounds calloused.

All in all, a pretty good episode in 9/11 history and anyone thinking of going on air would do well to study this one.

McConnell=towing the established line. You just...

...don't believe them!

Thank you alllans2k7

I was one of the three who represented Cincinnati 9/11 Truth on the Mike McConnell program this past Saturday. I want to point out that Mike McConnell worked for CLEAR CHANNEL.

We were initially invited by his producer to participate in a half hour interview and it turned into a two hour program! My specific goal going into this interview was to try to address as many 9/11 issues and 'unanswered questions' as possible and get this information out to the national audience that we were given the opportunity to address. For the most part ,I feel that I accomplished much of this goal. Of course there were issues that we weren't able to get to. Such as; FAA and NORAD Standard Operating Producers. Like if a problem does occur and you are uncertain whether this is or is not an emergency, you are REQUIRED "to treat it as an emergency". We didn't get to address the 'pinpoints' that all aircraft are required to hit along their flight path and if they don't hit these 'pinpoints' precisely, the ATC will immediately be alerted and he/she will contact the errant aircraft and has the authority to request 'fighter support for an interception'. We didn't get to address the 'Hani Hanjour' issue versus Pilots For 9/11 Truth. We didn't get to the war games.We didn't get to all of the 'explosion testimony' or the illegal removal by Guiliani of the WTC steel etc. The serious health problems caused by the toxic dust on the first responders etc.

We were able to tell his audience about the FBI having no hard evidence' against Bin Laden for 9/11, Operation Northwoods, the molten metal/thermate, freefall collapse, questions regarding the Pentagon, Shanksville, the International aspect of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It seemed that we were constantly being distracted by McConnell's 'red herring' arguments and having to address those ridiculous issues.

It was a very confrontational interview. There was certainly no doubt at that!

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

Show "Well..." by Mel


Yes I agree. They were poorly prepared.
They seemed to support the nonsense that no plane hit the Pentagon. The real question is what plane and why does the released flight data recorder
flight path not match the physical evidence of the downed light poles.

Everyone is a critic

See my post above to allan2k7.

I know that we have already discussed the opportunity to learn from this as to how to deflect all of the 'red herrings' (something that distracts attention from the real issue) we were assaulted with.

None of us agree with the idea that it was Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon. I was being sarcastic when I said "Ok Mike, you win, a plane struck the Pentagon". And I'm not sure how you counter an argument with a person, McConnell, who denies that other surveillance cameras were even at the Pentagon?

I have to admit, I was incredibly nervous being on national radio and having listened again to the show I think "Why didn't I say this?" One perfect example was when McConnell kept arguing that the plane was going so fast that the Pentagon cameras (even if they existed) couldn't even pick them up. Then a caller who mentioned that someone claims that an eyewitness was able to see the 'faces of the frightened passengers' as the plane flew by. In hindsight it would have been a perfect response to say "So, a person was able to make out faces on the plane yet cameras were unable to even pick up an image of the plane? Someone needs to get their story straight!" The were other situations like that for all of us.

Use this as a learning tool and when you get your opportunity to go a national radio broadcast ,you will be able anticipate the interviewers' questions much better. That's what we will do if given the opportunity. But in general, I was very pleased with our performance and the ability to get this message out to a national audience.

BTW, there were three of us. Not two people.

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

You said:

"And I'm not sure how you counter an argument with a person, McConnell, who denies that other surveillance cameras were even at the Pentagon?"

That's exactly the point. You should NOT be putting yourself in a position where you have to answer such a question. Wanna know why you had a hard time answering it? BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRUE OR NOT. Is there, or isn't there, cameras all over the place at the Pentagon? And if there are, where do they point, and at what frame rate are they recording, etc, etc. Proof, proof, proof.

Sadly, the message you got out, in the end, is that there's nothing to these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Likely thousands of people will no longer (if they ever did) take any of this seriously.

Would I do any better? Likely not, and with this knowledge in hand, I would NOT get myself into such a situation. It takes a special kind of person to handle a guy like McConnell, and I know I don't have what ot takes to remain calm and collected whan assaulted like that.

Thanks Cinci guys for fighting the good fight

Thanks Cinci guys for fighting the good fight.

Mike was tough and a good example of what we are up against.

Here is how we win these debates hands down.

State up front that the case against the government is based on the cumulative weight of the evidence. Also, we do not have to prove every point. We only have to disprove any one of many key points in the government story to disprove the entire myth.

At the beginning, state that if you do not have a link to a fact, video or audio, you will have it on your blog right after the show.

Be up front about what evidence is irrefutable (WTC collapsing in 6.6 seconds, etc.) and what is subject to interpretation (whether Cheney gave a shoot down order, etc.).

Then when you make a point, give the audience a link to follow up on, immediately or on your web site the next day.

There will be a number of predictable arguments raised by the other side. Be prepared to refute with a link or reference for people to follow up.

Here are some of the official conspiracy theory points that might be raised and links where the 911 truth works has already been done. The ones that I will give here are all on this page and were brought up in the interview:

* Popular Mechanics in full retreat on Charles Goyette Show
* BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell
* Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition
* NIST Chief Engineer Lies About Molten Metal
* Loose Change Final Cut - Official Movie Trailer

Each of these videos will let the listeners follow up on their own.

In particular the "Popular Mechanics in full retreat on Charles Goyette Show" destroys any credibility that Popular Mechanics might have.

Thanks again for fighting the good fight.


DNA, Popular Mechanics and Davin Coburn - FYI

Wednesday August 23, 2006
Senior Popular Mechanics Fact Checker Davin Coburn Speaks With Radio Talk Show Host Charles Goyette

* source =

Wednesday September 27, 2006
Web Phone Activist Pumpitout Gives Davin Coburn A Follow-up Call At Hearst Headquarters

* source =

More MP3 Audio Clips >

My advice to my friends at Cincy 9/11 Truth:

As I have moved out of the Cincinnati area, and regret not being able to be part of that show, I have some constructive criticism intended to make future interviews with hostile hosts even more effective. You guys overall did almost as good a job as possible, but there are ways that the blade can be greatly sharpened if you follow my words of wisdom: ;-)

There were several times where McConnell cornered you guys with the "debunkers" talking points. It sounded almost as if McConnell had received a personal coaching from James Meigs or Mark Roberts. My advice to anyone who is going to be up against such an interviewer would be this:

Go through Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking." Several times. With a pen and yellow highlighter.

Griffin shows beyond a shadow of doubt that Popular Mechanics' "Debunking 9/11 Myths" is nothing short of propaganda.

McConnell was unapologetic in calling you nuts. When he and others pontificate over Popular Mechanics as the holy grail of logic and reasoning, be forceful and unapologetic about labeling Popular Mechanics 9/11 staff as Liars, with a Capital L. Griffin has proven this beyond any doubt.

When the interviewer says: "So the hundreds of experts in the relevant fields PM consulted are all liars and in on the Bush conspiracy?" You should counter him with: "No, we're saying the chief editors of Popular Mechanics are guilty of bolstering their case by omissions, distortions and yes, in some instances, flat-out lies."

Remember when James Meigs said to Jason Bermas in 2006, that "It's very telling that when you disagree with someone, you call them a liar." While I still enjoy a hearty chuckle thinking of Bermas' response of "I'm not calling anyone a liar, I'm calling you a liar," this did very little to convince someone naturally predisposed to think of us as "frothing at the mouth." What Bermas should have done, and what needs to be done in future, is to explain that it's not because we disagree with them that they're liars. It's because a thorough, scrutinizing examination of their book shows that they have cherry-picked, omitted, and distorted, to say nothing of starting with a conclusion and working backward, all the sins of which they accuse truthers.

When McConnell raised the Pop Mech talking point about how the molten steel in the rubble might really have been glass, timing (or lack therof) was essential. Remember how short some listeners' memories are. At that very moment, someone should have forcefully said: "Perhaps there was melted glass, but Popular Mechanics is engaging in deliberate deceit there. The existence of molten STEEL in the rubble has been reported by so many whose testimony cannot be doubted, such as Mark Loizeaux and Les Robertson." While the Robertson/Loizeaux testimony was mentioned by the Cincy 9/11 people, it was done several minutes too late and the deceit of Popular Mechanics was not condemned vociferously enough. The debunker crowd unapologetically derides David Ray Griffin as a theologian who operates on faith and myths. We should not be afraid to call the PM 9/11 staff yellow journalists shilling for the Bush Administration. We do have the facts on our side.

Organizations like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth should be mentioned more on interviews like this. When the interviewer juxtaposes Griffin's theologian background against the architects, engineers, pilots that contributed to the Popular Mechanics article in defense of the official narrative, and says: "Now are all the experts PM consulted in on the conspiracy?" A good way to counter that would be to say: "It's all well and good that some experts believe the official narrative. However, what people like you don't understand is that there are OTHER EXPERTS who disagree with PM's experts. There is NOT unanimous agreement amongst all pilots and engineers. This is why a truly independent investigation is needed."

When credentialed people like Danny Jowenko or Richard Gage are mentioned, McConnell and other debunkers will then try, in a final grasp at straws, to turn the search for truth into a popularity contest. They'll say: " represents .01% of the total architects and engineers in the country! The vast majority of the others think Gage is nuts!" When this happens, FIRMLY DECLARE that "Truth is not a popularity contest." Follow that up with: "Gandhi said that 'An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. '" That's a quick and effective comeback. Then for good measure, you can rub in the logical fallacies in the ".01%" argument the debunker threw at you. Tell him "You're assuming the other 99.99% have even looked into, or have heard of, the alternative theories. You're assuming that the memberships of the truth organizations have reached their peaks, when in reality they continue to grow in leaps and bounds. You are making assumptional fallacies all over the place."

I will add more to this and perhaps try to create a blog entry on this subject; how to annihilate hostile interviewers with facts, and the timing of how those facts should be presented when the interviewer only gives you about ten seconds to speak.

EDIT: As I correct a few spelling errors, I also would like to add: When the debunker uses the appeal-to-authority fallacy when trying to discredit people like Griffin, a very obvious point needs to be made: Our entire judicial system depends on "unqualified" people - laymen - to evaluate the testimony of competing experts.

Superb advice, and let me add once again in my...

...not so amiable way: It takes a VERY special personality to be able to put this kind of defense into play, and further, to turn a defensive position into an offensive one. Please, please, please, everyone, recognize in yourself your ability/inability to do such a thing, and act appropriately.

And if I may add something regarding McConnell's statement that " represents .01% of the total architects and engineers in the country, with the remaining 99.99% agree with the official collapse explanation" (paraphrased). This statement is patently FALSE. The other 99.99% have been virtually silent on the subject. There is nowhere on the internet that I'm aware of (or anywhere else, for that matter...perhaps someone can prove me wrong?) that shows the bios and signatures of non-NIST-employed 'specialists' who officially endorse the NIST report. Their silence is deafening.