CrossTalk on 9/11: Whodunit? 25.5 Minutes Russia Today March 10 / With Guest: Ian Henshall, Annie Machon, Richard Gage

CrossTalk on 9/11: Whodunit? 25.5 Minutes Russia Today March 10

With Guest: Ian Henshall, Annie Machon, Richard Gage

In this edition of CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle asks his guests why discussion of the events of 9/11 continue to attrack so much attention but is all but banned in the media mainstream.


bad questions and worse host

All I can say is the interviewer, Peter Lavelle, is like the RT equivalent of Larry King. Those were the worst questions I've heard in a long time. Those questions were very ABC-like. Let's not debate evidence, let's debate whether or not 9/11 Truthers were creating an "industry" that "entertains" and from which these Truthers draw huge profits. Did this guy write his own questions? If so, he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Well, I knew that anyway just based on his responses to Richard Gage.

I've been watching most if not all of the RT pieces on 9/11 truth. I can't help wonder why they are giving it so much airtime. Seems like a new story/segment comes out everyday now.

Yes, poorly articulated questions, but. . .

Richard Gage, (God love him) did not answer the question posed to him. The announcer wanted to know why there is what he believed to be a consensus of scholarly opinion about these events, as he kept saying, "Your scientists, vs. other scientists," or some similar phrase. Gage only needed to point out that no reputable scientist has successfully disputed ANY of the conclusions, findings and SCIENCE of the controlled demolition proposal. It is essentially, fact. Gage didn't say this, and should have.

Gage knows the facts and he's

Gage knows the facts and he's presented them so many times he seems to say nothing but the same thing in the same way no matter what the question that is posed to him. His delivery seems to make him appear as if he's hunting for that familiar factoid. Ian seems much more facile and with an ability to cover any aspect of 9/11 and with more political and historical perspective.

When someone has a spiel to make when they are asked a question they always return to their talking points as opposed to answering the questions... even when the questions are stupid.

Dealing with the media is a real skill... especially when they are looking to trip you up... and they're good at it too.

Talking points

I think that Richard is so used to adversarial interviews that he just automatically goes to his talking points, as he too often only gets brief moments to get his facts in. Thus, he does need an approach that takes full advantage of a more friendly interviewer. Hopefully, there will be more friendly interviews so this is something we can work on and address.

I thought that Ms. Machon could have hit a home run with the " What is the connection between demolition, al Qaeda and planes?" question. While she did start off well by mentioning false flags, instead of veering into her personal experience with MI5, she would have done much better to make the actual connections which show that 9/11 was indeed a false flag operation.

This is important because one of the questions I get asked way too many times is "If the buildings were demolished using explosives, why did they fly planes into them?" The obvious answer is that all false flags have a cover story, a false narrative, created and disseminated to point to someone else and divert away from what actually happened. As the 9/11 operation was a massive false flag, the false narrative was created over years, recruiting Osama bin Laden, inventing al Qaeda, perpetrating smaller false flags (e.g. African embassy bombings, the '93 WTC bombing), bringing "terrorist hijackers" into the country, sending some of them to flight schools, staging "hijackings" and finally flying planes (with or without "hijackers") into the buildings. A very carefully crafted narrative for the American people and the msm, which is used to convince the American people what reality is.

That said, I think that Ms. Machon did well, Mr. Henshall did better and Richard did ok.

Did you all notice the "9/11 Marketing" sub-heading they kept putting on the screen throughout the whole show? This in addition to the way host Peter Lavelle introduced the second segment of the show:

"Welcome back to CrossTalk, I'm Peter Lavelle. To remind you we're discussing whether the people have been denied the truth about 9/11 or whether conspiracy theorists are just turning this tragedy into an industry."

Very interesting framing, don't you think?

It would be very helpful if we could get some communications students to analyze all these interviews and programs, deconstruct them and create effective strategies to take better advantage of them or counter them when they are straight up hit pieces. Maybe Project Censored could do some of this. I may do a thorough analysis of this particular one, myself, if things ever slow down enough.

In any case, practice makes perfect and it is good that we are getting so much practice these days. I think this is the beginning of a trend, too.

Make 2010 the year of 9/11 truth, brothers and sisters, let's get busier!

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

The problem of course is that

The problem of course is that interviewers frame 9/11 as a conspiracy and want to know who. what, where and so forth. Virtually all 9/11 Truthers have discovered evidence which lies outside the conventional explanation and vary in their demands from: wanting answers and a new investigation to explain those facts and discover more such as who else was involved and see where it goes... to others who allege specific individuals as culprits and assume their agenda of dominance and control. For the latter, the present government and established is just doing its thing and claiming a legitimate role in "protecting" the people - ir fighting terrorism. For the former... those who want answers... they always get back to the same questions... who could have placed the explosives, how and why.

One has to be very skilled to deflect and answer the typical MSM questions. They don't care to discuss arcane facts such as falling through the path of most resistance... and the interviewers will admit to not having enough science or engineering to understand or counter any arguments.

The interviewee needs to establish some facts - broad facts about history whenever answering interviews about false flags or even crimes. All those who commit crimes and false flags ESPECIALLY plan to have scapegoats, patsies or someone else appear to have committed the crime so that they escape suspicion. This is part of planning a crime - leave evidence which points away from you and toward someone else.

In the case of False Flags these are state actions done for political objectives... such as create the environment to get support for war... Gulf of Tonkin, sinking of the Maine, and so forth. False flags ARE a international political fact... they are not the creation of conspiracy nut jobs. Even with the JFK assassination there were claims that Oswald was a fall guy, and others actually carried out the crime.

Terrorists often CLAIM credit for their acts because they are done "in secret" and they need the PR .. that THEY were successful in their action... which is why Islamic suicide bombers prepare videos in advance with their political motives and their acts are scene as martydom. Didn't happen with the 19 Hijackers... not a one made a video or wrote a treatise and this is completely out of character for terrorists.

The alleged leader OBL claimed he was NOT behind it, though as someone with a beef against the USA and its financial and military dominance of the ME it would make sense for him to support what happened to the USA on 9/11. So we have rather murky statements which lead anyone to this event. We have the convicted 93 bomber who supposedly promised to finish the job... a statement conveyed by another prisoner, IIRC and not under oath. Again, people with a beef at the USA would make such boasts and this is not evidence that it would happen or that they could possible carry out such a threat.

Then of course is the fact that 9/11 was a very complex event and pulling it off would be impossible for those supposedly behind it... or they were so lucky and hundreds of coincidences happened on 9/11 - like magic. This defies logic. We need not go into all the coincidence which allowed 9/11 to happen. Islamic terrorists don't use sophisticated plots and there is no evidence that they have in the past.

We certainly know and expect that our intel is monitoring terrorists and those who want to harm the USA and her people, property, and interests. We taxpayers pay billions for this information... and we also know that intel would infiltrate and even entrap terrorists in criminal activity to catch them and neutralize them. The 93 WTC bombing seems to have been done with the knowledge and help of the FBI and intel and it seems that they faiuled to stop it in time... but they were able to convict the participants... that is aside from the agents who had helped them at various times. They got a pass.

So it is entirely possible that intel services were and are aware of the activities of terrorists and those who claim to want to harm the USA. They are being watched and monitored and this is a fact. We listen to their "chatter" and so forth. So it is entirely possible that intel was "in on" the staging of 9/11 and were even facilitating it... much the way they did in 93. This explains all the foreknowledge of the intel communities as in the PDB: OBL intends to use planes to strike in the US.

So it is at this point that the narrative.... and the answers to the interviewers questions need to introduce the notion of false flags and 9/11 has all the fingerprints of a false flag. The key of course is a dupe to pin the event on. Whether these guys were on any planes or not... matters little for the false flag... intel has shown how they were all planning to do exactly what happened... flight training and so forth. The fact that none of the hijackers remains have been identified is just an inconvenient fact... or that there is no actual video of them getting on the hijacked flights is an odd coincidence, or that several of them appear to be alive and living in the ME.... and inconvenient fact.

And of course most of the evidence of 9/11 was hastily disposed of so a proper investigation never took place - the political response... the goal of the "terror" (regardless of who was behind if) took hold on 9/11. We were focused only on finding survivors and immediately on retribution and response to those who we were told did it. In the shock and awe there was an obvious rush to judgment which is how False Flags are engineered to work. And in the case of 9/11 it wasn't even a crime! It was declared an act of war and there is no evidence gathering in an act of war. And that basically shut down any investigations for over a year.

And we DID get some investigations which only now HAD to support the policies already in place. How could our own government who had bought the idea that there were terrorists out to get us.. and actually hit us now turn around and "discover".... ooops we made a mistake... this was all a false flag op by intel which gamed the ENTIRE US national security system... the DOD... you name it. This revelation would be so frightening that the coverup which allowed the US response to go forward was put forth. Our leaders were probably aware that this was not what we were told... but that terrorism IS a real problem and so we simply need to get on with the GWOT.

Who told us that terrorism is a threat to us? Why the intel services tell us that... the same people who probably were involved in pulling 9/11 off. How would it be possible that our sophisticated intel would NOT know about such things coming? The answer is, of course they did! And then they tried to BS about compartments and walls in the system which prevented information from being traded. That was all code language for the fact that some in intel knew exactly what was about to happen and horror of horrors, could actually have facilitated it.

If one looks at 9/11 as a possible false flags much of it begins to make sense and demands we look differently at what happened.

And as far as the evidence that this took place... Gage only has to explain one simple principle and do it clearly for anyone to understand... and the explanations are different for WTC 7 and the Twin towers though they share common fingerprints of foul play.

In the case of WTC 7 for the building to descend at close to free fall acceleration... the entire top 20 plus stories moving through a 100 foot drop... what had been holding this up... scores of columns and steel beams for 100 feet of height were made to loose all their ability to support in an instant... and become "structurally invisible". This is not possible from fire and especially from the fires observed... it would mean that the heat (assuming it was from offices fires as claimed) worked over the entire 8 stories and reached the same heat and weakening of the steel in an instant and not only that, but did not deform the steel... but destroyed all the joints. This is simply NOT possible. Something supplied enormous energy to destroy all that structure.

IN the case of the twin towers, it is simply not possible for the top sections in each case... even it it DID collapse to the zone of the plane strikes to have enough energy to destroy the entire building below it. The videos show the top sections being destroy as they collapse on to the crash zones and so there was hardly enough kinetic energy in this disorganized pile of rubble at the top.. much of it fell away to completely crush the 80 or more stories which has no plane or fire damage. Free fall acceleration was observed in the top section as it descended to the crash zone in the case of the north tower for 1 second. This must be interpreted as it was in WTC 7... complete destruction of the structural support for at least 3 or so stories. Had the damage to the building been from fire the top's descent would be LESS than free fall and most likely stopped when it came to the in tact and stronger sections below.

All you need to show there was foul play is the time motion studies of WTC 7 and the north tower... in the public record. Office fires cannot weaken the amount of structure that would be required for free fall.

So what were the planes for? They were for the illusion - the false flag... that was the cover story... planes would be flown into buildings. And so since they were part of the illusion... the false flag... hijackers were not even necessary... any plane could do as long as they could get them to hit the towers and be seen headed for the pentagon.

We have all learned that data... RADES, black boxes, even calls from planes and so forth can be faked. We are left not with evidence, but with planted evidence to incriminate.

9/11 was a false flag and has the finger prints of intel services all over it. Who they were working for is yet to be determined.

The power of the people!

As the perps, with all their power and money continue to squirm, there will be more attempts by them, to pay people off, assuming there will be dismissal of the science that backs up the side of the Truth. It seems to more and more, pique curiosity, and bring more people around to understanding. As usual, our team, were eloquent, precise, and obviously held the higher IQ points.

We should remember that as this whole unraveling proceeds, this will separate the men from the boys so to speak. The people with intelligence and integrity, objectivity, and honor will stand out. Because the emperor is naked, and anyone in control of their mental faculties will see it. If they haven't the conviction of priniple to speak out, it will become more glaringly obvious who is really concerned about the American people (not to mention the middle east).

Remember that the Evangelical movement comprised one third of the voters, which (in combination with sheanigans galore) brought GWBush into office again in 2004. We are one third of the population now. The idiots avoiding this subject like it was cancer, don't even recognize it's the issue that will pull the public into their corner. Ron Paul now comes to mind, who is avoiding our fine supporter in Japan, Mr. Fujita. We need to convey this to those in running for government offices, even though it seems unthinkable to them to approach this subject. They could be the captain that sails this country back into shore out of the turbulence, of the pirates that have taken over. One third of the public is powerful. Our power is growing. We just have to keep doing what we are doing. The unthinkable is being thought about now, by those otherwise unwilling, and we cannot let up! Onward!

Fair interview despite the topic

I think the host was quite fair, honest and easygoing.

Ian and Ann did very well.

But Richard really needs to appear calmer and more relaxed, and adjust his responses to the questions. He started well, but I began to writhe in my chair towards the end when he kept going on about the molten metal and the temperatures needed to melt metal etc. Sometimes saying less is more. One cannot say everything in one interview; the outcome of all this does not depend on bringing up all or even the strongest evidence in any individual interview.


god bless him, can get pretty wound up at times.

He was in Philadelphia, jet lagged and clearly out of his comfort zone.

He's also been doing way too many interviews with attack dogs since the press conference on 2/19/2010 and that colors his approach, I think

I agree that more often than not, less IS more.

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

Saying The truth shall set us


The truth shall set us free

is one of the most naive statements around. What we are engaged in a very difficult political struggle for justice. The truth has been around for almost 8 years and not a single bit of evidence has been introduced in a court of law which counters the official story.

This struggle needs a lot more planning and sophistication than the passionate PR campaign being waged outside the mainstream media.