The 9/11 Omission Hearings

On 9/9/2004, 9/11 Family Members, Citizen Researchers, and then Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney held what were called the "9/11 Omission Hearings" in New York City.

9/11 Omission Hearings - Mission Statement - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Commissioner's Opening Words - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Barry Zelman Reflects On Loss - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Mindy Kleinberg Testimony - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Jenna Orkin On Environmental Crimes - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - John Judge The Omission Report - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - John Judge & Jenna Orkin Q&A - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Michael Springmann On Visas To Terrorists - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Paul Thompson Intelligence Warnings - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Michael Ruppert Introduction - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Michael Ruppert On Dick Cheney - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Commissioners Review Evidence - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Indira Singh Reads Sibel Edmonds' Letter - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Michael Ruppert & Indira Singh Q&A - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Nicholas Levis Introduction - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Nicholas Levis 9/11 Omission Dossier - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Carolyn Betts Introduction - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Carolyn Betts On Prosecution Taxonomy - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - John Judge On Intelligence Agencies - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Audience Q&A - 9/9/2004

9/11 Omission Hearings - Program End - 9/9/2004


Haven't been available since some time in 2007. I found them last night, and posted on them online. We were such a different movement back then. Keep in mind, these took place not 2 months after the 9/11 Report was released, so everything was "fresh" at the time.

Thanks Jon

These are essential.

The roster is formidable.
…. and each and every one of us who were not there in 2004 can learn a great deal from your reposting.


learn a great deal from your reposting

and from your example.


From put together a nice page on this...

Please have a look! I spent a

Please have a look!

I spent a while getting it formatted so that we all have an accessible and attractive reference to this important event.


Just posted that on her wall on Facebook. It was because she told me that Cynthia was supposed to be her guest this week on her show (but is sick, and couldn't make it) that made me think to look for these.

thanks for posting, Jon

These hearing records are a national treasure, some of the best work done in the 9/11 truth movement, ever. The Omission Hearings are hard evidence the 9/11 Commission was at best a whitewash, and, considering the stuff that was omitted and distorted, a criminal investigation into cover up by those involved is in order. Either than, or a truth and reconciliation commission.

Bravo to Cynthia McKinney and everyone that testified. Bravo to the Jersey Girls and all the other family members that pushed for a real 9/11 investigation.


This is our history, and a very powerful one, indeed. It's some of our best resource material. It's too bad half of the cast is no longer as active as they were, if at all in some cases. John Judge, Michael Ruppurt and Indira Singh are especially missed. Thank God some have remained active. We now have a somewhat new cast with some amazing individuals. I can only fantasize where we might be if Judge, Ruppurt and Singh were holding one front, while Jones, Ryan, Gage and MacQueen were defending another. But I suppose that's like wishing for MLK and Thomas Jefferson to be here to help save the union...... and to agree on the best way to do it. The people who conducted these hearings are the ones who paved the way for the worldwide movement we are today. The best way to honor their contribution is to emulate their character in everything we do.

"half of the cast is no longer as active as they were..."

Because they were driven out by the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Movement. John Judge, who may have the best video in the bunch, was driven out by the CD and missile fundamentalists because he didn't agree with them. Many people got tired of the laughing stock we had become. I miss the days back when...

I agree with you that the

I agree with you that the movement was more focused with a better approach early on. But you have to see that during that time seeds of conspiracy theorizing were being planted by early "researchers" and by now those seeds have burst into full bloom. Don't sound defeated though, let everybody know and all the people reading and visiting this site that they cannot stop us. We have the truth on our side and we continue to press forward against long odds but with the courage of our convictions. We will emerge stronger, the public is ready for us are we ready for them?


For people like me who were greatly influenced by the works of Paul Thompson and John Judge, theorizing never entered the equation.

I didn't mean that you were

I didn't mean that you were involved in the conspiracy stuff I'm thinking more of alex jones, meyssan, dave von kleist, and eric hufschmidt. A lot of others too. They got out there early and people who followed their lead spread their methods far and wide. So I guess what I meant is yes, the early movement was great but during that time period there were a lot of shady researchers doing things, fast forward to 2011 and it looks like they suceeded in sapping a lot of our strength. So there has always been a struggle against misinformation in this movement, and we have to take up this challenge and pass it on to the next wave of activists. I agree with you on this one!

If you're saying...

That people like Theirry Meissan and Eric Hufschmid were quick with their theories, and those theories spread over the course of several years, I would agree with you.

John Judge

chose to leave, as far as I can tell from the record.

Cynthia McKinney, Michael Springman and others chose to stay.

I don't recall any account of people attempting to drive John Judge out of the movement in any way similar to how I see people trying to marginalize Jim Fetzer, for example. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, I'd like to be corrected with some sort of account or example from back then. I wanna know our history.

Of course

We're trying to marginalize Jim Fetzer and drive him out of the movement.

I don't want that creep anywhere near this movement.

I don't either

I could have used AJ, or Eric Hufschmidt or any number of people as an example. My point is that no one tried to drive Judge out of movement. From what I can tell, he left on his own accord, while others from that commission stayed on. Jon implies that the CD crowd tried to drive him out (like we are doing with Fetzer) and I don't think that's how it went down.

I think John Judge is brilliant and I've listened to his lectures countless times. I also think his posture toward CD is antiquated, especially in 2011, and motivated by something I'm not privi to. In my book, that fact that McKinney stayed on and Judge left speaks to their individual character, and not the validity of CD evidence, which IMO is as compelling as any.

Ask John...

He will gladly tell you all of the people that chastised him for not accepting CD and a missile. The confrontation he had in NYC with a WAC when he was trying to tell people about Able Danger is one example. He wasn't invited to speak at the Emergency Truth Convergence in 2005 because people didn't like the fact that he didn't think a missile hit the Pentagon, and the organizers didn't want to start trouble. He will gladly tell you about the "circus." The same kind of thing happened with John Feal. Between people in the movement and debunkers, he got a shitload of phone calls harassing him. Notice he doesn't associate with us anymore? The same kind of shit has been happening to me for years. People attacking me because I have certain beliefs. I guess the difference is, I am one stubborn individual, and refuse to be driven out.


You filled in some important gaps about things that were before my time. Now I know.

It's interesting that Nico Haupt also appears in the commission videos and Indira embraces his question and agrees with him. We all know what happened with him. There are a lot of dynamics at play every step of the way, but we can't let those get in our way of growing and evolving as a movement.

More than anything from the past, I'm much more curious about his opinion of the work of people like Ryan, Jones and MacQueen, people who have blossomed since his departure. My guess is that he is as stubborn as you, in a different way. I wish I was wrong.

Why don't you interview him? All causes benefit from the insights of those who have seen it all and witnessed how things evolved. The rest of us only truly know what we've experienced first hand.

I tried to defend him back in 2006...


In the comments in that thread, you can see John Albanese and I comment on the mentality that brought us to where we are today.


(date of the thread)

I was awake to 911 for about five weeks. I saw 911 Mysteries two weeks earlier and Building Seven blew my mind.

That was two years after the 911 Commission report came out, 18 months after the NIST twin towers report and 2 years before the NIST report on 7....and one year before Jone's announcement of discovering iron microspheres and red/gray chips in the dust.

I don't belittle the bullshit John may have dealt with, but I wonder what John Judge thinks about what David Chandler is doing with his life, for instance? Really. I'm curious.


It really matter what John thinks about David Chandler? To me, the question is similar to many of the "litmus test" statements I've seen over the years about "controlled demolition."

"Controlled Demolition" did not wake me up. By the time these hearings took place, I was already 1 1/2-2 years knee deep in research, contacting the media, my Reps and Senators, etc... and I was sending them information on things like Daniel Pearl, Sibel Edmonds, etc...

Two days after these hearings, I attended the 9/11 People's Commission in D.C. which had people like Ray McGovern, Sibel, Coleen, and... John Judge...

Sorry about the sound quality. I still use the same camcorder.

Interestingly enough... Pacifica radio no longer has the audio from this day on their site that I can see. They did for years, but have since taken it down. At the time, I got into a huge argument with the producer of the hearings that day. She wanted the film from my camera. There was no way in hell she was getting that film. I kept telling her that it's too important, etc... I never took the time to post the entire hearings on the web, and unfortunately, lost the original tape.

Edit: I FOUND IT!!!

However, this says it took place on 9/13, but it definitely took place on 9/11/2004.


I interviewed John Judge a month ago and Mike Ruppert a year ago.

On the subject of 911, I asked John about doppelgangers (doubles) and back stories (legends); I asked Mike about the war games and insider trading. Both men undoubtedly remain advocates of 911 truth, even if they are no longer visible spokespersons and may not agree with much of the current focus.

I asked them about the issues I felt they were most expert in. I felt no need to ask them about CD. If I wanted to talk to someone about CD I would talk to Niels Harrit or Stephen Jones or Kevin Ryan.

Similarly, in my most recent interview with Chomsky I focused almost exclusively on Cold War propaganda and geopolitics (the focus of my next film). I didn't set out to create a "gotcha" moment by haranguing him about 911.

I just don't see the point in trying to create hostility amongst people I consider allies, of whom I would include all of the above.

I believe the evidence for CD (unlike highly dubious theories like missile at the Pentagon) is overwhelming. If others in the movement are unconvinced or would like to focus on other issues they should not be smeared and they should certainly not be treated with hostility.

Thanks for the uploads and thanks to Jules for the TruthNews page.

(No subject)

stay stubborn Jon

man the barricade !!


""Controlled Demolition" did not wake me up. "

OK, but I just told you that CD is a large part of what woke me up. I'm not sure what UR inferring. My experience is invalid? My awakening wasn't real? Should I leave the movement, too?

I wasn't inferring anything.

I was telling you that CD had nothing to do with waking me up.


for the last 6 years i've watched as EVERY discussion is AWAYS dragged off-topic into the controlled demolition topic. it is so annoying.

these hearings contain an amazing wealth of information that every activist who professes to care about 9/11 Truth should educate themselves on.

enough with the Controlled Demolition debate. there are SPECIFIC THREADS here to discuss CD. This thread is about an amazing treasure-trove of information that Jon and Julian have compiled. Learn from it.


People on 9/11 sites, and debunkers who could seemingly only talk about "Controlled Demolition," that's exactly what has happened over the years. Everything always gets focused into the question of how those buildings came down. And here we are today where the main focus of this movement is "Controlled Demolition." Again, I miss the old days of this movement.

At this point

Before ANY discussion of something so specific and detailed as controlled demolition, there better first be a mention of the more fundamental definitive evidence of a cover up. That's what has gone missing. That's what the debunkers and come cd obsessed people keep continuing to do. Something like CD must be kept in perspective in discussions and debates. There ARE opportunities being wasted by the rush to bring up CD without and premise of the fundamental, easily understandable evidence of the cover-up. I'm not saying that the people who focus on CD don't want the public to understand the more fundamental aspects of the truth. They are just always pushed to keep the debate right there on very detailed aspects of demolition so they go with it.

Things like the solid contradictions in testimony and time from Dick Cheney, NORAD etc. simply carry WAY more weight in discussions with the average person than ideas about demolitions, so....These should come first before people attempt to break down their highly plausible theory about explosives. Trying this approach will certainly lend far more receptivity to theories than you would without prefacing with the 9/11 fundamentals. Without this, we are easily framed as a group with a limited scope. People are pushed into debates about details of cd's and miss huge opportunities get across some simple points which require no theories!

Consider how little time we have to get our point across, the length of a conversation, how long before we become overbearing, and think of how long we usually have to get any words in in a public forum...
Consider how much time any of us as individuals have time to spread the word...
Consider how many people think they have already "heard it all" with "9/11 whatever theories"...

Then we are FORCED to stay with the basics!


when i look at my comments from 2006 i stand by them today - virtually word for word

It is a difficult choice to make...

For example the no plane at the pentagon vs the missile vs the pane did hit theories. What we do know is that we have not been presented the evidence. And if a huge passenger airplane did hit then there would be clear footage of it. We should stick to that. there are unlod amounts of cameras around the pentagon. where is the footage... maybe the plane did hit and they hold back the footage to make us assume (not that I beleie that is the case) but lets please avoid speculation.

Truth is none of us know for sure, and the pentagon (officials) have the footage and they wont show.

Speculation and peoples' willingness to stand by assumption rather than fact has dwindeled this movement by creating the resulting arguments.

People know they were lied to, they just don't want to be part of a bickering movement of stubborn (what is seen as) whackjobs.

The ridicule by those that violently oppose the truth movement is also to blame, I find myself not discussing it in certain situations, not because I care what these poeple think of me, just to avoid the headache of having ot explain myself (by answering the sme stupid questions over and over) when I know all too well my words will just go in one ear and out the other. We are opposed so violently because people are scared of what we are telling them, not because they don't entirely beleive us.

People do not want to know the truth, they want to be comforted.

Personally I am a little annoyed at AE911truth as I donated to them about a year ago for a law suit agains Shayam Sunder and John Gross, in the meantime they have spent untold amounts of money on other endeavours and what do we see of this lawsuit?

What was the money spent on? That lawsuit would help us all considerably and would have them quivering, it does not matter how many lawyers they have, keep it simple and concise and they have no argument. Physics are physics, this laws cannot be changed with a signitaure.

I support them 100% but I am not going to donate to them anymore until I see some movement towards what I donated to, or a valid reason that they cannot further that lawsuit. A lawsuit against the NIST directors will at least give me reason to debate these matters with the deniers, until then we are just considered whackjobs while the bullshit false science of the NIST report is considerd gospel by those that refuse to use their own brains.

If controlled demolition is what we should concentrate on ( and I still think building 7 is our best ammo) then so be it, where is the lawsuit, NIST lied and physics are on our side.

I beleive we need to avoid assumtion on all levels and stick to what is known as fact, there is enough there to gain credibility and the bickering between members of the truth movement will just have the corupted elite laughing at us.

Comments like yours

make my toes curl, my fists clench, my teeth grind and my eyelids twitch.

I see so many people lecturing... who by the rotten fruits of the laughably erroneous beliefs they hold, which betray a stunning lack of dedication to accurate research and the scientific, journalistic and historiographical method, are discredited from the get-go. Then.. they start nagging, whining, complaining in long jeremiads about movement conflicts, pleading for harmony and lamenting 'disunity'. In other words, rather than get rid of total bullshit, let us continue to allow it to besmirch the movement. A conspiracy of silence, covering up misinformation, lies, fabrications, hatched on the very altar of truth: the Truth Movement. Let's overlook inaccuracies and let's be all benign and cosy and sweet. Let's be tolerant and complimentary and let's laud essays and books that are essentially best used to fan the fireplace. (E.g. 'Le Pentagate')

Because you know.... Your first paragraph ensures that it's not just the 'corupted [sic] elite' laughing at you, I promise you.

No, we will tolerate hack jobs and charlatans no longer. Essays will be razor sharp. Sources shall be unimpeachable. Speculation will not be promoted as fact. Falsification-speculation will be rooted out completely.

The information promoted by this movement is going to be flawless, from A to Z. Your berth is going to be clean. Your uniform impeccable. I don't want to even see the most insignificant speck of dust on your attire. You protest? Expects visits from the 9/11 Truth drill instructors who roam this site and mercilessly pounce you back into shape.

Feel free to challenge any of them. But make you sure you know what you're getting yourself into. We're seasoned investigative researchers, and we're not going to be taking any of this shit, anymore.

WTF are you talking about

How about you make some sense then we can discuss. Your rambling angry reply means nothing to me.

You can look at some evidence, I can look at some evidence and we can both come up with completely different hypothesis' if there is not enough eveidence to make a full blown conclusion.

All I ask is that we all overlook assumtion to eliminate any confusion and work towards a truth that is based on truth, not assumtion.

What if some evidence came forward that contradicted what you have though for the past 8 years, would you simply dismiss your past words and thoughts and simply move forward?Or would you somehow protect your integety and deny the new evidence?

Keep an open mind demand the truth and stop the fucking bickering.

It makes you look like and idiot.

I want to see a lawsuit against NIST, I contribited financially to that and it is not happening. That third beam on 9/11 last year was nice, but what did it change?

I am losing hope in this movement because people like you are not receptive to any ideas other than your own....

Don't play dumb

You know what I'm talking about.

The big tent is closed for business. And you know my work on the Pentagon as well.

There is no way, no way, absolutely no way in hell that anything other than a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. Want a debate? Try me in one of the many Pentagon threads. I will personally wipe away your arrogant, smirky lies about the Pentagon because I am sick and tired of hearing them resuscitated.

Of course I'm not "receptive" to total bullshit and clownish blathering about missiles and flyovers. What did you expect? If you're looking for sympathy, look between R and T in the dictionary.

And to preempt anyone who thinks

.. the above comment is 'harsh' or 'bellicose'... search for the Pentagon on 911blogger.

There are hundreds of threads, some of them with hundreds of comments... going over the subject matter again, and again, and again, and again.

And again.

People who see the 9/11 Truth Movement promoting no plane crash at the Pentagon? They're going to laugh us off immediately.

Scores and scores of witness testimony confirming impact. Physical evidence confirming impact. DNA evidence confirming impact. FDR evidence confirming impact. A video showing impact. (And no flyover) A set of five lamp poles in the path of the plane. A generator ravaged by a plane engine, moved towards the Pentagon. Engine-shaped foundation damage to the left. Engine-shaped generator damage to the right. A cut from the flap track. An engine shaped imprint. A tree in front of the Pentagon, pushed inwards. Directional column damage, highly specific to high velocity impact, not bombs. An exit hole with plane debris under it. And pieces of people. A C-130 pilot who saw a plane fly descend very rapidly, disappear, followed by a fireball. Radar data did not show a plane 'flying away', nor did the ATCs at Reagan.

But what do we want? We want to see video, otherwise we accept none of the above.

It's NUTS.

SC, I've read many of your comments over the last year

and especially the last few months and I have got a certain impression that all this stuff, all these people who have done relatively little research (like myself for instance) compared to you (and "a few" others here), is beginning to get the better of you. Personally I always enjoy your verbal "kind" assaults on people who haven't looked into things as thoroughly as you have, but not everyone has the time and mentality to do this, to dig deep, to make sure what they promote to others is factual and can be checked.
And maybe it would be better if they didn't promote stuff that is not proven, documented, well sourced, but that's the way things are it seems.
I do agree with the vision that we should clean up the movement, make sure the adversary has nothing to use against us.
It must be tough sometimes for someone like yourself I can imagine. But we're all people, and most people who come visit here do it because they feel/know something ain't right. And although I liked the articulate humor in your previous reaction, it will result, as you saw, in nothing else but the other guy getting annoyed about the tone of your reaction. Maybe you could care less about that, but still, u could produce a different more kind of a response, no matter how many times people repeat the same "humbug en larie en apekool" about the Pentagon.

Am I upset?

You bet.

Jon Gold once told me, in a rather mean way (ouch Jon) that I couldn't even begin to understand his frustration.

I think he was right. (People defaming your family? Sickening) There is a whole universe of frustration waiting to be explored, and we've got plenty of trekkies who want to help us boldly go there.

I guess there's no other way but to settle this with an elaborate blog post.

But I'm not looking forward to the enormous work that's going to be required to cover all the bases and all the escape routes of the Pentagon no plane crash argument. I want to redirect my efforts to truthing again, not debunking. You bet it's frustrating. I thought that was obvious from the tone of my response. It's also extremely frustrating to be 'rewarded' for speaking the truth with constant snitchjacketing attacks. I've been compared to murderers. Not something I enjoy. (Maar, bedankt voor je begrip, desalniettemin.)


But dealing with the same game for so many years... etc... and so on.


and learning to deal with it in a proper way is the name of the game I think. It's one of the hardest, if not the hardest thing to do for people who can see that "there's something terrible wrong with this country" so to speak, or rather this world we're all living in, or have to live in depending on how you look at it.

For what it's worth, I always get a good feeling when reading the stuff certain people put out here. To know that there's people outthere who understand the magnitude of this situation, and understand the need for sincerity, integrity and intellectual honesty if we're going to get anywhere from here. Good to see but no so good to read about their frustrations.

Personally I worry (not to mention I get frustrated :) ) a lot more about the fact that we still haven't got a new investigation, while wondering what it will take to finally get it. Not that that would get my hopes up really yet, it would only be a small beginning. The conditions surrounding the events in court will be interesting to watch, not sure how we're ging to make a good enough effort to make sure we have a judge that can be trusted on this one, and that all the relevant people are going to stand trial. It's not just 9/11 that will be on trial, it of course is much more than that. So I wonder, are there any thoughts on this? You wrote that what happened on 9/11 will always be relevant, and you bet that's the case. We'll just have to wait and see what will happen, or just take action. We cannot just organize all together in one big group to make a real stand, we're mostly seperated and mostly connected through the web. Communication through the web is also a good means though to make something happen.
At least I will follow 911blogger from this day on to the day that I read the news "Real 9/11 perpetrators finally uncovered".

These hearings were great, how could it have gone unnoticed by so many? Don't people realize what's at stake here? Apparently many of them do not. Something to really wonder about and hard to avoid getting frustrated about. But who knows, maybe I'm exaggerating it all.

Ahh, I don't know what you are talking about.

You assume that I know every post you have made or that I take notice of who says what, when and why.

Once again, assumtion.

I really have not seen any evidence other than a computer generated animation ( does NIST the NIST building 7 explanation ring a bell) and some photos.

I have not seen footage, there is footage until I see footage I will not beleive anything. there is plenty of bullshitflying around and your bad attitude makes me think you are only trying to piss me off.

What i am certain is that a hijacker that can hardly fly a 172 could crash a 757 into the building but I am not about to spare any more thought on it until concrete evidence, not opinion or photos of a scene that we cannot be sure of the location of, or some charred bodies that could be real or not etc. etc.

There is no clear footage of a plane hitting the building, there is footage of it that I am sure, it is not in the interests of (inter)national security that we do not get to see the footage, it is witheld from us for some reason or another and this is why I don't necessarily beleive anybody.

Your arrogant attitude is the apitamy of why people are losing interest in this website.

You could make a link to the appropriate thread, rather than assuming that I know you work or you opinion, I honestly do not, I may have read it, But i don'e associate it with you as you seem to ASSume I do.

I just want undeniable evidence.


That's just the problem... it seems that all evidence is deniable, depending on your standards.

Thank you Jon Gold, for posting these videos.

We should push this version

Kudos on the upload.

Excellent video quality.

For people who want to push the links for these hearings, these are the ones to push. I don't think there's been as high quality a version out there, has there?

Either way, for people who've got these hearings linked to the crappy GoogleVideo or other crappy or fragmented versions, swap them out for these. It's like watching Groden's stabilized Zapruder film after years of watching the early version.

I think I'm gonna watch the whole series again....... with popcorn :-)

I love it

that Jon posted this, but I would prefer the source material posted on, so all of us can download and spread HQ copies.

Youtube is a black hole, powered by technology specifically designed to enforce copyright. Technology which, amazingly, gets people to run foreign programs on their computers in order to watch a video stream, something that is completely unnecessary, flies in the face of the natural separation between code and data, but is nevertheless widely accepted by all of us because of Youtube's rise to prominence. :-(

Now that I'm on the subject, I would really like an mp3 of Jon Gold's debate with Pat Curley, so I can transcribe the debate. The Youtube version is useless for this purpose, and I'm not going to rip the FLV, convert them to M4A and then patch them together, or at least, not unless I'm forced to do so.

I post Youtube videos, but it's quite pointless to rip the FLV and host it somewhere else instead. I'm better off giving instructions on how to rip it yourself. What we need is authors of Youtube videos posting downloadable versions online, like 9/11 Truth Hero Nate Flach (Xenomorph911WTC) does.

You want...

A transcript of the Omission hearings?



That's awesome. Am I allowed to post that on my Wiki, crediting "A+ Recording & Transcribing" as listed in the PDF?

What about your debate with Pat... will I have to glue the Youtube segments together, etc.? I have many debates, interviews and phone calls [Hill] stored as MP3's, making it easier for me to transcribe them. Transcribing an hour's worth costs me about three days, I think.

And a transcript of that debate would allow people to quote both your statements and Pat's gaffes. I would like to give the 9/11 TM a transcript to hit the Curley's of this world over the head with. Preferably repeatedly.


Yourself out. You could ask Justin Martell about the debate, and what media he still has on it. The only thing I have are the youtube vids, and Erik's write up about it. And my "victory" movie that I made. :)

I think it's important to note...

That this presentation by Jenna is the reason I did what I did for the responders for so many years.

Edit: This comment was voted down. I am very proud of the work I did for the responders. Sorry if that offends someone.


I've just finished watching all of the clips- been watching a bit every day

THX ! :)