I am sending you a transcript of a call I made to Michael Medved’s national radio talk show on 7-3-08. I tried to
discuss a 9/11 Truth topic: the phoniness of the claims
that Barbara Olson called her husband Ted Olson from
Flight 77.

Michael gave me the usual runaround: switching from the
topic at hand to related issues, asking for speculation,
asking for motivations of Olson. Finally, when I asked
if I could get back to the topic and provide more information,
he said “No” and cut me off the air.

In the same hour, two callers complained about these tactics
of Michael, concentrating on his cutting me off. Some of
their remarks are in this transcript.

In responding to them, Michael made the outrageous
statement that he does not do what he so clearly did a
few minutes before. Hutzpah of the highest order!

Why am I sending this around?
1. It is amusing, particularly the “NOTES” I inserted.
2. To encourage 9/11 Truthers to call in to talk radio
shows and to inform them about what tactics they will encounter.
3. To inform them about ways to overcome those
tactics. The best and easiest is to call the host on what
he is doing.
4. To show that there are in these vast audiences people
who see through what the host is doing and are soaking up
the information you are putting out.
5. Last but not least: ego gratification.

Michael Medved (MM)21 minutes after the hour on the Michael Medved show. It IS Disagreement Day, your day to take me on on any issue on which you think I am just dead wrong.

Zan Overall---Zan---in Los Angeles---and I disagree. I know Zan
because he corresponds with me very regularly. We disagree
profoundly about 9/11. Zan believes it was an inside job,
a governmental conspiracy. I happen to believe it was the
work of Al Qaeda and the 19 hijackers.

Zan, right now, is trying to focus on our disagreement about Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States, whose wife, Barbara, died on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon.
So your point… (My taping of the call must have failed in some way for a minute or so. The following is what was said, to the best of my memory. MM said something then I started
to go through three points of official denial of the story that
Ted Olson told on 9/11, and subsequently, about calls he claimed to have received from his wife from Flight 77.

I started describing the testimony from the FBI at the trial of Moussaoui, the so-called “Twentieth Hijacker.” The defense asked the FBI to testify about calls from Flight 77. The FBI testified that ZERO calls had been completed to the Justice Department where Ted Olson was located.

I then went to the second official denial of TO’s story. He went back and forth between claiming the calls were from his wife’s cell phone and claiming that they were from a seat back phone on the 757 plane. When the tape kicked in again I was
saying the following----)

Zan Overall (ZO): American Airlines say that there were NO
seat phones on 757’s and the 9/11 (official) historians, who
wrote the official…..thing, disagree with what she is supposed
to have said. (NOTE: the official history does not state that the
pilots were in the back of the plane with the passengers, which Barbara Olson was supposed to have said, according to her

Rather than take my word or your word I hope that the audience

MM: (Interrupting and perhaps killing my feed) No, no, no! I’m not going to have you plug a website. We don’t do that on
Disagreement Day, Zan. (Note: I understand why MM might have thought I was going to name a website, although I know
better. I was about to suggest that the audience GOOGLE
“Ted Olson” or “Ted Olson lied.”

MM: (continuing) But help me with this. Why would Mr. Olson
who has been a guest on this show----why would Mr. Olson
lie about his wife the day after she died? (NOTE: Actually he
spoke to the press about the calls on the very day of 9/11.)

ZO: Michael, this is a dirty debating trick you’re pulling on me!
(NOTE: I never got a chance to explain the trick, a trick he uses
against me on most of our calls. Instead of discussing the points I had MADE, the evidence I wanted to put into the audience’s mind, he asks me to speculate about what was in
Ted Olson’s mind, something I could not possibly know. This
trick serves to divert the discussion from the real subject of
my call.)

MM: (very angrily) It’s NOT a dirty debating trick! It’s a basic
question! You are making one of the most despicable assertions about a fellow I know that you could POSSIBLY make,
which is that he made up a detail about a phone call from his wife who perished! You believe that he was guilty, don’t you,
in killing his wife???!!!

ZO: (calmly) He may have been duped by voice morphing. That’s another possibility, but rather than……(NOTE: I was
trying to get back on track but again MM asks me to speculate
about who was guilty of voice morphing AND also asks me to
go into their motive. A double red herring across the trail to the

MM: (Interrupting) Wait a minute! He would have been duped by
voice morphing? Who would have morphed a voice to fool him
with and why?

ZO: If this 9/11 thing is all part of a government plot, these things would have happened. (Then, earnestly) But may I
PLEASE!, PLEASE!-----I BEG of you! Let me give the audience
some of the details……

MM: (Sounding bored and uninterested) No. (NOTE: Laughter was heard at this point, undoubtedly coming from the control room, probably from MM’s producer. My phone was cut off and
Michael wrapped up the exchange with a soliloquy. He never, ever gives a caller the last word.)

MM: (stuttering with emotion, and he is usually a very smooth
talker) This is SO pathetic! What’s wrong with these people??!!
I mean seriously! Really! Really! Really! What is wrong with these people??!! And by the way, one of the reasons I have a
negative view of Rep. Paul’s campaign (and I do) is because
virtually everyone who is like Zan, who is obsessed with a
government conspiracy in 9/11-----they’re all congregated around the campaign of Congressman Paul and you know actually, Ron Paul (if you look at his whole history) he deserves
better…..Slavic in Marietta, Georgia. (NOTE: Ron Paul does
not talk about a government plot on 9/11. He believes the official story about the hijackers but does say that our meddling
in the Mideast caused 9/11 as a blowback. 9/11 Truthers like
myself support Ron Paul because we like his positions on other

Two callers in the next half hour called in in response to my call and how Medved had handled it. I was very gratified that they did. I can believe that many more than these two were offended
by Medved’s rudeness and tactics. I will just give samples of what was said by MM and the callers.

The first caller was Ron from Atlanta, Georgia, a man with a good old boy voice.

RON: I’ve watched your show for a long time and I’m just getting worried. I think you ought to take less calls because
that guy was right. You have a nasty way of handling the debate with your mute button and it really makes you look bad.

(MM stated that only the producer had a “mute button,”
a distinction without a difference because clearly Medved had
taken me off the air in the middle of a sentence. What device
was used to do that was unimportant.)

RON: (later in the call) …I guess that’s what you radio hosts are
good at. You have a way of getting us all worked up……We call to debate you and then you cut us off when we try to state facts
you don’t want to hear……

MM: (later) Give me an example of where I’ve cut off a fact that I
don’t want to haar. What I cut off with Zan was he wanted to give some crackpot neo-Nazi website and…(stuttering) (NOTE:
Medved cut me off twice, once about the alledged website and
once, more egregiously, when he truncated the debate. Medved
here ignores the second cutoff.)

RON: That’s your statement. That’s your call but that doesn’t mean that that is a neo-Nazi crackpot site. Let the people be the

MM: One of the things we are not keen on is the call where the whole purpose is to give some website they’re promoting. If you’re willing tor come on and debate me about something------
if Zan was willing to explain for instance------(NOTE: Right here
there is a slight pause and Medved goes off in a different direction. I believe he remembered at this point his saying
“No” when I begged to give him some details and realized he
was in trouble. After saying “…for instance” he continues
with the following words.) Do you believe he was right? Is that
what you’re calling about? Do you believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy ?

RON: (Not taking the bait) No. It was just the way you disconnected him. It happens a lot. You let them get out a sentence and then you cut them off and you give a nice rebuttal.

MM: Wait! Wait! But, Ron, that is absolutely not true! (NOTE: I almost feel sorry for Medved and concerned about his weakening grasp on reality. He is here denying something he did ten minutes before.
Ron realizes they are going around in circles and makes a quick
exit, saying the following.)

RON: (hurriedly and politely as a sane person might break off a
conversation with an unstable person.) You’re good, man! You’re good! I’ve got to go. Have a good day!

(Laughter in the control room)

MM: (amusedly) Let the record show we did not cut him off.
(A chicken sound played from the control room erroneously implying that Ron had chickened out.) And one of the great points of pride with me in doing this radio show is (that) this
is a show where we TAKE disagreements. We relish it!
I revel in it! And we do NOT cut people off, for goodness
sake! (NOTE: Michael evidently thinks that denying something makes it go away.)

Sometimes people get cut off because we run out of time, because the music comes up and that means we’re going to a
break but in terms of me cutting people off because I don’t want
them to get facts out or because I’m unwilling to hear their
arguments? Nonsense! Let’s go to Aldo in San Antonio.

(NOTE: “….because I don’t want them to get facts out or because I’m unwilling to hear their arguments? Nonsense!”
Nonsense indeed, Michael! A few minutes ago you did exactly what you are denying now! Are you all right?)

(A few calls later, Kirk from Los Angeles called. Kirk was a well-spoken man)

KIRK: …..There was an earlier caller who mentioned that you always cut people off or that you frequently cut people off and I
completely agree with that and disagree with your arguments
against that. You do that on a regular basis. You do that to a degree that really belittles the caller and diminishes the debate
that you CLAIM to be trying to foster.

(Medved asked for an example and Kirk described a call he had

KIRK: …… raised a point. I countered that point and then you began a long rebuttal and rather than allowing me to have a
rebuttal you just cut me off and I thought I was still on the air and I started talking to respond and I realized I had been cut off.

(Kirk gave another example, citing an interview Medved had had with Vincent Bugliosi.)

KIRK: ….you ere interrupting him constantly…..He admitted or
acknowledged several times that he couldn’t really develop his
themes because you kept trying to move the conversation into
different kinds of……

MM: (interrupting) But, Kirk, that’s what I do!

KIRK: You interrupt people. You do not let them get their points

MM: No, Kirk, this is not called “Open Forum of the Air.”

Kirk: It’s called “Michael Medved Talks While Other People Listen.” Is that what it is?

MM: No, it’s called “Michael Medved Talks with People.”

KIRK: No, no, no.

(Medved spoke of the necessity of “keeping things moving along,)

MM: …..Do I apologize for occasionally letting people say their
piece, say what they want to say then I give an answer and then
moving on to the next call. Once again: no “Open Forum of the
Air” in this “Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth.”
(End of the show.)

9/11 Demonstration in Front of the Israeli Los Angeles Consulate

Above is the link to a video on You Tube of a demonstration I mounted in front of the Los Angeles Israeli Consulate on May 18th, 2010. The theme of the demonstration was ìThe Mossad Did 9/11.î

Local 9/11 Truthers split on the demonstration, some for it, some against it. I had an email dialogue with one of the latter group.

I think the following paragraph that I wrote during that dialogue might be of interest and useful in the oncoming controversy about 9/11 and Israel.

ìYou feel that accusing Israel will hurt the 9/11 Truth Movement. Let me remind you that all of us activists are in the 9/11 Truth!!!!! Movement. We are not in the 9/11 Half-Truth Movement! We are not in the 9/11 Canít We All Just Get Along Movement!
We are not in the 9/11 Donít Say Anything Against Israel Even If Itís True Because We Will Be Called Anti-Semites Movement!
We are in the 9/11 Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth!!!!! Movement!!!!

The Israel Did 9/11 (with help from Zionist and Gentile American traitors) issue is here and is not going away. To inform yourself please
go to www.rediscover911. Go to and read Christopher Bollyn's E-Book "Solving 9/11: The Deception That Changed the World."
I also recommend the paper-then-book "Stranger Than Fiction."

How can any Truther look at what Lucky Larry Silverstein did and not realize that Israel Did 9/11? -Zan Overall


You mentioned something not entirely positive about Isreal and 9-11 and haven't been voted down...they must be out to lunch or in a meeting or something...

How can any truther

make this claim; "American Airlines say that there were NO seat phones on 757’s" and "He may have been duped by voice morphing."

1) There's no evidence the calls were faked. 2) American Airlines, according to sources cited by David Ray Griffin, says that not only were there seatback phones on 9/11, they were working on 9/11: (see point 4 re operable seatback phones)

In addition to the baseless and offensive claim about faked calls, which has been used to discredit the truth movement, here's another:

"How can any Truther look at what Lucky Larry Silverstein did and not realize that Israel Did 9/11? -Zan Overall"

How can someone who represents themselves as being interested in truth and justice make the leap from Silverstein to Israel; from suspicion of crimes on the part of an individual, to blaming an entire nation? Why would someone, with all the additional public evidence, and without access to all the suppressed evidence, and without a full investigation, conclude simply that "Mossad Did 9/11" and "Israel Did 9/11 (with help from Zionist and Gentile American traitors)"?

This may be simple racism, but consider how statements like this 1) alienate rational, unbiased people by creating an impression the 9/11 truth movement is racist, and 2) by doing so, frustrate efforts for a new investigation- one which would go wherever the facts lead, including- but not limited to- parties who are Jewish. Now, who would want to do that?

911Blogger has covered ALL the evidence indicating the involvement of Mossad and certain American Jews in 9/11. 911Blogger has also covered ALL the evidence pointing to the involvement of anyone else; including principals in the Bush and Clinton administrations (people who swore an oath to defend the Constitution and were charged w/ defending the US), the US MIC, Saudi royals/GID and Pakistan's ISI, as well as ALL the evidence which contradicts the OCT and for which there isn't a clear suspect, as well as ALL the evidence of coverup and the people/orgs involved in perpetuating it. 911Blogger will cover ALL new evidence that surfaces, as well as evidence of possible attempts to sabotage efforts for truth and justice.

For more info on rediscover911 see the thread Victronix posted a link to:

For more info on Bollyn and how his erroneous claims have been used against the movement, see here:
Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth

CNN: Shackling 9/11 Truth With Anti-Semitism

EDIT also see:
"Missing Links" provides the critics of 9/11 Truth with ample ammunition.

stranger than fiction, to be sure . . .

>>go to www. rediscover 911

There's a great discussion about this over here.


How can any Truther look at what Lucky Larry Silverstein did and not realize that Israel Did 9/11? -Zan Overall

This is quite a leap.

I believe criminal elements of the Israeli government were involved in 9/11 (in addition to U.S. and one or two other governments), and I believe Silverstein is complicit in the crime no doubt. It is also true that Silverstein is friends with Netanyahu and several other Israeli prime ministers.

But to make the sweeping generalization that "Israel did it" is a huge leap.

It's as ludicrous as saying "The US govt did 9/11."

Obviously the ENTIRE government wasn't involved, and indeed, only a tiny minority, a criminal faction, were involved from the beginning. The same would be true regarding any Israeli involvement. I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Israel wasn't the only outside government with criminal factions involved in 9/11. Though it's dead easy to see how 9/11 benefited the agendas of Israel.

"But to make the sweeping

"But to make the sweeping generalization that "Israel did it" is a huge leap.

It's as ludicrous as saying "The US govt did 9/11." "

No its not. Because the US government--via the corrupt forces in the Bush Administration--had the means, motive and opportunity the Israeli government never has had and never will have. No matter what way you add it up the 9/11 fraud was primarily a crime (if only on criminal negligence) of the US Bush Administration--not vague outside forces.

"Though it's dead easy to see how 9/11 benefited the agendas of Israel."

No, no it really isn't. Maybe you want to explain.

ADDing it up

"No matter what way you add it up the 9/11 fraud was primarily a crime (if only on criminal negligence) of the US Bush Administration--not vague outside forces."

How can 911 be primarily a crime of negligence if the WTC was deliberately attacked?

How can 911 be primarily a

How can 911 be primarily a crime of negligence if the WTC was deliberately attacked?

Don't put words into people's mouths. Nobody said it was "primarily" anything.


"No matter what way you add it up the 9/11 fraud was primarily a crime (if only on criminal negligence) of the US Bush Administration--not vague outside forces."

Okay my brain fart

I said it was primarily a CRIME. But YOU were trying to say that I said it was "primarily a crime of negligence ". Which, from your quote, you know damn well I didn't mean, ergo you are trolling--BYE.


You are allowing the possibility that it was primarily a crime of the bush administration 'only on criminal negligence'. I'm questioning that possibility.