Raw Story: Geraldo ‘much more open minded’ about 9/11 thanks to NYC television ads


By Stephen C. Webster
Sunday, November 14th, 2010

A new television ad campaign featuring the family members of 9/11 victims has succeeded in garnering what 9/11 activists have lacked for years: serious treatment in the mainstream media.

Granted, that media was Fox News host Geraldo Rivera, who in a former iteration ran a Jerry Springer-like daytime talk show. That and, the last time Rupert Murdoch's conservative-tilted television channel seriously talked about issues pertaining to 9/11, they were calling for a public official's resignation over a signature on one of the "9/11 truth" petitions.

Still, at the end of his serious-yet-brief treatment of questions surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7, pictured), Rivera admitted that the activists had made him "much more open minded" about questions surrounding 9/11.

Rivera spoke in response to an ad playing in 30-second bytes on screens all around New York City, which does not focus on conspiracy theories. It does not feature hip-hop beats in the background or winded, red-faced protesters dressed in black shouting at reporters. It doesn't even mention President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney or the systemic failures in America's air defenses.

Instead, it puts the spotlight on people who lost family members in the 2001 attacks. Patriotic background music plays as viewers are gently reminded that not two, but three buildings collapsed on 9/11.

"Although the official explanation is that fire brought down building seven, over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there's more to the story," they say.

Then they implore viewers to help them seek justice, for their families, simply by visiting a web site: buildingwhat.org.

Their campaign's name, "Building What?" was allegedly taken from the response offered by New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner, when asked if he knew about WTC 7.


"Up until now, only those considered nutjobs questioned the official conclusion, that office fires caused by the nearby catastrophe of the towers collapsing brought down building number seven," Geraldo said before introducing his guests.

Cue a clip of Rosie O'Donnell.

"If explosives were involved," he continued, "that would mean the most obnoxious protesters in recent years ... were right."

Geraldo called the new television ad "not so easy to dismiss as those demonstrators were."

The ad is being sponsored by donations to the groups New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) and others. They're calling for the New York City council to launch an investigation into the collapse of building seven.

NYC CAN, a nonpartisan association of over 100 9/11 family members, is the same group behind a 2009 ballot initiative requesting a new 9/11 investigation. It secured more than enough support to qualify for the ballot but the city ultimately blocked it from going before the voters, citing improperly collected signatures.

At time of this writing, AE911 said it had among its members, "1,346 verified architectural and engineering professionals who have put their professional reputations on the line to publicly voice their disagreement with NIST’s findings."

One of Geraldo's guests, Bob McIlvaine, whose son was killed on 9/11, also appeared in a longer, web-exclusive ad released in March after the delivery of a petition and information packets to members of the New York City council.

"What caught my eye," Rivera explained, "was their claim that 1,300 architects and engineers examined the evidence about building seven's collapse and disagree with the official report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)."

NIST's report, released years after the 9/11 Commission Report, argued that the "new phenomenon" of thermal expansion could bring down a steel frame structure. The scientists added that their findings made them worry numerous other structures could be prone to the same style of collapse.

In spite of their conclusions, only three skyscrapers are known to have officially collapsed from hydrocarbon fires weakening steel supports, and all of them fell on Sept. 11, 2001.

Oddly enough, that same day the BBC reported that building seven had fallen some 23 minutes before it went down and featured a reporter speaking about the third dose of tragedy even as the tower remained standing behind her. Discovery of the mistaken and ill-timed reportage has since fueled talk of an international conspiracy, but the network insists it was simply mistaken and has adamantly denied allegations that it received advance notice of the collapse.

"Building seven came down, went into a sudden collapse across the full width and length of the building, for 2.25 seconds, which amounted to 105 feet or eight stories, eight 13-foot-tall stories -- it was in full free-fall acceleration, " explained Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who appeared on Fox News with McIlvaine.

"That is impossible because, in a natural collapse, columns would have to buckle," he said. "When columns buckle, there is a minimum resistance. ... It would slow down."

"What are you suggesting brought it down?" Geraldo asked.

"I'm suggesting there was some form of demolition devices in that building," he replied. "... I'm not saying I know what it is. I'm saying that it was at freefall acceleration and the NIST admitted to that."

Geraldo agreed that it looked like a structure "being demolished by the professionals who can actually collapse a building right into its own footprint".

"Why do you think they're lying about it?" he asked, inviting his guest to speculate.

Szamboti didn't take the bait.

"I don't really know all the details of why they're lying about it," he said, affirming his position without dipping into the conspiratorial nature of the various 9/11 theories. "I can't read their minds. All I can say is, scientifically, it's impossible for fire to have done what we say."

Geraldo said the new NYC CAN campaign and the serious individuals behind it had made him "much more open minded" about 9/11 activism.

This video was broadcast by Fox News on Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010.

new take on limited hangout

limited hangout could include attempt to admit CD of ALL THREE towers

i think the grand chessgamers think long term
Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński wanted a hold on Eurasia as a step to world domination
they now have more proxy governments than ever in the stans (countries ending in stan) and iraq
i dont see the invasions as incompetent and driven by oil greed and short termism
i think its well planned
i think the limited hang out for CD is that they might say it was set up ahead of time in the interests of national security
the truth is, i think, a small faction planned 9/11 pre 93 and needed CD to optimise shock and awe, but needed a way to get patriotic CIA people to install it
i think the 93 WTC bombing was organised to justify an anti-topple self-destruct system being installed in some buildings.
On 9/11 when the bombs go off at the base of buildings (perhaps to be alleged to have been done by al qaeda) they engage the anti topple by protocol-
the mantra for which is:
think of the loss of life if toppling happened,
and remember the alleged intention of the 93 bombing which was encouraged to happen by the perp's handler- the intention was to topple by bombing the base
so when people say "but it would need so many people to be willing to commit to mass murder" no actually not, the anti topple can be installed seemingly sensibly
the finger on the button is another matter...
CD brought me into the movement but Crossing the Rubicon keeps me in
no vids, no samples, only sworn testimony and verifiable documents
i believe CD is our biggest recruiting sergeant
once in, people need solid stand-up-in-court paperwork and it exists in large amounts
Crossing the Rubicon cites 1000 such items of evidence collated by an ex cop
shoot down protocol changes, unexplained gaps, dave frasca pulling the teams off of investigating the patisies pre 9/11
there is also the fact that for 90 minutes 4 hijacked jets did circus tricks in the most heavily armed country on earth
a good vid: the truth and lies of 9/11
quote from DRG: "Mike Ruppert is a hero of the 9/11 truth movement."
when Mike Ruppert's book arrived through the post i thought someone was having a laugh (i had ordered it - i just mean it was so large!), but i read through it all... eventually ... as i had passed a point where vids alone were enough

There would be nothing 'limited' about admitting CD

To admit the towers were brought down on purpose--by self-destruct mechanism or whatever--to avoid the massive damage and loss of life that would have resulted had they toppled, would mean they (those who knew what was what and were in a position of responsibility) would have to explain why the hell they didn't evacuate the buildings before they were brought down on purpose. Some occupants were even instructed to return to their offices when they attempted to leave.

They would have (as Ricky would say to Lucy), "a lotta 'splainin' to do." To admit they knew what would happen and didn't alert people of the need to get the heck out would in effect be to admit complicity in a massacre.

i suppose

very soon after the explosions at the base, that would be the cue for what i'm speculating
so i'm not sure an evacuation would be possible in a building thats just been blown at the base
not just because of possible damage to stairwells, walkways and potential other impediments, but for the issue of timeliness
what i mean is, if there was an anti topple protocol in place to self destruct the buildings, perhaps that would come into play straight after explosions at the base
after all, if a building is blown at the base and about to topple, how would anyone know how much time remains?
with the object being to minimize loss of life in a 1/4 mile stretch of city, as the towers were 1/4 of a mile tall and once toppled could stretch out destruction as far as that, then perhaps the anti topple protocol would include quick, decisive, allegedly life-saving CD
the towers were destroyed top down
the explosions at the base could have been done during that- and no one would have noticed them
assuming everything went to plan, then why were the explosions at the base done in a very noticeable way ?
perhaps because the intention was for them to BE noticed by those responsible for the anti topple.
bombs at base go off,
patriotic CIA staff in charge of anti topple fear toppling
phone call to Cheney "Sir we fear enormous loss of life (ala silverstein) seconds from now: request to engage anti topple."
cheney (fake sigh, checks all the TV networks have come out of ad breaks and have got it on camera), "Regrettably , yes." (whilst rubbing hands together and stroking fat white cat in his swivel chair)
i think oliver stone did a good effort in including the explosions at the base of the towers in his movie
it was when nicholas cage's character was suited up and going in.
Very soon afterwards the first tower fell
also remember the molten metal that drips on the policeman's gun, super heating it so all the rounds go off- hotter than an office fire- a clue to the thermitic materials
(i think stone is a truther- of course many of us expected that the man who did JFK would do something anti neocon on 9/11, but it's subtle- we all thought he would be blatant- i know i did and i was disappointed, only when a couple of details were pointed out to me i rewatched the movie and was impressed)


Evacuation - yes, they have a lot of explaining to do about not issuing a call to evacuate, but it turns out the massive structures even without the explosives set would in an emergency have been difficult to evacuate. Right after a funeral for 9/11 victims, I spoke to a structural engineer present who told me that any building above 50 stories is basically unevacuateable anyway.

That is hilariously

That is hilariously unbelievable. (I don't know if there was intentional humor there or not.)

In the first place, lacing a building with explosives and incendiaries would be metal spikes on the sides of a hockey rink - fatal accidents would ensue. "Watch where you snuff out that cigarette, Tim!"

Secondly, if any building's base was ever exploded, the building and the surrounding area would be promptly evacuated as a standard safety measure, and therefore any "toppling" wouldn't be a sizable danger....

....But no buildings "topple", anyway. Where did this "toppling building epidemic" get conjured up? The idea there's any need at all for an "anti-topple" device is non-existent. The 1993 WTC buildings didn't topple (and you wanna talk about top-heavy!) nor have numerous other buildings. Steel-framed buildings are giant steel grid cages. If there's a bomb powerful enough to topple one....then the tipping of the building is the last of your concerns.

Finally....show me any precedent at all of buildings being rigged with explosives without a plan in place before. It hasn't, because it's moronic. It's dumber than swapping out an airbag with a spear. It makes no sense. (I'm not saying you're moronic, but any argument put forth by, like, neo-debunkers.)

I don't know the details about how, why, or when Building 7 was rigged (I have my theories, like most people, but they're just theories), but I do know that the only reason it was rigged was because there was a specific plan in place to bring it down at a certain time. That is just common sense. And the only reason that they'd want to demolish it secretly was if they knew that they would have some cover for its demolition. They were right: they've had the cover of the media, of public cowardice, and, of course, NIST.


See my comment below, titled "The Other Godzilla." Interested in your opinion.


But actually, a friend of mine, who initially introduced me to 9/11 truth, said he originally thought that the twin towers had been wired for demolition as a safety measure and that something went wrong...

It's difficult to know if the Americans and the world would buy such an explanation. Why would the buildings have had to be taken down, as office fires had never compromised steel-framed buildings before?

One thing is certain: such an explanation would cause NIST to lose all credibility.

Again, that is insane. If

Again, that is insane. If the buildings needed to be wired for demolition, they'd be wired for demolition.

If every building were laced with incendiaries and explosives, then there would be an endless sling of horrifying accidents because dudes through their cigarette butts in the wrong area, somebody left the coffee pot on, or because some dudes were screwing around with the electrical wiring. Every tenant would be killed in every small fire.

If the high-rise in Shanghai that went up in an inferno a few days ago had explosives planted all over it, then there would've been a hell of a lot more than just 53 fatalities.

Imagine if somebody said that airplanes were now pre-rigged with explosives so they could be remotely exploded if they were ever hijacked. Nobody would stand for it because the odds of an accident are 1,000,000,000,000-times greater than the odds of it ever being useful. Would YOU like to work in a building that's got explosives all over the interior? Nobody would. These buildings would have a 0% occupancy rate.

This is an absolutely moronic diversion. Building 7 was clearly brought down by controlled demolition, and the ONLY reason buildings are rigged for demolition is because the demo team has a specific plan of action.


im speculating that possibly the spurious claim that the buildings might topple would be used to rig the buildings
the plan for shock and awe on 9/11 required CD
the original WTC bombing was allegedly to topple one building into the other and release cyanide too
so im with you, CFS on the unlikeliness of toppling but i speculate the risk of toppling might have been deliberately exaggerated in order to install an anti topple
im sure of one thing and that is that im not sure
im speculating
bouncing ideas off you guys and i have learned a lot from this site
i have fully u-turned from a loose change 2nd edition opinion of AA77 to a snowcrashesque view of it

The names involved end up

The names involved end up leading into the PNAC manifesto of taking over the middle east. Long before GWBush slid in on greased tracks. with his fellow looter/operator Cheney. Let's drop this link into the opponents of Truth... When exasperation hits you, , just post this, and then again if need be. It says it all. Save your breath, if need be, and let's make this the statement when you realize their is no logic among many you attempt to convey knowledge to help participate in this pivotal point in our first amendment rights are getting overlords with guns. What might that say about our country? Let's prevent this trend ofa police str=ate by sharing knowledge while we can. Democracy isn't moving in the will of the people, you might have noticed. They work for them, and so do the media. That kind of dangerous fusion is only in countries that are not democratic. Same with torture. Same with media being operated by...



a good vid

One thing is certain...

Vesa: "One thing is certain: such an explanation would cause NIST to lose all credibility."

Honestly, I have a hard time supposing that NIST retains credibility now, in informed circles and especially internationally. I'd like to hear from insiders in the trade on NIST's perceived credibility nowadays.

apart from the fact that nanothermite

can be stored wet and dried out prior to use so hollow girders, some of which may have flown around like errant randomly guided missiles during the collapses might have been pumped full of nanothermite you check out the wierd unguided missile behaviour on youtube - below

from Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe:


the solgel (wet nanocomposites) can also be sprayed onto surfaces

Projectiles changing direction:

Re: pre-prep. for demolition

Douglas Hilton, your ideas remind me of something that got named The Other Godzilla. Someone posted it here at Blogger but the link in that post to the actual op-ed piece no longer works.

The topic: that the WTCs, and all tall buildings for that matter, had and must have demolition plans in place and ready-to-go, for insurance reasons.

To me it looks plausible, and even rather compelling, with the re-insurer angle. However, the author of "The Other Godzilla" is also a UFO enthusiast, with a book out on that topic -- not too helpful if linked with 9-11 truth-seeking.

Plus, Mark Wrede, the author, offers absolutely no corroborating evidence. He only says he stumbled on this secret FEMA project, without telling us how he did that or what sort of evidence he supposedly found or learned of.

EDIT: I also notice something very similar being stated by 'debunkers'. There is a standard 'debunker' type -- paid or not, who can know? -- spamming the Raw-Story comments to the Geraldo WTC 7 interview. So it may be some sort of fall-back position. Here is one of the fellow's comments. He goes by the moniker 'cessnadriver':

"Buildings are designed with failure analysis in mind. While every contingency can't be covered, you don't want a quarter-mile tall building falling over on it's side. The design usually provides for tall buildings to fail by pancaking.

"There are videos of buildings coming down in Koyoto during their big earthquake, and the botched implosion in Turkey where the building rolled for a while. "

anti UFO enthusiast

when matter and anti matter collide, explosions occur (in star trek anyway)
me and my mrs have some spectacular arguments
she is a UFO enthusiast and i think its a croc
if anyone knows how i can get her off this BS please let me know
something in chinese would be good

that's where i stand on that
as for me being disinfo, debunker, whatever, tell a site administrator privately and pls just stick to the points i've raised here- theyre heartfelt

anyway can i name my irritating speculation?

if so i name it AT
anti topple
definitely not godzilla as that would endorse the shaky claim by mark wrede that he found secret plans called by the same name

mark wrede

doesnt offer any evidence
you're right
he says that from the outset the thing was called godzilla and he somehow stumbled upon secret plans
well im not claiming to have stumbled upon secret plans
and i dont believe in aliens
im not a no planer
just speculating an idea
a hunch
prove me wrong conclusively
i have changed my mind before on 911t topics
if not its still up there as a possibility in my mind
before i woke up to 911 truth an indian academic who was a passenger in my private cab asked me what is disinformation?
i said "i dont know"
he said
lies from a credible source
truth from a non-credible source
so then NIST stand up and talk lies as theyre the credible source
then a loony acting bullhorn shouter who behaves like a complete nutjob stands up and tells the truth
both have the effect of disinforming the public and both get paid
i once got accused of cointelpro for associating farrakhan with the truth movement
i had a catchy vid i made- still in my youtube, but not so hot on it now
i went off farrakhan when i realised he'll dis the rothschilds all day long but wont ever dis the rockefellers
im unintentionally dumb sometimes but make me see the light if you think it appropriate and i might turn... or you might


Hey, I wasn't implying you're spreading disinfo. Quite the contrary: I read this account by Mark Wrede and it looked plausible to me. I read your 'anti-topple' idea and it also looked maybe plausible.

But I notice someone else here thinks the 'pre-prepared for demo' idea really dumb. Maybe it is? The topic is out of my area of expertise. Like you, I can be swayed by good arguments and hope someone can offer a few.

But as I said, a fellow over at the raw story thread does his best to 'debunk' any and all 9-11 inside job stuff -- for whatever reason; he probably believes what he is denying, or wants to at least. I suppose however that he could be one of the paid sorts doing that since supposedly that is happening, and perhaps often and in a widespread way -- but again who knows? No one will ever give us numbers, or budget info for disinfo agents.

In no way did I suppose you are one of those! Nor do I think I am one of those -- or if I am, the check must still be in the mail, since I sure never did get it yet.

they sent your check to me

re read the small print- it was a temporary contract!
joking aside, i think the mark wrede thing is odd in the fact that part is plausible then the key of it seems so improbable and easy to debunk that i wonder if this is a classic case of truth from a non credible source- ie disinfo


Plus, the UFO angle...

I take no stand on that issue. And I have no reason to disbelieve in it either. So far the UFO issue has not impacted me in any way, so I do not find any need to spend time on it. But I do notice that it harms our cause whenever it gets mixed with 9-11 truth-seeking. It is a public perception thing, and that matters. So I brought up that UFO red-flag when I noticed Wrede is into it. Again, he is probably a good fellow and is definitely a good and clear writer. But the UFO angle, and the lack of any supporting facts to his statements, with nothing verifiable, take away credibility from the case he makes for the FEMA pre-planned tall-building demolition project.

I wish your wife and her UFO friends well.

but the wrede-ster

is a bit sus as he claims to have come across top secret info but uncorroborated

if he has it then surely a source should have been named, otherwise he is self discrediting

re the cessna person

i think you might be right about debunkers falling back to a pre-wired for demolition story to avoid in some way admitting guilt in 9/11
perhaps they would say that building 7 was pulled without loss of life and they even gave a countdown and warnings but as it was a top secret building that had been compromised, they had to keep it secret

Barry Jennings testimony of stepping over dead bodies would be an obstacle to their revised position

im obviously deeply suspicious about his death

props to Dylan Avery for interviewing him

if the post geraldo era starts with a safe CD claim about WTC 7, we need to make people aware of Barry Jennings' testimony of mass loss of life pre CD

theyre possibly falling back for concerns of damage limitation by claiming that 7 was pulled for concerns of damage limitation


we've possibly got them on the run but need to be vigilant and support NYCCAN+ Building What as theyre effective and media savvy




Gee, was that so difficult?

Geraldo says that he is much more open minded about 9/11. So what has happened in the subsequent 48 hours? Has he lost his job, have riots broken out in the streets, did the military come calling like when he gave away troop locations back in 2003? Nope.

Now why can't other journalists say the same thing? Most journalists live in fear of that great public executioner, Ridicule. Once that is removed the floodgates should open

"why can't other journalists say the same thing?"

Funny you should mention that...I just caught Olbermann's Special Comment about Ted Koppel's recent op-ed criticism of him...comparing him to Beck & O'Reilly. Toward the end of the comment Olbermann talks about Koppel's lack of a backbone when it was becoming clear to many that we were led to war in Iraq based on lies. How he ran Nightline as a whimsy-factory while Olbermann and others were speaking out. I couldn't help but hear Olbermann's own hypocrisy at work as he spoke so powerfully about the subject (in my opinion)...if only he'd apply that same logic to 9/11. You can literally substitute "9/11" for "Iraq" in alot of what he said. Anyway, I find it utterly bizarre that Keith Olbermann got trail-blazed by f'ing Geraldo 'Al Capone's Vault' Rivera. Sorry for the long wind...I just thought this was relevant. Here's the comment...it is worth a watch...


Ever see 'Requiem for a Dream'?

In 'Requiem for a Dream', this elderly mother believed that she was going to become a reality TV star and she became obsessed with looking good for TV appearance and she began swallowing diet pills by the boatload. It soon became clear that her reality TV appearance was a pipe dream - it was never gonna happen - but the woman was so hopeful (and jacked up on amphetamines) that she eventually became a delusional psycho. She had to be institutionalized. I thought of that character when I saw that Charlie Sheen thought that Obama was going to bring about 9/11 justice.

You see the same thing with people who believe that these supposedly "liberal" cowards - Maher, Colbert, Stewart, Olbermann, Maddow, etc., etc., etc., etc. - are magically going to "wake up". Dude....it's been over NINE YEARS, make no mistake that these people are all "awake", they've just chosen to lie.

So somebody sure does need to "wake up"....people in the 9/11 Truth community. The pop media is cowards and sell-outs telling lies (either baldfaced lies or lies of omission) whose stupid status in cable news or the New York Times is more important to them than the value of human life. They're not ever going to do anything to help get the murderers identified, arrested, and convicted. Wake up and turn off the pop news networks already. These people are blabbering nothings, which any seven year-old should be able to sense.

I don't mean to be political - you see the same thing on the "right" in many cases, too (like Alex Jones hoping that Glenda Beck will "wake up"). The overall problem is with people still centralizing the mainstream media (under cover of left, right, or "bipartisan"), even though it's a proven fraud.

CameronFanSite wrote: "make

CameronFanSite wrote:

"make no mistake that these people are all "awake", they've just chosen to lie."
"The overall problem is with people still centralizing the mainstream media (under cover of left, right, or "bipartisan"), even though it's a proven fraud."

Please provide proof for these statements.

The MSM has failed for years to cover this important story. I doesn't mean they are unreachable or all "frauds." As we see in this clip above and in a number of other times where MSM outlets have indeed covered 9/11 Truth. Of course the vast majority of times the MSM covers 9/11 Truth it is in a negative light. This does not negate the fact that the media is not totally controlled. The MSM reporters are not completely censored from certain topics. It is false also to refer to Olbermann and others as "cowards." Olbermann has said a few things getting critical of our govt's abuses which took heaps of course. In fact he is far more brave than many in the MSM. My point is that we cannot assume that people are unreasonable. We cannot get so cynical that we dismiss attempting to connect with MSM and alternative media outlets. If we dismiss media outlets so generally (with conspiratorial assumptions ie. 'intentional gatekeeping' 'PROVEN controlled agendas), then of course we as a movement will be equally as easily dismissed by the media and the general public (with names like 'crazy' 'conspiracy theorist' 'nutbags').

You asked for "proof" of a

You asked for "proof" of a statement that was a wide generalization and largely philosophical in nature. But, okay, I'll play along.

The proof that most in the mainstream media know that 9/11 is an inside job is in common sense, casual empiricism....and some anecdotal evidence. WeAreChange has confronted innumerate mainstream media figureheads - generally in a civil manner with solid evidence in-hand - and the figureheads never follow up on it. Examples include Carl Cameron at Fox, Jon Stewart, Joe Scaroborough....just dozens more. There's not even any point in listing them. The mainstream media is an echo chamber and it can be comfortably inferred that they've seen Rosie O'Donnell talk about Building 7 on 'The View' and Charlie Sheen talk about a lot more on the Jimmy Kimmel show, etc., etc., etc. This is going back years. And where's the result? Where's the "Special Commentary" from Keith Olbermann saying that there are mass murderers running loose and they must be arrested? Where's the Stephen Colbert "Tonight's Word: Building 7"? (You could do the same thing for Bill O'Reilly or any of the "right wing" figureheads.)

As far as Obama....he knew Van Jones (who retreated from 9/11 Truth and Justice like a craven coward to try and keep his job) and you have to be insane to think he's not aware of some of the evidence. In fact....if Obama does NOT know, then that 'd mean that he's borderline mentally retarded. So he's either corrupt or else mentally challenged. (I'm pretty sure it's the former.)

Anyway, if you think that it's worth your while to keep on focusing on the people who love talking about Sarah Palin's clothes and Tiger Woods's groupies and all of this other absolutely trivial crap that the pop news networks cover, then that's your affair, not mine. I think it's wasteful and demonstratively useless, but, when push comes to shove, to each his own.

For me, every single person that's ever provided solid evidence comes from outside the pop news media that you fixate upon. These include Alex Jones, Kevin Ryan, the Loose Change crew, Jesse Ventura, Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, and many more. No pop media talking heads amongst them.

Exactly, as you said: A wise generalization

That you assume is accurate. "The proof that most in the mainstream media know that 9/11 is an inside job is in common sense, casual empiricism....and some anecdotal evidence" This type of generalizing is a huge set back to the 9/11 Truth movement and always has been!

If people in the MSM heard about 9/11 Truth from someone like Alex Jones, I wouldn't be surprised if they were simply turned off of the subject because of Alex's extremist and conjecture filled presentation of SOME facts. In Jon Stewart's case, just look at the recent we are change confrontation with him. Stewart gave the kids a chance to talk, and they just blurted out a personal, insulting, rhetorical question, then just started yelling 9/11 was an inside job. Now if the people I experienced from 9/11 Truth only approached me in this manner, I would not only assume they were wrong, but also crazy, factless (why yell if you have good facts) and certainly not worth looking into. If the only 9/11 truth MSM reps have seen are the most extreme, or some of the solid evidence has been shown to them but its been buried in lots of conjecture and theories, then they are simply turned off of the subject merely by 9/11Truth's sloppy presentation. Of course all of the MSM people don't go around knowing that 9/11 was an inside job and lying about it!! The MSM pundits have been convinced otherwise PRIMARILY by bad info, and subsequent good debunking of bad info. Rosie o' Donnel and Charlie Sheen were only limited sources of info for some people. Sheen for instance ended up sending lots of people to infowars, a website which is a HUGE turn-off to the average person. Infowars is so filled with radicalism, conjecture, and cynicism, that if the average skeptic went to the site, not only would it take hours to sift through the conspiracy theories to find some basic facts about 9/11, you would end up with some good facts and a lot of speculation which cannot be proven and also makes you appear crazy when you repeat it. The MSM is of course not all in on it, like your generalizations imply. The MSM at large has been poorly presented the facts regarding 9/11 truth. The MSM confrontations have failed to present quality information in a digestible context. Not only that, but "confrontations" scare off any potential dialogue and also make figureheads fear even affiliating with such childish behavior. I don't fixate upon one source of media. I also don't go around assuming that everyone is "in on it" just because I have figured out many of the issues regarding 9/11.

How about some real evidence if you think everyone knows and is covering up? You could try calling and asking if these people have a direct policy against truth and why. The more positive I have stayed (ie not being cynical and assuming I have lost before I have tried) the more I have been surprised by how many people were simply mis-informed and just wanted the truth the whole time. Don't give up on all of them Cameron.

Dude, I don't know what to

Dude, I don't know what to tell you.

I think that centralizing and fawning over all the MSNBC/Fox/CNN/ABC, etc., etc., etc. media lumps of vanity is a waste of time and, honestly, kind of servile and effeminate. You obviously disagree and you pine for the approval of all the media personalities who mean absolutely nothing to me. So, I see where you're at: you have faith in their honesty (I don't) you believe it's all just a matter of salesmanship (I think it's a matter of morality) and you think that they're going to turn around (I think that that's like waiting for Rupaul to like women).

So we're just at an impasse. But I'll take one Jonathan Cole over a hundred cable news talking heads, or one Kevin Ryan over a hundred newspaper columnists.

But, ya know, different strokes for different folks.

(And, by the way, Alex Jones was talking about Building 7 and crying out for 9/11 Truth back when "liberals" were saying, "Well the war in Afghanistan is good, but the war in Iraq....I don't know about that one." He was years ahead of everybody. So even if you prefer more docile, prostrating people - which you clearly do - you might still want to at least give Alex Jones his Brownie Points.)


check this and your opinion please
(u need to listen to the radio int to get what i comment on)

Chinese Skyscraper Inferno - No Collapse

Infowars.com linked to a story of still another skyscraper that was a raging inferno but didn't collapse. It joins a long list (Madrid, Philly, and more) that isn't too prestigious because, of course, the WTC complex was the only one that DID collapse.

And here's an NBC article about it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40190224/ns/world_news-asia-pacific?gt1=43001

This is all totally repetitive by now - the evidence for controlled demolition was overwhelming back in 2006 - but it's still just something to make you laugh at how the murderous animals don't even have to bother concocting good lies to get away with their mass murder.

786 Comments at Raw Story

Re: 786 Comments at Raw Story

I've added my own comments, quite a few actually, others should as well. No debunkie nonsense should go unchallenged!

Unchallenged nonsense reigns supreme

over at www.democraticunderground.com

it's like headquarters for Cass Sunstein's gang of roaches over there.

I've been banned but would encourage those that enjoy refuting shill talking points to have some sport over there. The few of our kind left waging the good fight could use some back-up.

Go to the "lobby" and you will find the "September 11" room. Try not to call the shills the idiots they are because they seem able to get people banned for minor offenses they seem free to commit.

I've been taking on that

I've been taking on that cesspool-"Cessna driver" guy, and a "Jimbo". As I continued to drop in to the link a steady countering of these guys, video evidence with ample array of choices to choose from in countering them. Just go to youtube, and put any subject matter into the search engine. There has been such a mammoth response to the government's bull shit, that the plethora of opportunities to show it like it is, for hundreds of readers that come along to sites with great respect like raw story, what we are on thread of, here, now.

I decided to talk to them directly, as the paid liars that they are, and the thread goes on and on and on. We counter them with proof, they call us "goofer/troofer" or some bull shit. We bring evidence, prove them wrong with that video documentation. Basically, as I do this over and over, from what ever sources I can, he inevitable follows with, some such "nyah-nyah-nyah, worthless remark, obviously meant to shame us, with no legs, in the exposes of reality. His score, of course zero.

As the redundancy of all this makes me sigh, I had to remember that while I do this, he is getting money from our government. I've left the links there @ Rawstory too, several, showing the cointel pro, by several remarkable video/journalists, and the program on the internet they have set up is one of the newest and pervasive. The question arises as to, whether we should support them? I decided to use the opportunity. If we get shoved out of so many sites that have not had the verve that Rawstory shows, we should use the conversation to share video documentations, for all who would come around continue with subject matter.

We all need to do this, with letting that which you have studied well, enter in, keep taking on these guys. That perseverance needs to be held firmly by us all. The way I see it, if the American public is paying to have these traitors working against us, why don't we have his posts work FOR us? Showing the absurdity of the official story is so easy now. Using youtube, and ANY given subject matter, you more than likely can make clear the Truth. Our hats off to the many many many FINE video journalists among us. Please, let's continue to take these guys on. As the redundancy wears on you, just drop a link in in response. Most of my waking free time, I've been looking up perfect responses with youtube and others to show to anyone that the only credible explanations are on our side of the discussions. Any one with any objectivity that would read along the thread has no choice, other than to see that we are so obviously right.

Please some of you, go continue to counter them. It's the opportunity to enlighten people. Boring? Just drop links in under the reply box.

1167 on Saturday



My screen does not have a

My screen does not have a video on it. Nor a link for it. I tend to drop video links around the net, much to the annoyance of many. I wonder what is going on? I believe there is a censoring of ME. %#@&

calm down

think like sherlock holmes would
1 power down computer
2 cold reboot
3 go back to site
4 if still have a prob do a screendump- on pc press printscreen , on mac press ctrl cmd shift 4
5 email to the 911blogger peeps

i like anagrams
realised todaythat my name anagrams to
doug not a shill

wonder what shyam sunder's name anagrams to....
US has my nerd
clearly his parents knew he would fall to the dark side when they named him


Now you're just clowning around. ;-)

I helped someone recently with the same problem at 911blogger. Blubonnet: I suggest you do the following (Disclaimer: at your own risk)

  • Backup your bookmarks from your old profile: Bookmarks -> Organize Bookmarks -> Import and Backup -> Backup, save as JSON
  • Create a new Firefox profile
  • Restore the bookmarks from your old profile into the new profile: Bookmarks -> Organize Bookmarks -> Import and Backup -> Restore -> Choose File

Now you have a new profile with the same bookmarks as the old. You will have to reinstall your addons, however, and your settings are reset to default. There are more complex ways to do this, which allow you to keep your addons, but I'm trying to make it easy for you.

Now try again. If it works, you should browse with the new profile from now on. You can keep the old profile as long as you wish.

P.S. I assumed you have Firefox, if not... well.. you're on your own..


Hound Sen. McConnell's (R) telephone number which is (502) 582-6304. You can say "please tell Sen. McConnell to support the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act that would give the 9/11 1st Responders the health care that they need (optional addition) because the Bush Administration, a Republican Administration, lied about the air quality down at Ground Zero so as to reopen Wall Street."

Geraldo is a classic weather vane

Which is easy to criticize, but it also serves a useful purpose—especially in this case!

For example, in the 70s, when it seemed that cannabis was on a fast-track to complete decriminalization, Geraldo was right there pushing it. He was even on the Advisory Board of NORML. Then in the mid-80s, when Nancy Reagan declared "war" on "drugs," Geraldo did a complete 180. Suddenly, marijuana was … very, very BAD. He did one of the most blatantly dishonest hit-pieces on the cannabis legal reform movement ever.

Whichever way the wind is blowing, that's the direction you'll see Geraldo drifting.

And that's another reason why this is such a welcome development! Geraldo isn't sticking his neck out for nothing. Something is happening here, Mr. Jones! It's in the air. Geraldo evidently senses it. And he wants to get in during the early phase and ride it out for all it's worth.

So he has just become a mile-marker for 9/11 Truth.

Presumably, no leeway

I have assumed that this fellow has little if any leeway to do what he decides to, on that show, especially vis-a-vis this topic.

He could of course still be considered a good weather-vane. In this case, as an indicator of... what? Perp decision-making re: public opinion? A fall-back position? So far, this one is proving hard to decipher.

I was writing on the assumption . . .

… that there is a faction within the NWO that wants the 9/11 story to break.

Although that may sound incredible, I believe there is a basis for it. I've only heard this possibility mentioned a few times. Dylan Avery mentioned this view in his Summer 2009 interview with Jack Blood (about the 17:00 mark)—not that he endorsed it, but he indicated that he doesn't discount it.

The last time I mentioned this here, the replies suggested that I was trying to cause discouragement to the movement. This is NOT the case! My point is two-fold: (1) that this is a possible model through which to evaluate events such as this Geraldo interview, and (2) that we should be thinking NOW about what the fallout would be when the story breaks, that we should consider who would be in a position to pick up the pieces, and how those in power might attempt to use it to further their own agendas—so that we can take pre-emptive action and be ready.

We have to recognize that this will be the most demoralizing event for Americans since the War Between the States. We can survive things like Teapot Dome, but this is a different ball of wax. It will create a climate that is ripe for the Demagogue—I don't think it will work out in the relatively smooth way predicted by Steve Alten.

But I best leave it there for now. This is a point that has to be developed more fully. Meanwhile, we have to keep on keeping on, getting the truth out to the public. Our choices are rarely between good and bad, rather, it's between bad and worse. We cannot let the neocon crackpots get away with what they have done.

Good ponts, difficult situation

When you have a crisis in which parts of government, including military and intelligence, attack the home country in a grand and horrifying way -- twice, if you count the subsequent anthrax attacks -- and in which the legal system, Congress, the Executive Branch, and all media, fail spectacularly to do anything about it, ridiculing and/or ruining anyone who tries to do anything about it, and then all this gets gradually revealed, and starts unraveling before everyone's eyes...

Where does it all go from there? What to rebuild and how? Who to do the rebuilding? Where to start? if everyone and everything in notable positions failed, which is in fact the case? Who to even consider electing, to what? Who is not tainted? And do elections even work anyway? The whole thing looks broken.

Also, at this point it looks to me as though, eventually, if a sector of society has weapons, and intelligence-gathering power, with virtually infinite funding, and creative ways to control people by fear and violence, and training plus practice in doing that... well, eventually, that same outfit will use those -- on us especially, as well as others. How could they resist the temptation, for ever? What a conundrum.

I am looking for strong and positive alternatives. Suggestions most welcome.

Those are all the right questions!

And although our primary focus is of course on the immediate goal of getting 9/11 Truth to the public, and a real investigation, we still need to be asking those questions now.


No kidding.

With this Geraldo interview story making it into both Op Ed News and Alternet, and with the overwhelming pro-truth comments and really pitiful counter attempts by 'debunkers,' this may mark the moment. I do predict that the sea change, once it starts, will start with a trickle like this but very soon turn into a torrent. How could it be otherwise, once it catches on?

For instance, right now: how can other so-called alternative sites stay silent? Honestly, how can even mainstream outlets like The New Yorker and so many more, stay silent now, on this? I do not see how they can, and retain any relevance in ordinary people's minds, not just ours (twoofers that we are, after all). I do not see how Chomsky can stay silent on this, nor the many others that must then follow in tow.

Is this the moment, the turning point? I do wonder what we, what I, need to do to prepare, if it is. When the breaking moment comes, I have no idea where it might lead.

i would suggest. . .

. . . taking it a day at a time, an event at a time.

look for and find ways to become active. sometimes they will find you.

if you are able, contribute (and see if you can get others to contribute) monetarily to 9/11 truth causes that you are drawn to (for me, nyccan and a&e for 9/11 truth, among others). as we head into the 10th anniversary of 9/11, mainstream media exposure becomes crucial. geraldo was a breakthru.

also, behaviorally and philosophically, gandhi's satyagraha provides an adaptable framework. if unfamiliar, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha and/or http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/525247/satyagraha.

my two cents. beyond these, i too am open to suggestions. "what can i do?" is problematic. there's a gandhi quote that goes something like this: "even if what you can do seems insignificant, do it anyway."

post-911 truth will have its ups and downs

Yeah JTL, in many ways, the world after the point in which 911 truth goes from "conspiracy theory" to stark reality (i.e when its been proven to the masses at some level, and becomes the accepted basis of history) will result in a massive paradigm shift. I've thought about that a lot myself, but I can't really fathom how it would all come together (but it must be something everyone here has speculated on at some level).

But here's an article which gives a bizarre yet somewhat plausible "what if" breakdown of this topic:

Can't really say myself what would actually happen, because it will also depend on the conditions surrounding the breaking point (would it be a long trial, a sudden whistle-blower, a large investigation, shocking new evidence...) as well as a variety of other unimaginable geo-political-social curve-balls, yet as the article points out, as great as it'd be to have the veil lifted and justice served, "the after effects of 911 truth will for many, many people be very, very bad."

(BTW, this article even postulates in an ironic way the idea "that there is a faction within the NWO that wants the 9/11 story to break.")


This article looks worth submitting as a blog entry here. Definitely provides food for thought.

If the admins do not choose to run it, OK by me. But it seems worth a try.


My one comment...

Has gotten 26 "Likes." The highest so far.

Link us please

I would like to "like" a good Jon Gold comment.

Don't know how...

It was one of the first comments, and is down all the way at the bottom. You'll know it when you see it.

Your are speaking of the links on you tube to the original vid?

It looks like they removed comments , at least on this cpu. Will check another later.


I think he means the comments to the Raw Story piece. I remember seeing his comment there. It is a strong one.

vid: @5:10 WTC7 explosion when WTC1 and WTC2 were still standing



don't spam off topic comments on multiple threads, as it is a violation of the rules and will get you put into moderation.

If this is not already a blog post, you might consider making it one.