WeAreChangeLA confronts Scott McClellan


Stewart Howe and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel ask Whitehouse Press Secretary Scott McClellan about 9-11 and the Constitution. McClellan pretends to not have heard of PNAC and Building 7.

Unfortunately for McClellan, treason is not that easy to hide from.

Video footage shot by Jeremy Rothe-Kushel and Stewart Howe. Editing by Joel Bevaqua.



The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Scott McClellan

This clip would suggest that Mr. McClellan is not the innocent victim of deception that his book tour attempts to espouse.

McClellan Should Be Given A Copy Of A David Ray Griffin Book

Anyone able to meet McClellan in public should provide him with one of DRG's books. I think McClellan is a reasonable person who, if presented with the right information regarding 9/11 might begin to see things our way.

Scott should be given a copy of his father's book

Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.

I read this . . . it has problems but Barr positively matched the mystery palm print found in the book depository with LBJ's clean up guy.

Its true that this book goes into the strange universe of "faction" . . . I thought it was a good read and Barr worked for LBJ's law-firm.

(update: the debunking of this book was classic Karl Rove - pick out the obvious week points and amplify them while having no discussion about the fingerprint analysis done by the Texas Department of Public Safety (state troopers) expert who matched the book depository palm print to Mack Wallace - LBJ's hitman - suicide inducer)

McClellan is a plant

McClellan's mission was to protect Bush by pleading him guilty of lesser charges. Scott testified he had no information that would impeach Bush and that Bush was unaware of the Plame-gate...on and on. Basically, McClellan made a reasonable case for Bush's plea of incompetence due to insanity.

Look at the result of McClellan's sensational appearance that caused the impeachment effort to lose inertia. They are - with McClellan's help... very skillfully running out the clock.

WEBSITE: http://gators911truth.org
YOUTUBE: http://youtube.com/gators911truth
YOUTUBE: http://youtube.com/Hsaive

Yup, total Limited Hang-out...

...the perps have played the "incompetence" ploy to the hilt from the beginning...and with W it is all too easy to buy into...and that is a big reason why the 9/11 Truth Movement hasn't made more inroads with self-described liberals....

Clever move (promoting the "incompetence" theory) on the 9/11 plotters' part; obviously, this is not their first rodeo...

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

Doesn't want to get in the middle of this huh?!

The former mouthpiece for the treasonous 'decider of thieves' didn't call us crazy, didn't question our patriotism, he just says he hadn't seen evidence and had a different view ("I just don't share your views") and ultimately said "I'm not going to get in the middle of this." Very interesting statement. Middle of what? I thought we were anti-American wackos who needed to take more medication or be put in secret prisons or shot as encouraged by a former president's son . He has acknowledged that there is a debate going on.

the presence and meteoric rise of McClellan's soft criticism of the administration and Bugliosi's hard legal take makes me think that Bush-Cheney might be getting set-up to potentially take the fall for the entire treasonous affair.

We need to remember that Nancy Pelosi, just by taking impeachment off the table, is, under Article III Section 3 of the Constitution, pretty clearly guilty of treason in giving comfort to the executive branch.

Time to press the Democrats and entire Corporatist Media on the treason involved in the 9-11 cover-up.

The 9-11 Cover-Up is Treason!

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

I agree

"the presence and meteoric rise of McClellan's soft criticism of the administration and Bugliosi's hard legal take makes me think that Bush-Cheney might be getting set-up to potentially take the fall for the entire treasonous affair."

I was thinking something like that with Bugliosi as well. It would be easy to setup Bush and Cheney as the sole fall guys, since by titles they would be at the very height of our political structure, and both are very easy to dislike.


William Pepper's efforts may yield better fruit.


By the way what's the name of this book store? I would like to make a complaint to the home office, I spend significant time and money in bookstores and what is it with this gate keeper hostile attitude. You have an author come to a book store event and when you politely ask some important questions they shut you down like you're crazy or anti-American. I think these book retailers need to hear that we won't be buying books in their stores for at least a year based upon the censorship of ideas behavior by the employees. I'm sure if you were congratulating him on his fantastic book or letting him know how wonderful he looked on camera all those years or in front of Congress the camera would still be rolling.

" We're not crazy your just lazy ! Believe your Eyes not the Lies ! "

The name of the book store is... [drum roll]

Barnes and Noble on the Santa Monica 3rd Street Promenade

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Sent the video link to:

customerservice@bn.com , Told them I was upset with the censorship of questions, named the branch store and committed to restricting myself from any purchases at any Barnes and Noble Stores for a period of one year.

Sorry, not helpful...but consistent...

You folks had a nice little discussion going and the last words were about treason and the like. There are far better ways to go about all of this, and such mannerisms represent the majority of the 9/11 Truthers far better than this type of action.

Please stop confronting, please ask questions, please just get their responses, and maybe you will not get thrown out and actually get MORE information to become public record.

McCllelan is but a tool in the game and confronting him with being treasonous may seem reasonable to most WACers, but it looks exactly the opposite to the public.

And its the public that we want to swing onto our sides at seeing 9/11 Truth...and work like this pushes them away.

But, it feels good doesn't it?

Net loss to the 9/11 Truth Movement...got some rocks off for the WACers though...

Robin Hordon

With all due respect, I disagree

Sorry, Robin, but I applaud WAC for their aggressiveness and in-your-face style. First, they don’t have the luxury of controlling the time and place of these confrontations. It’s almost always a hostile environment. For all the stress and resistance and physical threats they have to deal with, I think they do a fine job.

Secondly, it’s impractical if not impossible to ask the kinds of long polite questions you or Jon Gold suggest. All it does is allow them to keep their poise and come back with a flat denial, or I-don’t-know, or I’ll-look-into-it. Then the video is useless.

I’m certainly not advocating on-the-fly accusations like “inside job” and “false flag” and “treason,” but I believe this kind of aggressive sniping is the only way to get the message across. To me, the message these days is not 9/11 Truth so much as 9/11 Accountability. And the audience is not so much the public as the criminals themselves. It makes it clear to McClellan and Frum and Kristol and Zelikow and all their nervous neocon buddies out there that we’re on to them, and we’ll stay on them as long as it takes. That counts for a lot.

Justin Martell...

Did it. Nick from Philly has done it. I have done it. You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. I don't think coming across as aggressive when the media likes to portray us as aggressive comes across too well. That's my opinion.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

*comment edited to remove personal information


I think those who perform future interviews (perhaps the term "confronted" or "confronts" should be replaced) should try to be concious of how they may appear to the observer.

As quick effective questions.

Please, feel free...


Please, feel free to get out there with a video camera and do it the way you believe it should be done. Ask these criminals the hard questions in the best tone you know. We all wait in earnest to learn from the master. Show us how to do it right.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Different strokes for different folks

The confrontations are revealing. Scott looked guilty. When they have their goons stop the q&a, it is quite revealing to the eye.

MLK and Gandhi would approve in my opinion.

Should have...

Asked the question or a variation of it that I posted in Jesse's blog.

"Mr. McClellan, during your tenure as White House Press Secretary, you defended both the 9/11 Commission, and the Administration with regards to the 9/11 attacks. You also justified the Iraq War using the 9/11 attacks on SEVERAL occasions. "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" was one of your favorite lines. In light of the fact that the families have called for a new investigation into the attacks on two separate occasions, and the recent news that the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission tried to insert false information into the 9/11 Report that ONLY benefited the Bush Administration, completely legitimizing the families' concerns when they called for his resignation at the time of the 9/11 Commission, do you agree that we need a new, thorough investigation?"

Notice how he STILL supports the 9/11 Commission?

Catch phrases like, "9/11 was an inside job", "false flag", etc... make us come across as crazy. You may as well scream, "ELVIS IS ALIVE!!!"

My way may have gotten the former White House Press Secretary on record saying he supports a new investigation.

My opinion.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

PNAC and #7

At least we have this on record that Scott says he knows nothing about PNAC and building #7. If this is the case- he is either a liar, or a fool who should be better prepared. In either case, he needs to sing more if folks are to take him seriously. Ignorance, after so many years does not look good- and now it's on record forever.

WTC 7 References Confuse The Uninformed

Seeking comments from people uninformed about WTC 7 likely will be unsuccessful in generating useful or compelling comments.

For the Record

At the 10 second mark the book store announcer says SM is here to answer your questions, at the 33 second mark Stewart commends him and actually has SM smiling and laughing. Then at the 42 second mark Stewart mentions False Flag and PNAC. At 54 seconds SM says he accepts the 911 commission report but would look at new evidence. At 1:15 Stewart politely thanks SM for his time, at 1:19 Jeremy asks in a calm manner about Building 7, and again in a civil voice at 1:28. Immediately followed at 1:29 by the bookstore employee saying that's enough we're done here, the camera is covered. Not until 1:37 as Jeremy is being shut down does his voice change and the word Treason is used and seems to be directed at the bookstore employee and his manner of censorship.

While Jon's question is pure "Gold" and would have been a great question, we should probably try to consult with him if we are planning a confrontation for ideas, I don't think you can say that these guys did anything offensive or damaging to the 911 truth movement or reputation.


that's what I saw also. Professional job all around and exposed this fraud for anyone who may have been entertaining illusions and false hopes in his sincerity/integrity. And, building 7 is on target IMO. It's the Bilderberg, NWO stuff that I have objected to in the past.

good summation

Interviewers were very smooth at first, but when McClellan began to walk away so quickly and guards got involved, they decided to up the ante. That is a decision you make on the fly when these things come about, often a little out of frustration, and I can respect that. I'm very grateful for these interviews. Thanks! :-)

If I had to guess, I would say that McClellan is a typical politician. He's not a scheming villain, neither is he a particularly upright hero. He witnessed some things he didn't like with the Bush administration, but was most likely out of the loop entirely with everything concerning 9/11, so his conscience wasn't really tested there. I can understand his desire to avoid this, that is very human.

As I mentioned in another post, he would be a nice one to have on board, even if it's in an only mildly supportive way, as he likely knows stuff that he is not even aware that he knows, kind of like Norman Mineta. I really feel that the more moderate, somewhat libertarian-oriented Republicans that were or are part of the Bush administration, particularly in the early days, will play a big role in finding out what really happened. While their motivations will always be a little suspect, I would be thrilled to have them help us in any way possible.


shows what a weasel scott really is.

"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush


As important as criticism is...the Newbies wont be watching these videos for information, but they may wonder what WTC 7 and PNAC are and why these questions ended the discussion. There is no perfect question to ask that will 'prove' anything. What is important is that these people are being confronted on their lies period. no matter how it is done.

If not patriots with camcorders

then who?

Don't stop...just ask better questions...

I suggest that its better to ask more precise questions that simply get folks on the record...and that's all. I do NOT suggest that the process of getting video histories to stop.

It would be wise to understand that ALL those who are hiding/lying, are well onto the Utube approach...and most, like Bill Clinton [and his curly dark haired narcissistic fool that got arrested in the name of 9/11 Truth-or something?], and Bill Maher [and his pre-arranged "reaction" to the Truthers in his audience] , know VERY WELL how to turn each situation right around against us.

It seems to me that the OVERZEALOUS approach comes from people who want the trial and conviction to take place during these TWO MINUTE interviews, or, who want to show how smart they are. I suspect that the thinking is that these characteristics are always a "positive" when reaching out to "the middle". Sadly, nothing could be farther from the truth because these characteristics end up diminishing the interview team.

But it does feel good doesn't it?

This aggressive behavior, ramping up of rhetoric, and specific tactic actually looks rather desparate and it DOES NOT present the best side of the 9/11 Truth Movement...just one undeveloped side.

In fact, such confrontational video clips IF even seen by the common person, will have that citizen conclude that such confrontational questioning that leads from fair questions about important things like PNAC and the WTC7 demolition, and then instantaneously end up with shouts of treason, to be VERY off putting.

As usual in activist movements!

BTW...this EXACT behavior is precisely one of the techniques used by cointelpros and agent provocatuers in the 60s as their job was to keep the peace movement supporters looking like hippe fools and people NOT practicing peace! They accomplished this by always getting personal interactions ramped up to get to some foolish extremes...which of course, would then make it TV.

The current We Are Change confrontaional approach saves the cointelpros a step...we now put it on TV for them.

But it feels good doesn't it?

Don't stop the cameras...simply adjust the approach. Its a win-win-win for 9/11 Truth.

We Know...

Robin Hordon

Please, feel free...


Please, feel free to get out there with a video camera and do it the way you believe it should be done. The more, the merrier. Ask these criminals the hard questions in the best tone you know. We all wait in earnest to learn from the master. Show us how to do it right.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

P.S. Sorry if I am repeating myself. : )

McClellan part of the Gay Republican Mafia

McClellan did seem to fall out of favor? Yet, he rose to his former position in this Gay Republican Mafia hierarchy.

I always tend to think these are well-scripted roles, crafted for each occasion. McClellan may very well serve the purpose of providing Bush and Cheney an out by substantiating lesser crimes.

I believe, the Republicans are that well-organized as they practice these tactics over and over down through the decades.

How can you be unaware of Building 7, Scott?

as McClellan hems and haws...
...don't believe him!

Yeah, I mean, I don't like

Yeah, I mean, I don't like to put down anyone's activism, but as someone who has been out there, doing this stuff for two years, I believe I can comment. Through using the most solid evidence (i.e. The failure of the commission, foreknowledge, the Jersey Widows calling for a new investigation) I've been able to get some lengthy and very interesting statements on camera.

I'm sorry, but even though WTC 7 is a legitimate concern, I believe going up to someone and talking about the buildings being blown up and 9/11 being a "false flag" event makes us look crazy. I mean, when I was first approached with the idea of this being an inside job I denounced it as ridiculous. Someone like McClellan has to be eased in to this. He could be a very powerful ally and that's why when approaching someone like him to join us in the call for a new investigation it needs to be treated much differently than the way you'd talk to someone when you're doing a street action. I believe Jon Gold's question for McCellan which he posted on this blog last week was excellent and hopefully someone will ask something along those lines the next time he is approached.

Justin A. Martell

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

alright then

Really who cares what people may think of you when your speaking about the truth... WTC 7 was a controlled demolition right? are we in agreement here?

On the student scholars website you include several interviews with Fetzer, who is an obvious phoney, what up with that?

Who really cares what people

Who really cares what people think when you're speaking the truth? WHAT!? WHAT!? The victims of 9/11 can no longer speak for themselves, accordingly, we speak for them and you want to say "Who care what people may think of you when your [sic] speaking the truth?" And when you're speaking to someone like McClellan, I'm sorry to break it to you, but it does matter what he thinks, and I don't know how many times I have to say this CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS A THEORY AND IF SOMEONE IS NOT INCLINED TO BELIEVE IT THEY CAN EASILY WRITE YOU OFF AS A KOOK. Prior knowledge, cover up, and obstruction of justice are FACTS.

As far as the Fetzer interview on my website is concerned, are you really trying to drudge this one up? Trying to be the self appointed "disinfo police?" I've never endorsed his views. I would give you the same explanation that Ron Paul gave FOX news when asked about appearing on the Alex Jones show.

"Who cares what people think of you when your [sic] speaking the truth?"...UNBELIEVABLE.

Justin A. Martell

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

I Agree


I think some of your interviews are among the best. You get your questions in and the last impression you leave with the viewer is the persons answer (or non-answer). You don't seem to persist when the window of opportunity closes, which is good because this can lead to a last impression being the questioner being escorted away in an embarrassing fashion and the best parts of an interview forgotten.

The McCain interview is one that comes to mind.

Respectively I disagree:

McCain blew off both questions with spin and actually had the crowd on his side. No progress for 911 truth in my opinion. (sorry) He made it look like the only people who might have a concern here are some of the victim families who are most likely distressed and left the crowd and viewers with the perception that the commission did a wonderful job. No mention of the questions proposed by the professional authors and speakers of the movement or of building 7 which could leave the crowd or viewers with a seed of doubt that could lead to individual research in the future. Why not simply ask in a polite manner what his thoughts are on the collapse of WTC 7 the third tower to fall at near fall speed that day which was not hit by a plane and not addressed as part of the 911 commission.

Do you not see the flaw in

Do you not see the flaw in your logic? McCain could have blown off the concerns of the authors and speakers of the movement about building 7 just as easily. Also, the video has received over 10,000 unique views on YouTube. With many of he people in the comments section saying "McCain is exposed as a shill, etc." No progress for the truth? I think not.

Justin A. Martell

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

Sorry, I don't agree but I honestly do admire your efforts.

I watched the video again and I am trying to be as objective as I can. My point was that McCain overcame the question by endorsing the commission, it's members, and it's recommendations. My suggestion was that a question about Building 7 which was not addressed by the commission and has had very limited exposure to the American public could have been more effective. With no reasonable explanation for it's complete six second collapse and it's limited awareness status it could not have been addressed without leaving questions in the minds of the audience.

In addition: Perhaps "limited progress" should replace "no progress" in my previous post, sorry for the offense, not intended.

McCain Fleeing Martel's Question Is What I Refer To

A well planned question left McCain with an almost panicked look as he fled from camera coverage with a lame response. Mission accomplished.

Instead of McCain being chased by additional questions that probably would not have obtained a response and may have lead to being ejected from the event, the last thing the viewer is left with is McCain retreating from the first effective question.

Good investigative journalists have always used this method. (Capturing on film a subjects evasion of a good question and making that the highlight of the segment.)

McCain is certainly in decline!

I agree despite a polished spin on "respecting everyone's opinion," which probably arises from his earlier days when no one respected his, McCain did seem anxious to move on after a single response to Martell's question?

McCain seems to be always wiping his nose these days? McCain is probably on steroids for his melanoma? I can't see how he'll be able to function as President?

...don't believe him!