Rosie O’Donnell Talks 9/11 Truth

Source: 9/11 Truth News
Category: SUPPORT

Last week Rosie O'Donnell hosted 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine and engineer Tony Szamboti on her Sirius XM radio show to discuss the campaign. A full description of the discussion can be found here and the show can be heard here.

Thanks to Jon Gold for providing the audio.

Join 9/11 Truth News on facebook and twitter.


Another excellent job by Bob and Tony. Another excellent job by the interviewer (Rosie). Wasn't sure I'd ever hear this in my lifetime. Well done, folks! Momentum.


What would be more appalling? Contemplating that , not our entire government, but a powerful portion within our government participated in the events of 9/11......Or that we as Americans are so gullible as to let those responsible get away with it?
Thank you again Rosie for standing up for what is right. You define what a great American should be. In your interview you asked Bob what you could do to ease his pain. Your already doing it Rosie. Ask questions, Demand answers.
God bless you Rosie!

Rosie O'Donnell is a huge potential ally in this fight...

You can thank and encourage her here:

Here's another great audio interview if you missed it.

Or download and listen here:

Rosie Rocks!


9/11 Truth on Bush's book tour

Members of Orange County 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Truth LA got some air time on KTLA News, Monday night at Saddleback


Thanks to all


I know that WTC 7 and CD are not your cup of tea so your help is especially meaningful. Thank you so much for being a team player. I will support your efforts in any I can because the things you present need to be talked about too.

Working together we will break down the wall of silence.


They are not my cup of tea...

Because of things like this...

"Both Napolitano and Rivera have, er, raised questions about the "official" (read: commonsensical) explanation for the collapse of the WTC7 building on September 11, 2001. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked a number of times. Apparently Geraldo and the Judge are not convinced." - [, 11/30/2010]

Time to wake up and smell the coffee... expose the ENTIRETY of the 9/11 Cover-Up.

The problem with that is

No it hasn't been "thoroughly debunked a number of times". The links cited are PM, Structure Mag, Mark Roberts and the ghastly BBC hit piece "The Third Tower".

None of them have done anything, not in the slightest, to resolve the outstanding issues, it's just an online rag citing a hodge podge of "debunker" links in the hopes that nobody will actually scrutinize them.

There are actual substantative criticisms of both our position and the NIST report, and you won't find them anywhere on "Newsbusters".

If you ramp up the attention given to issues such as Able Danger, they will equally attract negative 'debunking' attention.

See Mike Baker doing it at Fox News.

I disagree...

If the movement focused on the ridiculousness of the JICI, the PENTTBOM, the CIA IG, the FBI IG, the 9/11 Commission (especially the 9/11 Commission), the unanswered questions, the family steering committee statements, etc... and so on, we would be a helluva lot better off than we are.

And I agree

with that, but I disagree with the part where you don't criticize the FEMA report, the NIST report on WTC 1 & 2, the Silverstein Weidlinger Report, the ASCE PBPR, the USGS particle atlas and the NIST report on WTC 7. And of course, the EPA.

In case you don't know, a serious flaw in the PBPR serves as 'evidence' for 'flyover'.

I seriously sympathize with giving much more attention to the reports you mention, but when you criticize the "controlled demolition" stuff, you tend to criticize the lesser while there is also a 'better'.. actual empirical studies of the video and physical evidence and whether or not they agree with the government's conclusions.


Was no flyover, and the stuff I tend to criticize has been used against us repeatedly. Just as it is now.

Another example. Thinkprogress states "Media Matters’ Eric Hananoki, who notes that the conspiracy theories surrounding WTC 7 have been thoroughly debunked, adds that Napolitano has “dabbled in 9/11 trutherism before”

Listen to Colmes AGREE with me below. There's a way for this movement to be successful.


There was no flyover. You know my well-known position. In fact, I'm one of the leading critics. The PBPR is a mixed bag, so its flaws are exploited and its fine points are ignored or dismissed by the no plane crash at the Pentagon theorists. Therefore, the PBPR deserves criticism, even from a completely dispassionate and neutral academic standpoint, imho.

But the stuff you eulogize has been used against us also. "Used against us" is no criterion for in- or exclusion. Merit, on the other hand, is. If there is no merit to a certain line of inquiry, if in fact, such a line of inquiry promotes embarrassing misinformation, I agree with you.

My criticism of you in this vein is your debunking by proxy of matters you shy away from debating yourself. If you have criticisms of controlled demolition, I suggest you formulate them and let the chips fall where they may, rather than appealing to consequences without substantative criticisms.

I will do so if need be, because I'm not interested in pleasing the herd, I'm interested in truth. If there is merit to an argument, I will promote it, if not, I will critique it.

"They're using it against us" will fall on deaf ears in a movement already persecuted to the maximum for even daring to question the 9/11 Commission Report and its siblings. Such an objection should be coupled with a justification why the negative publicity has an actual argumentative basis. Id est: no Pentagon plane crash theories, no hijacker theories, no passenger theories.

The other angle is PR: what gives this movement the fastest and most easy advancements towards mainstream acceptation. This, however, represents a path of compromise unwelcomed by many longtime researchers who have an interest in maintaining intellectual integrity over marketing strategy. The latter applies evenly to flawed theories and misinformation.

ETA: I've already listened to you & Colmes. Good job.

The FSC's

Statements, the September Eleventh Advocates Letters, the report compiled by Mindy and Lorie, the list of the families' unanswered questions, etc... etc... etc... have not been used against us. They haven't devoted entire documentaries and books to debunking them. The people that have actually criticized them are people supposedly within the movement.

This is a very old debate, and one that I think I've won. I will continue doing my thing.

You think you've won

And you cited Media Matters.

Do you like these stories from Media Matters?

As Media Matters for America has documented, 9-11 Commission member and former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) has argued that, because a far-reaching Pentagon investigation has yet to find any evidence supporting Shaffer's account, "as of today" the civilian official "does not corroborate what he [Shaffer] has to say."

Further, the AP reported that 9-11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said the commission "did not obtain enough information on the [Able Danger] operation to consider it historically significant." But the article omitted the key reasons the commission provided for determining that the claims were unreliable. As the Post reported on August 23, "The Sept. 11 panel said it did not find Phillpott's assertions credible because there were no documents to support them, and because Atta did not first travel to the United States until June 2000," at least four months after Phillpott claims that Able Danger identified Atta in Brooklyn, New York. As USA Today noted on August 26: "Shaffer says the team placed Atta in New York as early as February 2000, but The 9/11 Commission Report said he arrived in June of that year."

See, about 5 years ago Shaffer caused a big stir by claiming that his military intelligence unit, known as Able Danger, identified lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta in a chart more than a year before the 9-11 attacks, but that the Defense Department and the 9-11 Commission kept that knowledge out of the 9-11 Commission report.

Naturally, such an allegation was thoroughly checked out. In addition to the 9-11 Commission chairman's statement that the Commission report did not contain these assertions because they were not "credible," separate investigations were conducted by the Defense Department Inspector General and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The DOD IG report found that, "The anti-terrorist program, Able Danger, did not identify Mohammed Atta of any of the other 9/11 terrorists before the 9/11 attack" and that members of the program were "not prohibited from sharing intelligence information with law enforcement authorities or other agencies that could have acted" on that information. Similarly, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that "both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff review and the DOD Inspector General review revealed no evidence to support the underlying Able Danger allegations."

That would seem to put the matter to rest, but now Shaffer has a book to sell. Coincidently -- just after the book came out -- Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge "exclusively obtained" an un-redacted copy of the DOD IG report, and contacted "at least" five of the witnesses listed in the report (whose identities were originally redacted). These witnesses now claim their stories were distorted by the report. Herridge does not make clear whether these are the same individuals whose claims of having seen Atta in the chart were deemed to be "not accurate" by the IG report and "not credible or reliable" by the Senate Committee, nor did her article note that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence corroborated the DOD IG's findings on Shaffer's allegations. And it should be noted that this all happened under the Bush administration, making the suggestion of a 9-11 cover-up of intelligence failures during the Clinton administration just seem odd.

However, none of these issues stopped Fox & Friends from reporting the claims as fact - completely ignoring they were debunked years ago, even if one of these reports is now being disputed.

Tell me you were being facetious, citing Media Matters.

First of all...

What makes you think that this is Able Danger vs. Controlled Demolition? It's not, and yet, that's how you're framing this. The "debate" is whether or not we focus on the families, the responders, the ridiculousness of the investigations, the unanswered questions, and the 9/11 Cover-Up in its ENTIRETY vs. focusing solely on CD. That is the debate I think I've won. It is clear we would have been better off if we did that as a whole. We are in the middle of writing a critique of what mediamatters is doing.

I wonder

if there is any reasonable coverage of 9/11 Truth at Media Matters at all, and that was my point.

Media Matters comes across as the liberal (Sunstein) establishment mouthpiece, some topics excepted, while Fox News comes across as the conservative establishment mouthpiece with jingoist extremes and a few maverick exceptions.

Newsbusters is a Christian zealot propaganda site.

Newsbusters is known to have a bias in favor of neocon/christian views.

They clearly have an agenda.


Therefore, I will not allow any of these sites whose frame of reference relies completely on partisanship, to determine my 9/11 research priorities.

Basically, we are constantly and deliberately confused by a minefield of false dichotomies.

Glenn Beck maintains a double standard with respect to conspiracy theories. One moment, he equates conspiracy theorists he doesn't agree with to terrorists, the next he plays the victim of a 'socialist' conspiracy. His ideological positions are a function of his wallet and some incoherent patchwork of neocon libertarianism.

Jon Stewart makes money by, among other things, ridiculing Glenn Beck and Fox News, delegitimizing any form of institutional analysis by association.

Media Matters' job is to discredit Fox News in any way imaginable, even it means sacrificing objectivity and intellectual integrity.

Some leftist alternative media are so afraid of marginalization of their pet peeves, that they shy away from 'conspiracy theories' as too controversial.

In essence, both ends are played off against the middle, where the middle isn't the political moderate, but represents the perpetrators of state crimes so awful they are nudged outside the realm of discussion.

If it has been established that a particular argument has merit, it's undoable to factor in PR concerns, because the complex web of financial, CYA and ideological interests is unpredictable; we will always take fire from the contrived and establishment invested anti-conspiracy team players in the two team league.

One unjustifiably plays the gatekeeper
Another promotes false conspiracy theories while smearing dissent
Another delights in debunking false conspiracy theories while never addressing real ones
Yet another dismisses all conspiracy theories altogether

How about we pick neither of those as points of reference?

Is CNN watching 911blogger?

TRENDING: Fox takes heat from left and right over analyst

Written by the completely anonymous "political unit" of CNN, reciting the exact same no credibility / partisan hack sources discussed on this page. It's a small world.

And screw CNN.

You can't give the ENITRETY to a newbie

First we have to get their attention. We are trying to get to a sound bite/video flash trance induced audience.

Once people see the implosion of WTC 7 and learn that it fell at free fall acceleration they will be more open to the rest.

Like Bob said "Investigating WTC 7 is just the beginning".

Wow, well...that pretty much

Wow, well...that pretty much leaves me speechless. CD is what brought me to the issue. I know what I'm seeing when I see 7 come down. Having been Fetzered in the past, this reader will pass on your future offerings.

Last night...

I attempted to call into Alan Colmes radio show to speak with Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer. He put me on beforehand, so I went on a rant about Saudi Arabia and Wikileaks. Notice how he agreed with me, and didn't call me a nut? If he had known who I was, he probably would never have let me on.


Good job. You coulda mentioned the links between the house of Bush, George Tenet & the house of Saud though.. I'm not sure Colmes would have liked that part.

From the site Jon linked

#20 Right, #8!

Submitted by almostacowboy77 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:30pm.

"Contrary to what Rosie O'Donnell thinks, fire melts steel."

My thoughts exactly.

Isn't there one intelligent person on that forum who would correct such idiocy?