AirAmerica's 9/11 Truth Debate Tonight With Richard Greene At 9PM EST

According to Richard, tonight's representative of the movement will be Dr. Peter Dale Scott. The topic of discussion will be Cheney's actions on 9/11, the possible Stand Down Order, and the Wargames. The debate starts at 9pm EST. Good luck to Dr. Scott.

Kick @ss PDS!!!

I wish it was PDS, and Paul Thompson (only because I don't know that Dr. Scott has ever talked about the wargames before, and no one knows more about them than Paul)...

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Spread the news...

Hopefully we can get a few more viewers each week...

Who will Scott debate?

If Greene tells you, let us know.

He's apparently...

Having a hard time finding anyone to debate Dr. Scott. I'm sure he could get a schmuck like Ronald Wieck, but it might be next to impossible to find someone of the same caliber as Dr. Scott.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?


darkbeforedawn Is there a link where I could here it now that it is over? thanks in advance...

War Games.

Some good war games representatives in my experience were David Ray Griffin and Barrie Zwicker as well.

I've always thought...

Paul Thompson, and Nick Levis were the most knowledgeable in the subject. Especially Paul. I wish Paul would come out of hibernation.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

more great work by Dr. Kevin

more great work by Dr. Kevin Barrett, helping produce and getting this debate set up.

Peter Dale Scott wrote a grea article on the wereabouts of Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld:

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath
by Peter Dale Scott

Great work like this?

Noam Chomsky Does Not Want You to Read This

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

I have decided to go ahead and post my recent email correspondence with Noam Chomsky, without his permission, and against his wishes, despite his claim that by doing so I am violating his privacy, and despite my earlier statement to him that I would respect his privacy...

Noam Chomsky doesn't want

Noam Chomsky doesn't want you to read it because it says that his wife is severely ill.
For gods sake, he could have taken that line out. It is violating his personal privacy. Have a bit of decency.

Bad taste

Yes, the man's wife is ill. Leave him alone, already.

I agree that Barrett should

I agree that Barrett should have left that line out (of course if he did, someone would have attacked him for "altering" the email).

But getting to the bottom of 3000 people mass murdered is a little more important than worrying about the privacy of someone trying to prevent the truth from getting out.

Let me make it simple for you, mate:

It's not about who they are; it's about who we are. If you act like a dysfunctional piece of trash no one is going to listen to what you say.

We are not dysfunctional pieces of trash. We do not behave like this. And this is one of the many reasons Kevin is not part of "we" anymore.

In case you missed the memo.

Only one group of people behave like Kevin just has--the Paula Gloria-Nico-Webfairy-Killtown-Fetzer-Wood faction of fake 911activists.

You need to ask yourself why Kev has chosen to behave EXACTLY LIKE these tossers.

Show "You mean Barrett has been turned out" by dave mann

Galileo, do you have any affiliation with Kevin Barrett?

Or are you just a 'fan'? If you are working for him, we'd like to know....

snowflake; I met Kevin about


I met Kevin about two years ago. He came to a Libertarian meeting and gave a speech about 9//11, and I spent about two hours attacking him. However, he did give me a copy of 'September 11 Revisited'. A couple months later, I watched the video and decided Barrett was correct, the WTC was really blown up. So then I started to study 9/11 in detail. The best site is Jim Hoffman's The strongest 9/11 evidence is WTC 7, controlled demolition, failure to intercept, questions about the "hijackers", put options, foreknowledge, etc. I don't believe any of the "no planes" theories, TV fakery, pods, or any of that stuff. Nor am I a "right wing" Libertarian or a "conservative" Libertarian. Kevin picked the Libertarian Party ticket to run on because he wanted to stay as neutral as possible. He does not like the democrats or republicans, the Constitution party is far right, and the Green party is on the left. Only the LP, at least in Wisconsin, is in the center. That way he can appeal to 9/11 Truth Activists of all stripes, from Alex Jones fans to democrats who hate Bush and think the democrats are spineless, i.e. Mike Malloy type democrats. So, no, I am not working for Kevin, but I am assisting him with his campagn and helped him write some of his press releases and find material for his website. I hope you like his website and we are taking advice for things to add to it. My biggest pet peeve with the 9/11 Truth movement is when acvtivsts call each other "disinfo agents". What is really happening is that some people get stuck on their own theories or media strategies. Kevin has done a great job here in Wisconsin, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more 9/11 Truth Activists per capita in Dane County, Wisconsin, than almost anywhere else in the United States.

btw - The Libertarians are having their national convention right now in Denver. I am hoping that Dr. Mary Ruwart wins the nomination becaue she supports 9/11 Truth.


The fact that you initially attacked Barrett is very illuminating in that it shows how much 9/11 truth facts can anger some people so much at first that the only way they feel they can immediately channel that anger is through attacking the person presenting those facts. You are certainly admirable for admitting you were wrong.

I think it's certainly divisive to hurl the "disinfo shill" label at other activists, 95% of the time. That being said, there are a few provocateurs, particularly Nico, whose behavior is so divisive and outrageous that its almost impossible not to conclude that they're getting paid to disrupt the movement. I often wonder if the people who pay someone like him are the same ones who pay Mark Roberts and Ron Wieck. If Nico is a lone nut then is one heck of an asset to the disinfo office.

With regard to your comment: "What is really happening is that some people get stuck on their own theories or media strategies." I would say this was the case, for example, with Dave von Kleist and the 'pod' theory. He seems, to me anyway, to be a sincere researcher who perhaps fell into the trap of trying too hard to defend one particular theory; this being said, several of the pilots and veterans for 9/11 truth do believe the pod theory has possible credibility; these interviews can be seen on "Ripple Effect."

By the way, Hoffman's site is, not .com. EDIT: Ah, I see Hoffman uses .com as the backup mirror.

You know, it's times like

You know, it's times like this I wish we could see who votes comments up and down.

yea, my first meeting with

yea, my first meeting with Barrett was very memorable.

I was notified by the Chairman that a "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist" was coming to speak to us. Up to that time, I knew hardly anything about it. I remembered on the day of 9/11 that I was wondering why no terrorist group claimed responsibility, that was it. I knew the Bush Administration had exploited 9/11 to invade the Middle East and pass the Patriot Act.. I also remembered seeing an article in the newspaper that a "9/11 Truth Activist" named Griffin was in town speaking (it turns out that Kevin had arranged that speech).

So when Kevin got there, I was really rough and questioned him with sharp stern questions and interrupted him frequently. This went on and on for two hours. Nothing he said really registered except one thing, he mentioned Building 7. I remembered seeing WTC 7 fall on 9/11 (CBS version), but had forgotten about it. At the end of the meeting I told Barrett I did not agree with his theories, but that I did not have a problem with him looking into it, as you never know, there's always a very small chance you could uncover something. I also gave him my card and said he could put me on his email list. He gave me a Loose Change DVD as well as the other one I mentioned above.

So a couple months later I was suprised that another 9/11 Truther was in the newspaper giving a speech, this time Morgan Reynolds. I said, WOW, this guy was in the Bush Administration and this conspiracy stuff is in the newspaper. That prompted me to finally watch the DVDs Kevin gave me. Then I did some web surfing and discovered the Zogby polls showing that half the country thought there was a coverup, which made me believe the 9/11 Truth movement could really catch on. I also noticed the poll about WTC 7. Then Kevin's media blowup started. It turned out that the chick who tried to set him up, Jessica McBride the radio host, was an acquaintance of mine, and Steve Nass, the idiot republican who wanted him fired,well, I went to high school with his sister. So I gave Kevin a call and started to lend him my support.

The thing that really got me, is that there is no rational way to explain WTC 7 without explosives, and all the witnesses talking about the explosions is very moving. So I hope that this little story was at least mildly interesting.

Quote: "As one of three

Quote: "As one of three American scholars to have lost a tenured or tenure-track job due to questioning the official story of 9/11 (the other two are Steven Jones, who just co-published a paper in a peer-reviewed engineering journal on the case, and Judy Wood)" -

^ What?! Why even mention Judy "I put forks in Microwaves" Wood Kevin? Why associate 9/11 Truth with Kookballs like that? Just keepin that "nutty conspiracy theorist” stereotype alive as long as possible, ain’t that right!! Bravo!

I don't think

Barrett was tenure-track. The reports always said he was a part-time lecturer.

Show "Kevin has athlete's foot" by AJFan
Show "She's not a "kookball" -" by dave mann

No I'll tell you what she's

No I'll tell you what she's trying to do, she's trying to sink 9/11 Truth's credibility with absurd junk science. "Kookball" is putting it nicely, how about "Cointelpro Disinformation Operative", that better?

Show "Yes, that's GREAT WORK !!" by dave mann

No most of the "know-it-alls

No most of the "know-it-alls on this site" have already had lengthy correspondences with Chomsky, including myself. None of us though ended up making Chomsky look like some kind of victim of harassment, slander and breach of privacy. All the Chomsky cultists who read that are just going to be further entrenched into their disdain for 9/11 Truth, yet again Barrett finds a way to intentionally/unintentionally do damage.

Show "He is so rude!" by AJFan

This exchange is important, folks

Just my two cents, I've read the whole thing, and wonder why it's not on the front page - despite Kevin's playing fast and loose with Chomsky's "privacy", the exchange offers an incredibly unique window by which we can understand why the foremost progressive activist has refused to investigate 9/11. Are there people on here who agree with Chomsky's absolute refusal to examine the evidence (and instead rely on a whole series of a priori assumptions which such an examination would go a long way towards rethinking) is not worth exposing and highlighting? Is Barrett inadvertently revealing Chomsky's wife's health status really worth picking on, given the stakes here?

I think the stakes are

I think the stakes are discussed quite enough in public. We know Chomsky's stance on 9/11 and the TM. It wasn't exactly a discussion of any importance, it was just Kevin Barrett giving his listeners a reason why Chomsky wasn't on his show. Nothing was at stake in this exchange, I didn't learn anything new from it other than not to have a private email conversation with Kevin Barrett. This kind of stuff really hurts the TM. Chomsky won't touch the evidence with a barge pole now, and other progressives will be completely turned off by this lack of respect for personal information and the childishness of new media figures like Barrett.

Chomsky will, when asked, bring stuff up like this in talks all over the world. 911 truth gets a bad rap from the left for this exact reason.

You raise interesting

You raise interesting points, at least worth talking through. I'd be interested in how Barrett would respond.

Show "What is so private about an invitation" by FredHendrik
Show "Chomsky" by AJFan

I agree that it's an important document.

Considering the number of people who have died, and continue to die because of 9/11, as well as the critical role that Chomsky has played in protecting and perpetuation that myth, the information about his wife's illness seems insignificant in comparison to the benefit of exposing this man's hypocrisy in full. And we've never had such a detailed look at him before. Plus, Barrett was respectful the entire time, whereas Chomsky behaved like a slimey, disingenuous child. His remarks about us not demonstrating or doing anyting offline were particualrly enfuriating, and completely innacurate (our San Diego meetup has now had 129 events).

My question is this: is the dispute over his "who cares who did 9/11" remark in reference to this youtube video?

Because at the 7:30 mark he clearly says the following about the inside job hypothesis: "Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares, i mean, it doesn't have any significance."

Is he disputing that he said that?

In that correspondance he dismisses the "who cares" allegaton by saying: "The first quote is a transparent misquotation. Unambiguously, I said it doesn't matter much which group of Islamic terrorists was involved, the al-Qaeda group in Afghanistan or some other part of these loose networks."

But that's a lot different from the context and meaning of what he says on that youtube vid.


Well said

These are precisely the sentiments - much better expressed here - that prompted my first post. It was Chomsky who first got me turned onto political activism decades ago, so his comments on 9/11 are of more than passing interest, and there's no question these are by far the most detailed comments on the topic he has ever offered, and I learned a lot from them, having read everything else the man has ever said or written on 9/11.

Clearly, Barrett broke normal professional protocol here, but his arguments for doing so ought not be dismissed so lightly. Chomsky is also guilty of breaking protocol as well, in both his unfounded accusations against both Barrett and the Truth Movement - his abbreviating it as TM (first time I have seen Transcendental Meditation's former acronym appropriated this way) presumptuous and odd - and his reneging on this agreement to appear on-air, on the basis of false pretenses. However Chomsky uses this exchange to trash 9/11 truth, it's worth laying bare his twisted logic and demonstrable callous disregard for honest debate - illustrated here more clearly than ever before.

Chomsky's attitude is not unfounded.

We really need to focus as often as possible on how this movement is perceived by others. Not naive, illiterate, paleo-conservatives, but the average individual.

Chomsky had many important criticism of the movement to offer. The cheerleaders among us may not notice. There were many things he just didn't get. But if you try for even a minute to understand where he is coming from and why, his perspective is not without its own logic. People in the movement can be too myopic. The movement is too much an internet phenomenon and not enough about action. The movement has a lot of crazies, like Kevin Barrett, that make it seem like we are dogmatic or unbalanced.

Chomsky's argument that there are more important things is totally bunk for a number of reasons. And his argument that we all don't rely upon well established facts, as though facts only come from scientific journals, is BS. But its not wise to dismiss what he has to say entirely. And that's because we need to be concerned with how the people whom we would like to convince are thinking.

You can dismiss Chomsky, but are you really going to be so dismissive to people who think as he does? Aren't a lot of those people our target audience?


anyone arguing that this will keep Chomsky from addressing the 9/11 Truth evidence clearly hasn't been paying much attention. If anything, Chomsky's startlingly obvious evasions in this exchange may even open some of his followers to the idea that he's not who they thought he was.

And remember, you can't wake up someone pretending to be asleep.


Maybe true, if KB didn't make us look so bad in the process

It won't keep Chomsky from addressing 9/11 truth because its really apparent that his mind is made up. But for that reason I don't think you are correct that this is likely to open the minds of many of his followers. I'm very into 9/11 truth and I think Barrett made himself and the movement look bad. I'm pretty sure that fans of Chomsky would feel the same way.

Chomsky makes the hollow argument

that there are other causes in which more people were killed, and that 9-11 is taking time away from that. You mean the whole world is going to stop while it dedicates itself to Chomsky's approved list of causes? That's a totally false position. Second, Chomsky says that there were no real radicals such as those that protested the Vietnam war. How about Ralph Schoenman and Lynne Stewart? But he did say that he supported a lawsuit against Cheney. That could have been common ground.

I agree Jules,

that this may not open many of the minds of his followers, because apparently they'll follow him off a cliff. Indeed, this correspondance hasn't changed Chomsky's position one bit. But what it does is give us a better, more substantive argument for how Chomsky is purposely avoiding this issue, and that can be an important tool when dealing with people who don't follow him so myopically. Up until now, I've only really been using the Zwicker chapter, and a few online videos, none of which cut so directly to the heart of his intellectual dishonesty.

Plus, Barrett gets in a lot of good information along the way. Don't get me wrong though, I can't say I agree with all of Barrett's choices in general, such as associating with Fetzer. Also, he probably could have just cut out that part about Chomsky's wife. But ultimately, his decision to put this in the public domain strikes me as helpful for the movement. Plus, if anyone on the other side wants to call attention to the wife issue (worsening it, by the way), they will simulaneously be calling attention to the Chomsky issue, which ain't bad.


Nonsense from Noam

Sorry but I used to be a big fan of Noam and when he said it "doesn't matter: I immediately wrote him and told him I was ready to return my autographed copies of his books and that I was truly disappointed etc. While all the points Chomsky makes about his activism and concerns are true, they are just a distraction from taking the red 911 pill. Nobody can force anyone in these matters but Chomsky has directly and indirectly undermined the 911 (TM) with his comments and lack of intention to research the subject.
I am glad that Kevin posted the email history and helped to expand awareness of all the issues concerned within the correspondence. As for his wife's illness I will forward my best wishes and empathy in these matters. However, no amount of fancy dancing around the issues pressed by Kevin is going to fly with me and Chomsky what ever his real intentions are is avoiding the truth in these matters. His comment about ultra nationalism is very interesting and may reflect a hidden desire for a NWO of some sort. I agree with him about the original 911 of 1973 but the point is this country is now on the same path and if we don't save this country what hope is there for the rest of his important activism efforts. The truth seems to be that few of our leaders in politics, business, and academia seem to want to put America and her precious constitution first! Sorry but I feel it's time to put America First and the truth is our enemies do " resent and are jealous of our freedoms and way of life" the question is who are our real enemies.

I was referring to the topic

I was referring to the topic of this posting, the Air America show. I have not read through the Chomsky email stuff yet, so you may be correct, that may have been a bad idea. To tell you the truth, I'm really not very interested in what Chomsky has to say these days.

Chomsky loses big time

Sorry, I don't know enough about Kevin Barrett to comment on him either way, but Chomsky comes off really poorly in this exchange.

Chomsky takes a bizarre moral high ground when he talks about things like "real activism" meaning that you are poor and marginalized and so forth. Meanwhile, he himself is far from poor or marginalized, but instead is the author described in the NY Times as "the most important intellectual alive." He gets into a lot of silliness about the lack of real-world activism on the part of 9/11 Truthers, which is not only overwhelmingly false, but is also a simply tacky way of addressing this issue. Some of us devote a lot of time to different types of activism, others do only a little, but what can kill a movement really fast is a lot of posturing about who has "paid their dues" and so forth. This attitude is endemic to a lot of political activism, especially on the left, and it is one way the left marginalizes itself. One thing I love about the 9/11 Truth movement is that there is very little of this kind of attitude.

Barrett should have done a better job of debating him. Much is made of some comment of his in October 2001, which Chomsky characterizes as something the 9/11 Truth movement has taken him to task over, when really, the comments that almost everyone found unsettling in their callousness and lack of a basic understanding of history were from May 2004.

"Regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories... even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. Who knows? And who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy? If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy, it might be interesting. But the evidence against that is just overwhelming. And after that, if it happened to be a jealous husband, or the mafia, or someone else, what difference does it make? It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter. And I think the same is true here; it's my personal opinion."

9/11 has not only been used to justify 2 wars, but will remain the central historical justification for American interventionism and imperialism for many decades to come.

Chomsky's extremely poor handling of the issues surrounding 9/11 Truth really opens all of his work and scholarship up to greater analysis and a more critical eye by those of us who are similarly critical of many of the crimes committed by the United States and its allies, and may have accepted his scholarship as having a certain amount of weight.

Peter Dale Scott Does Great Work

He has uncovered a lot of the workings between international narcotics smuggling, intelligence agencies, arms merchants, big oil, corporate inteligence, organized crime , where a lot of these characters wear different hats and move back and forth in this powerful yet shadowy world.

Should be a good show if Greene has prepared properly.

Peter Dale Scott has totally dissected 9/11

....I have complete confidence in Peter Dale Scott in debating the military drills and the events of the crucial 9 to 10 o'clock hour of 9/11. Scott has dissected the day of 9/11 as well as anyone and is at the forefront of fingering Cheney--with just cause!

It's great to see these programs on Clout!

...don't believe them!

Help! Need internet radio link

I have a telephone modem connection and seem to be unable to use Windows Media Player for streaming. What I need is a "shoutcast" type mp3 streaming connection, preferably at 16kb/s or lower. Most of the Air America links of this type that I can find don't seem to be carrying Richard Greene. I'd really like to listen to some of his shows, but I haven't been able to find something that works.

Fred W


Dear Freddo

Try right-clicking the link and COPY LINK LOCATION -

- then FILE / PASTE URL in your player. That will usually force it to stream. I use other players such as K-lite, Winamp and VLC (which is a beauty), but they all need a little stimulation in this way with some sources.

Hope that helps mate.... cheers.

Chris Shaw
Feral Metallurgist

Thanks, Feral Met't

But I need a link to right-click on. All the radio station pages I go to either don't have Clout or don't do winamp. Air America itself now doesn't even seem to do streaming. Do you know one?

Fred W


from page source

paste this link into your favorite player

That did it!

Thanks. is a winner! It's 32 k-whatevers, but looks like my connection can handle it with just a few skips. Just in time for Peter Dale Scott, too, I think.

Fred W

From The Road to 9/11

For those who don't know Peter Dale Scott's work, you should buy a copy of The Road to 9/11 immediately!

Scott focuses on Cheney's whereabouts on 9/11 and the continuity of government planning that preceded 9/11. This passage is typical of his views on 9/11:

"I do not, like so many, simply attack the 9/11 Commission Report. Instead, I use its distortions as clues to what in the report is being suppressed. For the 9/11 report is an example of a concerted cover-up, partly by omissions and just as important by its cherry-picking of evidence and contrived misrepresentations. More important, there is a consistent pattern in all this: to minimize Cheney's responsibility for what happened that day and conceal unexplained and disturbing actions by him" (194-195).

...Another good passage

"No one has suggested that nearly identical versions of the incoming plane story occurred two or three times in the space of less than an hour. Thus investigators should be granted access to the notes of Lynne Cheney and Lewis Libby, which suggested that the story of the incoming plane occurred an hour later than Mineta claimed." (205-206)

Ron Wieck wrote this regarding Mineta's testimony:

"As you could find out from several threads on this forum, if you were not prevented by your unwillingness to look, the 9/11 Commission determined that Norman Mineta's timeline was off by at least a half-hour. Christopher Kojm, former senior counsel for the commission, explained to me that Mineta's testimony was left out of the official report for a simple reason: although he tells the same stories as other witnesses, he has every event occurring much earlier than everyone else."

These other "witnesses" are individuals who are Cheney loyalists(i.e. his wife and top aide). Can these people be considered more credible than Norman Mineta?

Tonight's Debate.

Does anyone know who is going to argue the debunker's side? Is it going to be Ron Wieck again? Maybe Mike Williams will be a participant.

For some good background information, these two articles should be very helpful

Norman Mineta and Richard Clarke contradict the 9/11 Commission Report

Mineta, Cheney and "the orders still stand" controversy,

Stern interview

Stern: "So you're one of the guys that don't think 2 planes could knock down 3 builidngs right?

Jesse should have replied: So you're one of those guys that thinks 2 planes could knock down 3 buildings?

haha awesome. couldnt make

haha awesome. couldnt make that any better.


omg that was awesome!

Did anyone just hear that?

What was that all about? who was Richard talking about who has been discredited?

Marky Mark Roberts

jesus, i can't stand Ron Weick

o man

mark roberts, and it was hilarious

Mark Roberts

You can view Mark Roberts's "debunking" website here

This is probably the best they can do. Sad :(

Did the show just cut out for anyone else?



It cut out for me completely when I was using firefox, and wouldn't refresh. I opened the stream in iTunes and it worked fine.

The first point...

This person from Iceland made was that the families are entitled morally and legally to the truth. Ron said he disagreed with everything he said. Therefore, Ron thinks that if his closest loved one was murdered, he doesn't need to know who was responsible, how they were murdered, and why they were murdered. Ron said there comes a time when you have to accept your sources (regarding KSM admitting to the attacks)... how many times have we heard from "debunkers" that this source is bias, that that source is bunk, etc... Also, we have never seen KSM. Never. The only picture we have of KSM is the one when he was supposedly captured. There are so many conflicting accounts about his "capture", and this EXTREMELY descriptive story of his death boggles my mind.

"Now it has emerged that Kuwaiti national Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did indeed perish in the raid, but his wife and child were taken from the apartment and handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in whose hands they remain. [...] But now it emerges that an Arab woman and a child were taken to an ISI safe house, where they identified the Shaikh Mohammed's body as their husband and father. The body was kept in a private NGO mortuary for 20 days before being buried, under the surveillance of the FBI, in a graveyard in the central district of Karachi."

I just heard Ron "correct" himself regarding the 1st point...

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

F-ing PDS...

Was cut off right when he was getting started. WTF.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?




Did anybody else hear the alarm on Ron Wieck's phone when Dr. Scott took him off his talking points?

Edit: Ron is lying. Norman Mineta was coerced into agreeing it was a "shoot down" order by Lee Hamilton. He was insistent that he didn't find out until later it was a "shoot down" order. However, at the time the order was being discussed, he didn't know what the order was.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

As far as someone from the Commission stating that Norman Mineta's testimony was discredited... was this person a friend of Zelly's perhaps? How about a friend of someone within the Administration? Where are these statements from this person? Am I supposed to take Ron Wieck's word for it?

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Good debate

very civil.

Just sent this to Dr. Scott..

Dr. Scott,

You gave an absolutely brilliant performance tonight. You proved beyond the shadow of doubt that "Knowledge Is Power". Thank you for your contribution to this country, and to this planet. It is an absolutely priceless one.

Sincerest Regards,

Jon Gold

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Richard Greene tried but ......

Richard Greene tried very hard - and did a very good job under very limiting conditions.
There was more time given to commercials than there was to any "debate." (or so it seemed to me - I didn't actually clock it). To try to squeeze three guys into a few short segments between long commercial breaks is just not a format for meaningful debate.

That having been said, I do think that Richard Greene is a pioneer and patriot for doing what he could --- rather than complaining like I am doing.

I would have loved to hear the guy from Iceland for a few hours.

I could listen...

To Dr. Scott for hours. The information just poured out.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

The Guy from Iceland made one major mistake (IMHO)

The guy from Iceland was off base in referring to the " supposed hijackers" as "Muslims." It is entirely immaterial what belief system people adhere to in determining whether or not these accused (and supposedly deceased) people have been proven or have not been proven to have boarded any of the planes associated with 911.

All this stuff about Muslims and Jews and Christians and Atheists and Buddhists and Agnostics is irrelevant to the cause of human justice. All these tribal references just detract from a real investigation.

I don't know why everyone get excited about these radio shows

The programs on radio shows like Air America's "Clout" are packed with more commercials than anything else. It's impossible to have anything but a superficial discussion about aspects of 911 with continual, long interruptions.

I suppose 911 is great for Ricjard Greene and Clout because these shows all need some sort of reasonably compelling hook to snag the listener. Then once the listener's attention is obtained, they begin the repeating commercials - over and over and over again.

This is obviously the main purpose of Richard Greene's Clout.

Show "Publish" by CR


Here is an excellent page compiled by Jim Hoffman regarding the Flight Manifests. As pointed out by Wieck, during the Moussaoui trial, manifests were produced that had the hijackers names on them. Does anyone know who started the idea that they did not appear on flight manifests? Do people consider these manifests legitimate, or are people going to continue to say that their names didn't exist on manifests? Personally, I think a lot of the "older" claims made by people need to be weeded out. I am a firm believer that some arguments were implanted into the movement early on so as to discredit us.

I still think there are legitimate questions concerning the alleged hijackers. Their identities, for instance, are in doubt. Were some of them trained at U.S. Military bases? That hasn't been resolved. Why were they portrayed as devout Muslims when they clearly were not? Were some of them drug runners? How did they know exactly which flight schools needed to be investigated? How did they get all of their photos so quickly?

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?


The original reporting did not show the hijackers' names on any of the flights.

However, the names are identified as "victims" which would exclude the hijackers.

Seems like most of those questions

are answered with some form of "identity theft". That, or government officials say the perps had the same names as others who attended the US military, or worked as pilots, or whatever.

Almost every piece of evidence that identifies the hijackers was found in suspicious circumstances, like the will and Koran and such that were found at the UA93 site and in a rental car at Logan. In almost every instance, the way the evidence was found (including the so-called confession video) makes you go hmmm....

Also, FBI Director Mueller said in 2002 that the FBI found no paper trail to identify the perps. How can he say that when he's also saying the FBI found Atta's will, and passports, and a list of the hijackers, etc.??


27 Newsday, April 17, 2006. The belated airing of the Flagg story in 2006 has aroused suspicions that it was invented to allay the many earlier questions raised about how the FBI learned the names of the alleged hijackers so quickly (see next section). FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Commonwealth Club of California on April 19, 2002 that "The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot” ( But CNN had reported on September 28, 2001, that “among [Atta’s] belongings they also found the names and phone numbers of possible associates;” ( ltm.01.html); and that this “information compliments the release of photos of the suspected hijackers” ( I am grateful to Jon Gold for bringing these matters to my attention.

What a thrill for me that was. :)

Be on the lookout for another clip regarding this very subject.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

html fix

Let's see if this fixes that italics problem

Guess not

Hmmmmm....that seems to have done it! (finally)

There are some things that just make me crazier than I want to be, and unclosed html tags are one of those things.


Thanks for all your hard work, Jon.

Peter Dale Scott is a gem, I always enjoy my conversations with him and his book ROCKS!


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

How do you know the

How do you know the manifests are legitimate?

A good question from the families...

2. Which hijackers have been positively identified by DNA? Is the FBI in possession of DNA samples for all of the hijackers?


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

How to listen?

Can anyone direct me to a recording of this segment of the radio show?


same here

Are there recordings or downloads of these? My apology if it was mentioned and I missed it, but I didn't see anything.

Thanks! :-)

What's holding up the

What's holding up the delivery on that audio file??? I really want to hear this show!!!