Who is this John Brown "special forces" guy that Greene has on? Some JREF tool?

...... First i will say thank you to this young man for his patriotism, and protecting my freedoms. BUT
he like all who hold so dearly to blind faith patriotism always ask how?
So my responce to this young man is this.
How the hell are we going to find that part out when all those claiming to be experts on the offical side run and hide, and refuse to be part of a debate. Adding further where the hell are all the major media on this story of the century? I've worked construction for thirty five years. As a welder fabricator, and iron worker. I've also worked underground with explosives. 110 ten stories at damn near freefall? BS !
If it smells like shit, i don't have to taste it to be convinced.
P.S. Next time why don't you get your experts to come with you for a debate? Also while your at it let's see if you can get some of the major media to attend. Yes this is a challenge. Good luck. You will have a better chance of getting into a snowball fight in Death Valley.

bringin' the noise!

Edit: I was responding to Rep's comment which he removed

The original title had Gage in the second hour. We only had minutes to get this together so in the rush that information got ommited.

The source information stated that Gage would be on the second hour.

is totally suspect . . . the reason they let Randi Rhodes go is that they didn't want to pay her contract . . . Randi is hardly a vocal truther.

Now Mike Malloy got canned for going near this stuff.

Richard Greene is getting beaten up for for this. A few weeks ago he played an extended clip of Alex Jones interviewing Jesse Ventura.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14831

Alex Jones placed it on the infowars.com homepage . . . "Air America plays Alex Jones!" . . . imagine the smoke coming out of AA headquarters.

Richard's audience needs to hear this.

(the little blue audio icon linked to an mp3 on my site at smallbiz.yahoo.com . . the traffic spike was amazing )

I don't think there's anything "suspicious" about Richard Greene, I think he kicks ass!

had a cold upon his chest.

this show came together 2 hours before broadcast . . no time for anything to be posted there . . .don't read anything else into this please.

Glad to hear that there was more and extensive coverage of 9/11 on the radio and that the person debating was openly admitting not to be an engineer and speculating. I hope to listen to the full interview later.

That's too bad that Pentagon speculation will be covered next week.

Here's what a book review says of author Peter Tiradera's book on the Pentagon, which I haven't read --

"THE PENTAGON ANALYSIS adds important new detail, especially regarding the Pentagon attack. In so doing, it buttresses the arguments that what hit the Pentagon was not a 757, that efforts to create artificial evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory was systematically planted, that photos were retouched to hide conspicuous evidence of what really happened and that there was a second flying object (this one definitely a plane) involved, quite possibly in directing the flying object that hit the Pentagon. The author also introduces evidence that bombs may have been planted in the Pentagon to enhance the visual effects of the damage. Admittedly, the style adopted by this author tends toward the sensational, as compared to the highly restrained, empirical approach favored by Dr. Griffin."
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1W3WIQIR95FDY

Bombs? Possibly. But a major problem is that there is no evidence outside of people smelling cordite -- when all you have is a smell, you have only speculation. When we are advocating speculation, we are exposed as mere "conspiracy theorists". There is also *zero* evidence that anything was "planted" at the site -- regardless of how a piece of fuselage or anything else *seems* odd or hard to believe, there is still zero scientific or hard evidence that anything was planted or faked.

That show is likely going to be awful.

For the easy refutations of most of the Pentagon errors and claims, please see:

"Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence. Those errors include the following.

* 'A Boeing 757 could not have executed the attack maneuver'
* 'Eyewitnesses saw a small plane'
* 'The Pentagon attack left no aircraft debris'
* 'Aircraft crashes always leave large debris'
* 'The Pentagon attack left only a small impact hole'
* 'The wings of a 757 should have been visible outside the Pentagon'
* 'Engine parts from the Pentagon crash don't match a 757'
* 'Standing columns in the Pentagon impact hole preclude the crash of a 757'
* 'The C-ring punch-out hole was made by a warhead'
* 'Flight-path obstacles can't be reconciled with the crash of a 757'
* 'Only A Small Plane or Missile Could Have Caused Pentagon Damage'
* 'The Pentagon Attack Plane was a Boeing 737 Instead of a Boeing 757'"
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

Bob Bowman has previously supported no Boeing at the Pentagon, but I don't know what his position is now. It seems unfair to only represent one side when the fact is that the movement is highly divided on this issue.

Jim Hoffman, Arabesque, etc would be better for a realistic balance.

Thanks for the clarification, Prof. Jones- clear information does get through. I'm glad you and Richard brought up the fact that bomb sniffing dogs aren't trained to look for thermite (since it is not what is typically used to destroy things), a simple point, but one that needed to be stated if only to stop the lame argument from Mr. Brown. Richard stepped in to bolster your efforts, so I was glad to hear you both work together to build your case.

Professor Jones

I am curious. How does thermite/thermate and its variations stay applied to the surface of the columns when its ignited? What is to keep it from melting downward on the column non-uniformly? It makes sense that the charges would be applied at an angle as other cutter charges are often deployed, but how does a molten reaction stay viably attached to the surface it is supposed to be attacking if it applied perpendicularly?

How would a series of thermite/thermate charges be set off reliably? Most thermite reactions I have seen require a very hot starting agent and a modest to moderate exposure to direct contact.

I presume that most of the charges were either timed or remote switches, but it doesn't explain how the they started a thermite sequence. Can you elaborate?

Also, have you seen any evidence of explosiveness of thermate/thermite which would correspond to the observed visuals of the blasts? I have seen the evidence of the melting metal dripping from the towers, but at that point, the reaction has begun. Where does the explosiveness come from other than more traditional explosives?