WeAreChangeLA calls in to Phil Hendrie Radio Show

It's time for the 9-11 Truthers to call in to radio shows all over the world and expose the listeners to facts about 9-11. Jeremy Rothe-Kushel of WeAreChangeLA sets a great example of tone and approach for handling the situation. Zan Overall of WeAreChangeLA calls a radio show at least once a week on average. Search online for Zan's advice on tone and approach.

Nice job...

.. "my brother". :)

Awesome job man

He has a lame excuse for every single fact you brought up. I used to be a huge fan of Phil Hendrie up until I woke up in 2005. It's very sad because he is actually very talented and funny. His show is unique. He interviewed Jessie Ventura a couple months ago...total neo-con tactics. Phil is officially a neo-con talk show host. Never thought I would say that.

Great Exposure!! Worth $$$$$!! Here is Jason Bermas talking...

Derek, engineer member of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", and Jason Bermas discuss the importance and "how to" in order to get air-time on TALK RADIO. Derek states: "Thursday, September 11th, is a call talk radio "bomb" day, but I am trying to get people in the habit of doing this once per week [or more!]."
...and...here is Derek on the Medved show...

I'm so down!

Imagine if, starting this 9-11-08) every one of us dedicated truth activists did just one phone call a week like Derek says and documented it audio-visually. some of us covered Air America (Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, etc.) some handled the neo-cons (Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved) and the rest of us handled the more local shows, centrist shows and CSPAN's Washington Journal covering all angles of the 9-11 cover-up (false-flag, 1st responders, family members unanswered questions etc.)

Not only would we reach 10's of millions of Americans who are engaged in at least listening to political talk, many of whom have really not been exposed in an intelligent way to what we all know, but we would also create a whole slew of interesting media and we would learn, along the way, from each other, how, rhetorically to deal with this with different types of people and different angles.

And, it would not cost but a bit of time, some thought, a tiny bit of gumption and courage and likely not a dime on a phone bill.

“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 added it to:

Richard Gage, AE911Truth.org, recently added Radiodujour.com to their recommended list of web resources!

Good idea, but there are better fishing holes...

This is another great idea...to get onto talk radio on a routine basis. However, I suggest that the idea of getting onto the far right shows is actually counterproductive because the people who listen are not the ones we are interested in reaching. This because not only will we never reach them, as John Dean has exposed, but because that is a small and completely worthless demographic anyway.

I suggest that its best to reach "middle grounders" in this country, and that such radio stations be discovered, and further that these calls be made to the local and national shows that are more nuetral.

One lesson that can be brought forward from the 60s protests is to not waste time arguing with a fool or taking the bait from an agent provocateur and reacting badly. Actually, a rendition of the following about this point of view can be found in folklore several decades before the 60s, it goes like:

"If you argue with a fool long enough, soon, the bystander cannot see which one is the fool".

Getting onto the right wing radio shows that are suggested is picking an argument with a cluster of fools.

There are a few national radio shows, and many more local talk shows covering more regional issues that are perhaps the real gold mines. Discussing local subjects and then dropping in a brief 9/11 sound bite or point is a good strategy. Its like "radio bannering"...an offshoot of "overpass bannering" so competently accomplished by WAC-LA.

Bouncing around the many, many 9/11 "points" and uttering a few inflamitory words is counterproductive also...there are better strategies and many simpler points that can be made. Such strategies start with well planned out points of discussion, and by using the concept of "Less is More".

Less is More...does not apply to the "frequency of calls"...because MORE-is-MORE. Less is More applies to the radio conversation itself and the need for it to be planned out to be brief and pointed.

Get in, get out, and make just one or two clear points...there will be another 11th in the next month.

Regarding not arguing with fools...never once have I had a bad day performing CI...[Civil Informationing] in public. [8 hours at Bumbershoot in Seattle just yesterday 6000-10,000 people saw my bannering up close]

This is principally because I quickly terminate all discussions with the "fool-provocatuer" types and conversely, politely work to extend conversations with nicer and more open minded people creating the preferable imagery and the positive conversations desired. This tactic really works well but it requires strong discipline not to argue. All negative conversations are brought to an end by NOT talking-arguing, by flashing the two fingered "peace sign", and by simply smiling directly at the fool until the asshole goes away.

I suggest that terminating conversations with right wing radio stations happen before they even start...its a BIG...waste-O-time...and there are better outlets around the radio dial that are available.

Maybe someone will collect and print out such a list that can be used all across the country...

Robin Hordon

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A picture is worth a thousand words. A video is worth a hundred thousand words. Please, Robin, videotape yourself in action so we can see and hear you by example. Make use of affordable modern technology and add your actions to the mix.

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

Well meaning commentary is only that.

Growing up, I had a close friend, Jay Adams. He was, and to a great degree still is considered the best in the world, the first and formost, at taking his particular craft to new heights, far exceeding what was believed possible. Two feature films have since been made about him being at the leading edge of the most progressive era in our field of sport/art to date. My point is, Jay got asked alot about who he took input from, among the others of us around him. His response was this:

"If a guy can SHOW me something first, THEN I'll listen to what he has to say"

We can certainly all benefit from being shown a better, more effective way to meet our goals. Post a link to your next video or audio clip. I look forward to it, and to any and everything else that SHOWS AN EXAMPLE of how we can all do things better; God knows we need our A game for this one.


a few points of clarification and difference

As always Robin, I appreciate your thoughtful input and constructive criticism. But, as I have said before I disagree with you in certain ways and agree in others.

first, a clarfiication of fact. Phil Hendrie although he had sort of a similar response to what neo-con talk show hosts usually give, though a bit more engaged and slightly more educated, was broadcasting his show over our local Air America-type affiliate KTLK, so his audience was not likely the neo-con set you say is a waste of time (though I will disagree with you next on that point). I was just randomly listening while fixing dinner and heard him compare "those 9-11 conspiracy nuts and charlatans" to the guys who did the bigfoot hoax-just people trying to make a buck or some fame off of people's gullibility. So that's why I approached him a bit aggressively. I think a little willingness to engage in rhetorical battle is needed in certain venues. So, while I agree that I could have kept it tighter in terms of what I was presenting, I hardly think that my slightly aggressive tone and my fairly extended time on air was "counter-productive." remember, this is not the CI of the street. the audience is self-selected to be fairly politically engaged and usually highly opinionated or respectful of those with a strong opinion. That is why they listen to these shows. so, I think that comparing this outright to civil informationeering to a fairly random group of folx on the street is missing the complexities and differences in different venues of the public sphere. just the difference between an environment just of sound and the 3-d environment of the street with a high emphasis on the visual is an important factor to think through.

---I do agree very much with your wise advice to seek out some of the more unknown or unsearched for places on our airwaves. this, however, is no either/or---

Secondly, and finally, calling an entire audience of tens of millions of people listening to "conservative" radio in this country "a cluster of fools" sounds like the worst of divisive ideologies and resultant praxis of the 60's that you claim to eschew. Maybe this might be part of your hang-up -- that although you want to move on into these new, exciting realms of 21st century activist approaches and tactics, you still cling to an outdated, in my view, version of the American people that says that there is just no hope for some folx. Although, yes, many of these people might be acting as "fools," you have no clue who every single one of these human beings is. when I talk about the " power to the people" I mean all of the people, not just the 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the country that you think will save us if only we can educate them. plus, strategically, whether you like it or not, the group of politically committed people on the "right, " that minority that still supports this administration and their policies are crucial to us getting our country into the hands of the best among us, not the worst among us. same as the gatekept "progressive left." both of these groups are politically motivated and the truth we are attempting to share with them must necessarily change their political conception.

It does appear that the more deeply one has been ensnared in the illusion of the beneficient Bush regime et al, the more powerfully, in many cases, one comes out of it into dedicated action. Some of the more dedicated truth activists voted for this our current junta in residence at least once if not twice. And while i agree with the sentiment, if not the words and conceptual construction, of 'not casting pearls before swine,' there is hope for everyone to change, to open their mind, transform their beliefs and lives. if not, there is hope for none of us in the end.


“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

Well spoken

and your tone was entirely appropriate.

As for Hendrie's attempt to dismiss the Visor Tube bombing exercise, it smacks of profound intellectual denial. And of course, there is much more there to explain.


“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

I wondered about that

'I was just randomly listening while fixing dinner and heard him compare "those 9-11 conspiracy nuts and charlatans" to the guys who did the bigfoot hoax-just people trying to make a buck or some fame off of people's gullibility.'

You know, this may be overly conspiratorial on my part; but with those reports about Bigfoot 'findings,' and their immediate exposure as a hoax, I couldn't help but wonder whether it was more than just coincidence that they took place just as the NIST report --bringing with it the inevitable rebuttals by 9/11 truth activists--was about to be presented. Some seemingly unrelated news reports that nonetheless have the effect of innoculating much of the public against any and all 'non-mainstream' viewpoints, at a very opportune moment from the standpoint of the authorities.