Texas Engineer for 9/11 Truth calls Michael Medved Radio Show
TomT Sat, 08/23/2008 - 11:01am
Michael Medved Radio Talk Show: --- Listen to this Engineer member of ae911truth.org cleverly curve the radio conversation to Richard Gage and www.ae911truth.org.
Derek makes a great point that we can gain free "advertising" by clever applications such as this. He asks that we all try our best to access the mainstream media via methods such as this one. The dollar value alone is immense.
This Texas Engineer also would like to see every individual 9/11Truther sign the petition at ae911truth.org. Any individual can sign the petition. www.ae911truth.org is the one vehicle right now which can overwhelm the official story. Support ae911truth.org. Sign the petition.
- TomT's blog
- Login to post comments
Did they really play the X-Files...
... theme song on the background towards the end of the call?
Not that the end is included in the clip.
It's definitely a good tactic....
It's definitely a good tactic! A pitfall is remaining articulate and free from anxiety on the air! Hats off to this effort!
AJFan, as always, thanks for the link! I signed the petition.
...don't believe them!
Medved hiding behind...
... the same quantitative fig leafs as usual for a OCT supporter:
1) Millions of dollars spent -- as if the dollars somehow guarantee a good result. Just give me a couple of mil and watch me spend it!
2) Three years spent (ditto).
3) 50 scientists with impeccable reputation -- as if we are allowed to know what part, if any, of their work went into the final report.
Throwing around clever phrases doesn't help, either. "Specific girders were identified" -- sure! Long after they have been melted down, you can identify any girders you want! What about the "partially evaporated members" as per FEMA report which was ignored in this latest "study"? Or did the FEMA investigators have lousy reputation?
Wonderful segue. Savvy technique.
Thanks Tom for the link. This is an excellent method of getting the Truth onto mainstream radio shows.
Thanks AJ for the Kevin Barrett interview. He articulates the Truth with such confidence and depth. He is a real asset to the movement.
Barrett has done enormous damage to the movement
He has permanently alienated Chomsky and his vast support base by
violating basic ethical principles.
He has advocated ludicrous theories, and created among people in the
midwest the impression that Truthers are bigoted narcissists who will believe
any kind of nonsense that comports with their crazy conspiracy theories.
Barrett is a major liability, and 911blogger was right to banuish him.
Kevin Barrett interview removed
I posted an interview of one of the very few 9/11 truth candidates on Wisconsin Public Radio and it was voted up and then removed by an admin at this site.
FYI
Why was it removed?
I listened to it before it was, and it (Kevin) was very good.
9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars
Ditto that
It was a very good interview, I know there is some controversy here but for the record I'm still a fan of KB.
A vote for Barrett is a vote for...
"In almost all cases, as Political Director I support the candidates as nominated by our state parties no matter how I feel about them. I cannot in good conscience do this in the case of Kevin Barrett. I do not have a problem with him or anyone as a so-called "9/11 Truther.".. But Mr. Barrett goes well beyond that in two ways:
1) He frequently calls for the mass executions for treason for reporters who wrote articles with which he takes issue. I absolutely will not support any candidate who calls for mass murder of anyone, and am appalled that anyone who considers themselves Libertarian would advocate something so horrific.
2) He has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before coming to this conclusion. He seems to be playing both sides of that fence. I am and will always be totally intolerant of the Holocaust deniers. It's a blatant racism borne of a deliberate stupidity and I will do absolutely everything in my power to make sure that Holocaust deniers do not feel they have a home in the LP.
I strongly urge the Wisconsin LP to not nominate Kevin Barrett for US Congress. Regardless of your decision however I will go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP.
yours in liberty - Sean Haugh Political Director"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpwi/message/23483
"So it’s interesting to note that the Libertarian Party does have some standards. Calling for violence against journalists and denying the Holocaust are, in Haugh’s words, “beyond the pale.”"
http://www.foxpolitics.net/politics.iml?mdl=issues.mdl&Category=1&issue_...
Barrett: "...I am dismayed that... 911blogger.com, has continued its recent policy of silencing and expelling Muslims and those with views approximating those of the global Muslim mainstream... Sadly, I have to wonder whether [911blogger may be Islamophobic]... Meanwhile those who promote the ridiculous LIHOP "blame Pakistan" and "blame the Saudis" Islamophobic hang-outs have been endlessly promoted at [Reprehensor]'s new version of 911blogger; evidence implicating Israel and Zionists is off-limits; and people like Elias Davidsson, the son of Nazi holocaust survivors who proves there were no Muslim hijackers, and Jay Kolar, whose work supports Davidsson, are downplayed or ignored...while Muslim account-holders and those who share their perspectives are expelled. It is as if [Reprehensor] and company are desperately trying to save the "blame the Muslims" core of the 9/11 psy-op, even after the official story has unraveled."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/kevin-barrett-and-his-pr-manage...
"MUJCA.com is apparently mostly the work Kevin Barrett. Before August 2007, 9-11 Research expressed concerns about Barrett's apparent sympathy with Holocaust deniers, based on previously published conversations with the OilEmpire.us webmaster archived here. However, we removed quotations from that conversation after Barrett wrote to us to express his belief that our excerpt of it was libelous. Barrett's public statements suggestive of violence are in stark contrast with 9-11 Research's policy stressing civility, verifiable information, and rational analysis. In 2007 Barrett's support for 9/11 junk science presented as 9/11 Truth typified by postings on James Fetzer's website became increasingly obvious."
http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/activism.html
Barrett's PR representative: "Arabesque, the entire Barrett Campaign appreciates your great work for the Truth"
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/barretts-pr-representative-arab...
Barrett's PR representative Rolf Lindgren spreads Disinformation: insinuates that "Arabesque" attacked truthaction when Lindgren originated attacks
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-low-barretts-pr-representat...
Kevin Barrett
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/03/kevin-barrett.html
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
Excellent!
That was outstanding.
Great Job Derek!
Clever and convincing ! Medved walked right into a great trap. It did my heart good. Thanks
Trust your Eyes, not the Lies
If you do, the Twins obviously don't "fall", don't "collapse", don't "pancake".....they EXPLODE.......
And 7 is the best, most classic, perfect IMPLOSION that you will ever see.
Trust Your Eyes America.
It's just that simple.
Good job Derek.
9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars
Texan takes on NIST single-handedly at their Press Release
Shane Geiger, a regular guy like you and me, made things go right at a moment's notice so he could confront NIST at their Press Release. -- The lights were turned out while he was talking!!!
More information from AJ's posts from INFOWARS
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/geiger_shane/mp3/20080821_alexjones_sh...
...and again with Jason Bermas...
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/geiger_shane/mp3/20080822_jasonbermas_...
-
-
To hear Richard Gage and other professionals respond to the NIST lie, listen to the "AE911Truth Press Conference" which immediately followed the NIST Press Release. http://www.ae911truth.org/actionalerts/
Support www.AE911Truth.org. Sign the petition. Anyone can sign the petition.
Sunder sez...
...that if you will look at the thousands of pages in the report, read it, and understand it then, submit your questions in writing, they will have a discussion.
Why should anyone believe this? Jones, Gage, et al have done exactly that. Has NIST been willing to have a discussion with them to date?
These creatures need to be dragged to the dock in orange pajamas and irons.
--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Dir. Bldg. & Fire Research Lab. (NIST)
"We are [still] unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." (NIST)
Thanks Derek
This kind of thing takes courage and is very helpful, but maybe an idea to always go with the molten metal when asked for evidence as that is irrefutable hard scientific evidence impossible to explain away.
Derek did a fine job,
but there's one part where he screwed up, in my judgment:
He shouldn't have said that the authors of the report did it for money. In a sense they did, but that's not the way you want to spin this to the public, because it's apt to sound paranoiac and simplistic.
What, they were given briefcases full of cash? -- many might wonder, and then shrug it off as too far-fetched.
No, the real point is that they're working for the U.S. government. More specifically, the "executive branch" of the federal government. That means: under the auspices of the White House. Do you think these guys are going to arrive at any conclusion that implicates their bosses as the mass-murdering criminal conspirators we know them to be?
I gather some of those "50 scientists" aren't regular NIST employees, but "research scientists" on this one job. So, why aren't they objective?
First off, mavericks and whistleblowers aren't going to get this assignment in the first place. Second, science -- and many engineering -- researchers are a compromised lot, because they generally are highly dependent on executive branch-distributed research grants. Ticking off the White House and the CIA is going to prevent your getting future grants (ask Steven Jones). Helping out the Big Boys in a tight spot, though, is going to win you more goodies than ever.
So what we have here is: conflict of interest. Guys who either work directly for the administration or who rely on administration largesse for their livelihood. That's something everyone can understand and that should be explained matter-of-factly to your audience when confronted by one of the Michael Medveds of the world.