Remember Building 7 on Connecticut NPR
AUDIO HERE: http://cptv.vo.llnwd.net/o2/ypmwebcontent/Commodore%20Skahill/Colin%20McEnroe%20Show%2004-18-2011.mp3
Dear Friends,
We are pleased to announce that today from 1 to 2pm EST, Manny Badillo and Tony Szamboti of the Remember Building 7 campaign will be on the Colin McEnroe show on WNPR, National Public Radio’s Connecticut affiliate. They will be joined by Cheryl Curtis and JoAnne Bauer of Connecticut 9/11 Truth, who helped organize the recent Investigate Building 7 conference at the University of Hartford. Be sure to tune in if you can, and please forward this announcement to anyone who may be interested!
To listen, please go to: http://www.cpbn.org/program/colin-mcenroe-show
This will be the first of a number of media appearances surrounding the launch of the next round of TV ads, which is now set for June 1 and will be accompanied by a new poll gauging New Yorkers’ beliefs and knowledge about the collapse of Building 7. The campaign has raised $90,000 so far thanks to your generous support. We now need only $10,000 more to purchase the 350 TV spots that are needed for the ad to reach one million viewers as it did last fall. Please donate generously if you have not already, and ask your friends and family to as well!
Donate Now
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
The Remember Building 7 Team
For more details about the Remember Building 7 campagin, visit: http://www.rememberbuilding7.org
- RL McGee's blog
- Login to post comments
Congratulations
to Cheryl, JoAnne, Manny, and Tony. Good show.
Overall, this NPR station made a giant leap.
Thanks Justin
For posting the Audio for me. Also: http://www.yourpublicmedia.org/node/12282 [Leave comments]
I'm going to quote Justin Keogh: "I think it's safe to say this is the best group interview ever."
I agree. This is a breakthrough getting our foot inside the NPR door.
Off Topic
I was channel surfing and noticed that National Geographic was re-playing their documentary 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. I tuned in just as they were showing their thermite experiment. This video is a good antidote to their poisonous propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
p.s. Is this interview archived so I can listen to it tomorrow?
Under-Utilized "Irrefutable" Evidence
The abstaining show producer commented that allegations of 9/11 foul play require "irrefutable" supporting evidence.
The WTC dust evidence represents such evidence. Yet it seems to be under-utilized in the current ad campaigns.
Visually curious video of the decade-old, dubious, but non-fatal collapse of a burning general office building already damaged by WTC 1 within a short ad may not be enough to move the public to act on our behalf. On the other hand, the public will immediately grasp the role of explosive materials discovered in the aftermath of 3 destroyed WTC buildings the same way an impartial jury grasps the implications of DNA and fingerprint evidence at a crime scene.
On a similar note, a caller wondered why the decade-old, dubious, but non- fatal collapse of a burning general office building already damaged by WTC 1 should matter to New Yorkers in light of other current events. Better linkage of the destruction of WTC 7 to the destructions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 (and the resulting 2,000+ deaths) will cause the interests of the "Remember Building 7" campaign to take precedent.
New Yorkers may not become concerned enough about a decade-old, dubious but non-fatal collapse of a general office building. They will become concernned with the implications of forensic evidence of foul play that appears to have played a role in the building destructions that caused the deaths of 2,000+ people.
Agreed
right, this is rock solid evidence. We do ourselves a disservice by not hammering this and other points home and forcing nay-sayers to confront the data during debates and interviews.
Key also to this topic are the psychological barriers between doubters and the facts we are trying to convey. Are you familiar with this article about How Facts Backfire"?
Yes, but
What I believe is needed is a forensic expert or experts who will sign on to the conclusions regarding the red-gray chips. It's one thing to have a scientific team verify the existence of the chips and their explosive nature, but another level of expertise is needed to translate that "evidence" into criminal intent in a convincing manner. That doesn't mean that I am not convinced. But for the sake of the public, it would be great if that could happen.
Interesting point
We need both the dubious office destruction and the visual color close-ups of red-grey chips, microspheres and graphs of the reactions in the lab from the paper.
Those point to a question of what happened to the Towers then, and for most people, even if that isn't addressed directly, the idea will come to them.
The Viewer Can Be Carefully Steered By A Tactful Presentation
It seems there should be a subtle way to get the dust information on the record in future ads. Skeptics or doubters may demand more conclusive proof than just the videos of a suspect looking building collapse or even the opinion of building professionals.
The dust evidence will also naturally bridge the gap between the WTC 7 and WTC 1 & 2 collapses. A connection to the WTC 1 and 2 collapses will create the type of urgency in the public mind that will make the current re-investigation push unstoppable.
something is missing from this dialogue
I, myself, have not endured the stress of speaking to a public audience about this most sentinel of events. Considering my bias for a new investigation and the visceral frustration I feel that this coverup has been so successful, I don't really think I personally would make a good spokesperson for our cause.-- maybe, but likely not.
Given that admission, may I humbly submit that the interviewers seemed somewhat ill prepared for such classic questions from typical NPR listeners such as, "With everything else going on in the world, why does this issue matter?" and the myopic statements such as, "I'm an open minded sort of guy but the 911 truth movement doesn't seem to have ANY evidence."
Did you, as you listened to the interview, notice that a caller from Anchorage offered a factoid about massive pieces of steel found hundreds of feet from the crime scene but was cut short by the moderator who then later played the prepared clip of the protesting producer who claims there is no evidence?
This is the point in such a discussion where the 911 truth movement advocates need to put a stop to the momentum of the interview by saying "Stop! Do you realize what you're doing by ignoring the known physical evidence? Slow down and let's take this one piece at a time. How on gawd's green earth does one explain the physical process by which pieces of one building fly through the air and land hundreds of feet away form it's origin?"
On the issue of why this subject matters, the reply offered was close but still misses the mark. Let me tell you why this matters. Let me tell you why 911 is the key to everything else going on in this world. 1) there is an overwhelming, AND I MEAN OVERWHELMING volume of evidence that our own countrymen contributed to the planning and execution of this crime [and David Ray Griffin has pointed out that many of these points individually prove the original story false by mutual exclusion- two contradictory explanations for specific facts can not both be true at the same time and so far the official story advocates thrive on ignoring that such inconvenient facts exist]. 2) there is ample evidence that the 911 Commission uncovered then avoided such evidence in their 'investigation' 3) if any group of persons has the ability to orchestrate such events and more than that, has the ability to control the narrative, does that not suggest a level of control and access that transcends the very fabric of our known and agreed upon system of governing? Yes, a government within our government.
Follow my logic for one moment please: even if those we consider "left-wing gatekeepers" such as those at WNPR, don't agree with our alternative theories, for the sake of argument if we can get them to agree that IF, and I mean IF, an alternative theory of the events were true-- would that not suggest that considering the scope and magnitude of the crime and coverup that others must be implicated at the deepest levels of money and power this corrupt state has every produced? If they answer 'yes' than it must be agreed that this issue of 911 trumps any other single issue in terms of value to shed light on the most influential, powerful, corrupt members of this society and their influence over our laws, our policies, and our politicians.
I coudn't agree more
You make some great points. I was particularly struck by your comment:
"911 truth movement advocates need to put a stop to the momentum of the interview by saying "Stop! Do you realize what you're doing by ignoring the known physical evidence? Slow down and let's take this one piece at a time."
Yes, being prepared is key. But more important (IMO) is being aware of how media personalities and our detractors gloss over or even completely ignore key pieces of evidence. When given these public opportunities to make our case, we need to interrupt the momentum when necessary and hone in on key aspects, even at the risk of not getting to discuss other aspects. We have a tendency to try to get in as much info as possible, rather than try to explain things as fully as possible until there is some sort of understanding with those we are talking to. This could be very easily be remedied at the onset of an interview by declaring that "we" may not get to discuss all of the aspects of "our case," since 9/11 is an extremely complex set of events, but "we" will try to clear up some of the confusion on at least a few key points. With issues like 9/11 that are extremely complex, the axiom, "LESS IS MORE" is one, if learned and applied, will serve us best in the long run.
With that said, kudos to everyone who made this interview happen. Yes, even to the NPR station, itself.
One "small" point. . .
I, as an activist for 9/11 Truth, do NOT present "alternative theories." I present FACTS, irrefutable evidence. Let the observer decide from there.
For example: Symmetrical, free-fall collapse was deemed "impossible" by NIST in their initial report on WTC 7. Why? The laws of physics wouldn't permit it, they said. But, then, magically, in their final report they admit that indeed, free-fall WAS achieved. FACT: free-fall, symmetrical collapse of a steel skyscraper can ONLY be achieved through the use of explosives. Period.
FACT: There is no evidence that any of the alleged "hijackers" were on any of the planes. Period.
FACT: Active Thermitic material is found abundantly throughout WTC dust. Period.
Etc. etc. . . .
I would suggest the word "theory" be avoided altogether.
Best to all, and thanks for this thought-provoking thread.
****
PS- I tried posting on Mr. Bolling's Facebook page but was immediately blocked. God Bless America!
One "small" point. . .
I, as an activist for 9/11 Truth, do NOT present "alternative theories." I present FACTS, irrefutable evidence. Let the observer decide from there.
For example: Symmetrical, free-fall collapse was deemed "impossible" by NIST in their initial report on WTC 7. Why? The laws of physics wouldn't permit it, they said. But, then, magically, in their final report they admit that indeed, free-fall WAS achieved. FACT: free-fall, symmetrical collapse of a steel skyscraper can ONLY be achieved through the use of explosives. Period.
FACT: There is no evidence that any of the alleged "hijackers" were on any of the planes. Period.
FACT: Active Thermitic material is found abundantly throughout WTC dust. Period.
Etc. etc. . . .
I would suggest the word "theory" be avoided altogether.
Best to all, and thanks for this thought-provoking thread.
****
PS- I tried posting on Mr. Bolling's Facebook page but was immediately blocked. God Bless America!
Facts and theories
"FACT: There is no evidence that any of the alleged "hijackers" were on any of the planes. Period."
That is a fact?
If there were really hijackers they would have had to purchase airline tickets. They did shortly after the arrest of Moussaoui. This is well documented.
If there were hijackers then they would be on the flight manifests. They were on the manifests.......
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/05/911-hijackers-not-on-flig...
If there were hijackers they would be seen on airport videos boarding the planes. But there were no videos at Logan so there is no videos of...oh wait...there were videos at Dulles...do they show hijackers boarding? Yes it does......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLEqjpHVPhM
If there were hijackers why didn't anyone from the planes report that if they were making calls? All the calls made from the planes report hijackers.
Not only were there hijackers and this is well documented. It is also well documented but rarely mentioned, that the Intelligence agencies of the U.S. were aware of some of these hijackers before they ever arrived in the U.S. and had them under surveillance and their phone calls intercepted. One of the hijackers even lived at an "al Qaeda" safehouse and communications hub, where the calls were intercepted by NSA and CIA.
Here is Al-Mihdar's phone number, it is in this official Gov document which shows how they got it-from one of the Africa Embassy bombers in 1998, he lived with Ahmed al-hazza, who is also known as Ahmed al-Hada, who was his father in law.........
"Subject made a series of phone calls to his friend in yemen, Ahmed al-hazza at phone number 967 1 200 578." page 14/18
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/767...
They intercepted the calls coming to this number so they know much more than what they say they know.....
"Interrogated by a team of FBI agents, al-Owhali gave up the key relay number(011-967-1-200-578) - the telephone number of Ahmed al-Hada."
"NSA immediately began intercepting al-Hada's telephone calls......The importance of the intercepted al-Hada telephone calls remains today a highly classified secret within the intelligence community, which continues to insist that al-Hada be referred to only as a "suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East" in declassified reports regarding the 9/11 intelligence disaster."
http://books.google.com/books?id=x_K2rb-OShMC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=%229...
That number was a goldmine for U.S. Intelligence and the guy that lived there entered the U.S. while under surveillance and got on flight 77, even though it is a fact the CIA knew he was a member of Al Qaeda and a terrorist. He was one of the hijackers you are claiming don't exist.
"Snoops at the National Security Agency’s headquarters in Maryland knew that when Osama dialed 011-967-1-200-578, he was checking in on his global operations center, located in a private home in Yemen. By 2000, the NSA was eavesdropping on calls between that house and a young man who had recently moved out. Agents knew the man’s name and suspected him to be an international terrorist."
http://mobile.theweek.com/article/index/90129/the-shadow-factory-the-ult...
The man is Khalid Al Mihdar and he wasn't "suspected" to be an international terrorist, it was known due to his connections with the Embassy Bombers.
"By 2000, the NSA was eavesdropping on calls between that house and a young man who had recently moved out. Agents knew the man’s name and suspected him to be an international terrorist."
http://mobile.theweek.com/article/index/90129/the-shadow-factory-the-ult...
And in 2000 he was making calls while living with an FBI Informant in San Diego and being assisted by Saudi Agents who are being funneled money by Prince Bandar.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/09/attack/main521223.shtml
Sorry but. . .
None of the information you present represents fact, or irrefutable evidence.
"The only list sourced to an actual manifest was from a graphic created by the staff of the Boston Globe that showed a complete list of names and seating locations for passengers on American Airlines Flight 11. That list did indeed include the names of the suspected hijackers, although it is not clear whether the Globe obtained the information independently from the airline or from investigators. Although acknowledging receipt of an inquiry into this question and initially expressing a willingness to investigate, the Globe ultimately declined to comment for this report."
Yah. Solid evidence.
The FBI can say, "hijackers" were recognized over and over again, for months. . . oh? How did they know they were hijackers? Had they done any hijacking before? Did they have a record of hijacking? Hijackers, hijackers, hijackers. What is the evidence of them being "Hijackers"????
Having two Muslims on video at Logan means NOTHING. Does it prove they performed the hijacking with their boxcutters? Or at all. Nope. These are just pictures. We don't know what role, if any, these men had. Perhaps they were there as a red herring. NOT FACT.
The article you site presents a conclusion (a guess) that the men on the manifest were the "hijackers" but read carefully this is no proof of their involvement in the hijacking whatsoever. They MAY have been on the plane.
So someone made some phone calls and this is supposed to be PROOF that he committed the hijacking on 9/11?? Excuse me?
Bottom line: we have no definitive proof that hijackers were on the plane. We have no proof that a hijacking, in the traditional sense, ever took place.
Denial
"What is the evidence of them being "Hijackers"????"
When they go on planes, and the planes are hijacked and the people on the planes are calling saying who hijacked the planes.
What you are posting is called denial. And it manifests itself in posts such as yours and also in silly and embarrassing theories like "the phone calls were fake" because the phone calls are in fact proof of hijackings so you need to go into denial mode and claim they are fake proof of hijackers yes, proof the calls are fake-there is none-just denial.
And in regards to these non existent (according to people in denial)hijackers....here is how you win the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award.........
starting at the 1 hour 48 minute mark and the next several minutes thereafter......and later starting at the 4 hour 45 minute mark and the several minutes thereafter on this one......
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InquiryInto
That is how you get the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award...
"the highest civilian award in the U.S. It recognizes those individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a666_tenet_medal_of_freedom_...
Fantastic!
It's so good to see how talking about these things is becoming more and more socially acceptable. It is these kinds of interviews which will bring 911 truth into the mainstream.
Very good progress indeed!
Let's see. . .
Without the childish sarcasm (which demeans you, not me) are you telling me that the FBI/CIA identified these men as "hijackers" because they had ALREADY hijacked planes? Or, because they seemed to be on planes that were possibly hijacked?
Thanks.
Regarding the testimony of George Tenet: I'd rather buy snowballs in hell. One must question your trusting this "public show," and your admiration for this man. His testimony is embarrassing.
Re: the Medal of Freedom -- I notice that former winners are Margaret Thatcher, Tony "Downing Street Memo" Blair, Ronald "trickle down" Reagan, and Chita Rivera. I mean, you're joking, right? At least Chita has real talent.
Whenever someone shouts "Denial!!" in attempting to support an argument, I begin to get a better idea of what I'm up against.
Still waiting for evidence. The Medal of Freedom is, hilariously, NOT evidence of anything.
re: faked phone calls -- Did I miss something? Did the FBI announce a change in its position that Barbara Olsen attempted ONE phone call which lasted ZERO (0) seconds? That the technology did exist, contrary to Boeing's account for cell phones to make contact about 10,000 feet or so? That the planes did have seat back phones after all?
It's possible I missed all this.
Denial
"Without the childish sarcasm (which demeans you, not me) are you telling me that the FBI/CIA identified these men as "hijackers" because they had ALREADY hijacked planes?"
No they identified them as "al qaeda" operatives who got on planes that were hijacked.
"Or, because they seemed to be on planes that were possibly hijacked?"
Yea, they "seemed" to be on planes that "seemed" to be hijacked which would make them hijackers.
"Regarding the testimony of George Tenet: I'd rather buy snowballs in hell. One must question your trusting this "public show," and your admiration for this man. His testimony is embarrassing."
So I admire G Tenet? That's interesting, and an example of your analyzing skills.
"Re: the Medal of Freedom -- I notice that former winners are Margaret Thatcher, Tony "Downing Street Memo" Blair, Ronald "trickle down" Reagan, and Chita Rivera. I mean, you're joking, right? At least Chita has real talent."
No I'm not joking. Maybe some day you'll realize there is something wrong when one gets rewarded for massive "intelligence failures"
"Whenever someone shouts "Denial!!" in attempting to support an argument, I begin to get a better idea of what I'm up against."
Perhaps I'm an undercover super duper secret agent?
"Still waiting for evidence. The Medal of Freedom is, hilariously, NOT evidence of anything."
It's evidence that the President thought he did a great job. Something to think about when your not to busy convincing yourself silly debunked theories mean something.
"re: faked phone calls -- Did I miss something? Did the FBI announce a change in its position that Barbara Olsen attempted ONE phone call which lasted ZERO (0) seconds? That the technology did exist, contrary to Boeing's account for cell phones to make contact about 10,000 feet or so? That the planes did have seat back phones after all?"
Yea, you missed allot. It's a fact snickers candy bars existed on 9-11 that doesn't prove the passengers were eating snickers candy bars.
"It's possible I missed all this."
Yes you did.
Great performances
Everybody who participated was great. Naturally the 9-11 truth movement is at a great disadvantage, as it does not have access to all the evidence, and the crime was designed with a cover-up in mind. Considering the appearance was actually a battle in a war, I think there was a net plus as everyone involved made a good impression. Some of the best evidence is of the cover-up, and is incontrovertible, and some of that was presented with great effect. As the strategic importance of each such appearance cannot be overstated, it would behoove those participating in the next show to go down the list and think of the most invulnerable points of the argument and to deliver them effectively. The host actually laid the groundwork, and was under severe attack for producing the show. The bile thrown at the participants, and at the host, was fairly nasty, but none reacted in a way that impaired the quality of the dialogue.
The Pretense of Objectivity
This interviewer has the pretense of objectivity but is constantly appealing to the entrenched (official) mind with many of his questions and responses.
The interviewers response to Manny Badillo's eloquent reply to "Why do you want to know all this other stuff?" is a lengthy appeasement to the believers of the official conspiracy theory.
I do see the need for ordered and simple responses to what are essentially standard questions.
The interviewer also refuses to acknowledge or respond to well presented answers while clearly taking up a majority of the time expressing his doubts.
yes, pretense
which makes me wonder who the driving force behind this interview was, because it didn't seem to be the interviewer himself.
These forums, I believe, are not helping. It's all about framing the debate and control of the microphone. Wether it be Amy Goodman's two previous token attempts, Geraldo Rivera's snapshot, or shows like this from NPR, I think we are only serving to reinforce opinions that already exist on either side of the argument.
What we need is a different forum all together. I think we need to establish some sort of a People's Congress in the same sort of format that we envision the Kane/Hamilton investigation was supposed to look like.
Imagine this-- I think we should challenge ANYONE with the credibility to know ANYTHING about the numerous topics of 911 to serve on a committee that will attempt to refute or discredit our claims given the evidence that is known thus far.
What about this?-- putting Sibel Edmonds on the stand in a public forum. What about Peter Lance? He knows every public fact about the pre-911 intel and would make a great Committee member to question Sibel in a public forum. What about putting Neils Harrit, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, et al. before a committee made up of skeptics within their professional circles who's goal was to quash the 911 truth movement once and for all? Let them give it their best shot. The truth and the facts are on our side and I sure as hell don't think we should wait around another ten, 20, or 30 years before another whitewash Senate hearing convenes.
One thing is certain in my mind-- pigs will fly before our government voluntarily offers a truthful self analysis of it's own crimes and coverups. Why do we keep asking people with a vested interest in propagating lies to tell us when they're ready to look into something? And then when it finally happens, why do they get to choose the committee members? This is absurd!!! If it wasn't for the all-too-few whistleblowers in this world, how bad would this mess be now? Where would the Pentagon papers be right now if Daniel Ellsberg thought to himself, "I better run this through the proper channels." THE PROPER CHANNELS ARE COMPROMISED!!!!! The proper channels are the problem.
We can establish credibility and win public opinion if we can present this properly.
Use as a template for further activism...
When contacting other local NPR stations about the topic of 9/11. Reference this show. Thanks to all involved!
http://www.npr.org/stations/
Thanks
Good point!