John W. Wright (aka LeftWright) scheduled for Tulsa, OK radio show - Thursday, June 30, 2011

John W. Wright, of Marin County, CA is scheduled to be on the Big Mad Morning Show on KTBT radio in Tulsa, OK

911blogger was contacted by the Big Mad Morning Show at KTBT in Tulsa, OK about providing someone for an interview.

I opened a dialogue with the contact and they seem interested in having me on the show (they are very curious about false flag events, they stated that they had not heard the term before).

I confirmed my interview earlier today.

Corbin and Biggie are the hosts of the show.

Any and all advice for the show would be welcome.

The show should be archived,



Good luck John!

Good luck John!

Any and all advice for the show would be welcome.

Love is the only way forward.

I hope to be listening. YOU WILL DO A GREAT JOB.



Way to go! "Get the word out"

I am thrilled.

The Tulsa area is pretty country.
Years ago when I first discovered 9/11 Truth, I had obtained many DVDs from the Tulsa area 9/11 Truth group. They actively disseminated a lot of information.

you did great

the show hosts were asses.

Thanks y'all !

Their assistant gave me the wrong number, so I had to call three other numbers off the website before I got on.

I know I spoke a bit too fast, but I wanted to get as much info in and try to avoid the silly questions and lame characterizations, if at all possible (and if they were going to go that way, I guess I didn't really give them a chance for me to find out, eh?).

I really wish I had talked about Tonkin Gulf, as it is one kind of false flag and has been admitted to by one of the key participants, Robert McNamara.

Oh well, live and learn.

Thanks again, keep up the great work.

(back to my FIFA laws of the game book)


callers are supportive

The hosts are asses.

Are they talking about what I said?

I was under the impression that they were moving on to some other subject, I'll have to listen to the archive some time.



just trying to discredit you

When you listen to the whole thing you will be horrified with the hosts behavior.

Did I mention the hosts were asses?

is this archived yet?

I'd love to hear it


The segment I'm on starts around 1:15:00 into the show.


Joe's right

The hosts are asses. They wanted to talk about 9/11 without talking about what happened. They had a nice back and forth with the guy who called about the "devil in the cloud" phenomenon. It's that kind of drivel that they were looking for. They wanted you to say stuff they could poke fun at, and you disappointed them. Bravo.

The good news is that you, the callers and those who texted and emailed took the day. If these guys had a significant contribution to American discourse, I'd say you should have taken a breath and let them talk. But since they have nothing to contribute, you did the right thing by dominating some of their airtime with something intelligent. And their audience appreciated it, which in the end is what counts.

I just listened to it

Very impressed with the speed at which all those good and important things came out. Perhaps the hosts had a little point when they made fun of you by just whispering to eachother, that you don't seem to stop talking, while hardly taking a breath. But as a whole I think you did a very good job, it was funny at times, very eloquent and also sharp.

The hosts have obviously not been blessed with a solid education on physics, or perhaps they didn't excel at it. Their behavior was far from decent, and showed the ugly tactics that have to be played if one wants to keep things under the rug for just a little longer.

So the only thing I would suggest is to shorten your answers a bit, you're as thorough as they come, but it takes indeed time to absorb all this in essence very uncomfortable info.

Keep 'm rollin'!

When the "hosts" confirmed my suspicion that they only invited

me on the show to ridicule me and the movement, I made a tactical decision to filibuster as much as I could.

I did make a tactical error in giving them some personal information that they could use, but this is my first time dealing with LCD radio personalities in real time.

I could not hear any of the sound effects they were inserting, btw.

Thanks for your feedback, I have offered to come back and teach them basic physics and/or discuss one discrete element of the 9/11 false flag.

[ I just got back from my USSF referee test, I got the highest score in the class and can now start refereeing again, yippee!]

Be well.


It doesn't sound like ridicule was necessarily the motive

and in my opinion mainstream radio show jocks are just trying to have a show which garners ratings. In some cases by carrying a show like this they may actually be trying to "get the truth out" without looking like they are. Or they might be trying to smear all conspiracy theories as unfounded for some reason. It is hard to know what they actually believe and why they are doing it, as it seems that even if they do believe there is something wrong with the present official story on 911 they feel they have to distance themselves from looking like they do so they can't be smeared.

Radio and TV shows are really not the best place to have to make an argument against an issue supported by propaganda, where the public has been influenced with an indiffferent view, as time is limited and the host generally has control.

From my experience with it I have come to the conclusion that the best thing to do in these situations is not to worry about trying to make sure you get every single point in and instead to try to make a point and then take each question as it comes, answer them, and go on to your next point.

It certainly is hard to do that, and it takes a concerted effort, as these opportunities don't come along too often, and anyone who has looked into this issue would naturally try to get out as much information as they can. But you have to remind yourself that quality usually trumps quantity. People have advised me to take a deep breath at times and I try to remember an old saying about an Indian chief and a young brave sitting on a hill watching a herd of buffalo go by. The young brave says "let's run down and get one" and the chief says "no, let's walk down and get them all".

You certainly know what you are talking about and have the facts right. In the long run it might be better to slow down and allow the debate to occur.

One of these hosts tried to make out like nothing could be proven and I think he was vulnerable espousing that point of view. Remember that you only have to show someone like him is wrong or can't refute the point being made in one area to gain credibility. Of course, radio show hosts like these guys control the pace and take liberties with their comments, which are often not fact based, and then try to spin out of it if caught. But they can be pinned down by someone knowledgeable like yourself in a focused area and ridicule won't work.

These things never go perfect so I am trying not to nitpick and you shouldn't do that to yourself. However, it sounds like you are open to how you could improve. In general, I would say slowing down to make strong points vs. as many as possible is better. Thanking others is not useful to the audience, is not needed by those thanked, and it is a distraction. It should only be used to show a large number of people are looking into the problems with the current official story, and it should be limited to a couple of sentences so it doesn't detract from what you are about to say. Be unbiased and disinterested while discussing facts and evidence only, as it won't allow you to be labeled as emotional, and anyone trying to argue against someone stoically bringing up facts and evidence has to use fallacious arguments.

On a much more minor thing I would say that there is no need to describe any differences you might think there are in false flag events as it doesn't help your point. The reality that 911 was a staged event intended to generate support for the use of the U.S. military for resource control by the few is the one you are trying to explain. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, an intentional lie used to generate support for an increase in American military involvement in Vietnam, and the Gleiwitz incident, staged by Hitler to generate support for an intended attack on Poland, that you mentioned, are the best I know of to get the point across there, since they are both known to be false. The Germans that Hitler had dressed up like Polish soldiers and then shot were convicts from a German prison. Of course, he filmed the staged event and showed it to the German people saying Poland attacked Germany first.

There is one other facet that might be discussed, if the situation presents itself. That is that renewable alternative energies is the answer to not having resources be the cause for wars and they are very viable. U.S. military brass is actually pushing this from within their general ranks with the reason that the military shouldn't be dependent on foreign oil. They intend to allow their work to be commercialized like the Internet and may help win the peace in the end with this effort, much to the chagrin of those who would try to maintain control of price and their position through deception and finite resource control. See what the internal fights about it are with this Rand Corporation report trying to say they shouldn't be doing it and high ranking people dismissing the Rand report as illogically biased.

Thanks, Tony

I must say I always enjoy seeing or hearing you in interviews, and I have considered all the excellent points you made.

That said, I think it is pretty obvious that the only reason they had me on was to frame me as a "conspiracy theorist" and try to ridicule me and the whole idea of 9/11 truth.

I realize that my long introduction was a bit over the top, but that was a strategic decision to seize the high ground in three ways.

1) By mentioning that I am a United States Soccer Federation certified referee (going on 5 years now) at the outset, the listeners see a regular guy reffing soccer matches and authorized to do so by a national organization which is affiliated to a world governing body (FIFA). We referees are also trained to be impartial and objective, both qualities one wants from someone analyzing data and expressing informed conclusions.

2) My over the top shout out was to make an everyman connection with the listeners AND show how global the movement is, while also sneaking in some prominent names and the recent German poll data.

3) My dedication was to honor my dear friend Janette specifically, as well as everyone else who has suffered directly and indirectly from the 9/11 false flag AND to show an emotional connection to the events and the victims, putting me on the side of the victims and thus heading off the canard of "you're hurting the families by asking all these questions".

In other words, I tried to frame myself in as positive a light as possible BEFORE they could even begin to denigrate my character and thus impugn our cause. After looking at the web site and analyzing my interaction with Emily "The Beaver" Ross (who gave me the wrong number to call in and left me scrambling to call three or four other numbers before I got through. I guess she likes aquatic mammals, eh?) I treated the opportunity as a chance to do a psyop on them, as they had intended to do to me.

Look, they invited me on to ridicule me and gave me no advance warning that that was their intention, which show how patently dishonest they are from the get go. Given that, do you really think there was any chance of having anything like an honest, open conversation?

I simply chose to preempt their BS.

The reason I gave them a bit too rambling lecture on false flags is because that is the one subject of the half-dozen I offered them that the wanted to talk about.

My only regret is that I had a great line which I failed to get in and will save for the next time.

Finally, I was operating on very little sleep and thus was inclined to take the easiest course and avoid a contentious back and forth, as I did not feel as sharp as I would like for a real debate/discussion with two radio goons out to diss a truther, especially after the fight I had just to get them on the phone.

Thanks again for your feedback and for all your excellent work, I would have liked to thrown your name out there, too, but had to draw the line somewhere (I did offer you as an interview subject to them, along with many others before they asked me to come on).

Be well and enjoy your day.

The truth shall set us free, sometimes we have to ignore the gatekeepers and speak directly to the audience to get the truth out there.

Love is the only way forward and love means dealing with everyone with as much grace and dignity as possible, even when their clear motive is both graceless and undignified.

Keep up the good work, John!

You said:
"My only regret is that I had a great line which I failed to get in and will save for the next time."

I'm really curious now -- what was that "great line"?

With regard to talking points, over the radio where one cannot show the video of the fall of WTC 7, I've found that discussing the tiny bone fragments found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building (600 feet from the Towers) to be a very clear proof of the use of explosives. Would a pancaking collapse, which many have heard about from the NOVA documentary, tend to trap people or blow the bones to smithereens? I'm always careful to apologize for the sensitivity of these bone-fragment data, and generally also point out that numerous victims' families support this research...
(Does anyone know if bone fragments were found on other bldgs besides the Deutsche Bank building roof?)

These bone data are clear, well-documented, and strongly and immediately challenge the official story of a fire-only caused collapse.

Tony, your best point is

"Radio and TV shows are really not the best place to have to make an argument against an issue supported by propaganda, where the public has been influenced with an indifferent view, as time is limited and the host generally has control..........the best thing to do in these situations is not to worry about trying to make sure you get every single point in and instead to try to make a point and then take each question as it comes, answer them, and go on to your next point."

Indeed, I've repeatedly said the same here and elsewhere. LESS IS MORE. One simple, succinct, provocative statement is the most effective, like: "Nothing should have hit the Pentagon," or, "the collapse of WTC7 has all of the hallmarks of a classical controlled demolition." And just leave it at that. From there, it's then up to you to discern from what base of knowledge your opponent is drawing. The goal is to make statements that beg other questions. Typically in these situations our opponents reach a point where their ignorance is or will be apparent and they move to diversionary questions. These are the critical points which very few have mastered. I would add that you, Tony, are among the very few who recognize this when it's happening. And so the trick here is to keep the conversation focused when the hosts or anyone else is trying to divert it. And that's where "people skills," courteous demeanor and even humor trumps a working knowledge of the subject, cuz obviously, the opponent doesn't have a working knowledge or this wouldn't be an issue.

And regarding talk shows, yes indeed, its all about ratings and humor. The hosts are in the power seat, regardless how "accommodating" they profess to be. They are necessarily masters at their craft or they wouldn't have the jobs they have. It's a rare bird who can put these types in their place. And even when you do, they are crafty and with humor and sarcasm they can still manage to smell good to half of their listeners even if they are covered in dung.

So to repeat what Tony said, limit the discussion and force these "inquisitors" to look deeper into just one aspect cuz from a listeners point of view it's a good example for opening up to a new way of thinking.

All most excellent points!

Thank you.

I will definitely add this approach to my media bag of tactics.

As their interest was in false flags, I could have easily thrown out something like " One indication that this was a false flag was the fact that anything happened at the Pentagon at all, let alone a plane striking it 80 minutes after the FAA began having commercial airliners go off course and more than 45 minutes after the first tower was hit. That can't be incompetence, can it ...and if it was, why wasn't anyone fired for it?"

Preparation is always key, and I just didn't give myself the time I wanted to.

Next time.

Thanks again, keep it coming!

I hope that you and yours are well.


I just listened to the show...

... and I liked John's performance until close to the end, when they asked him to give websites and then he just went on and on and on, almost like an unstoppable automation... I was grinding my teeth and wriggling in my chair at that point. That didn't serve the purpose. At that point, John, you should just have given a couple of websites - and said "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" in addition to saying "".

Sorry for perhaps sounding blunt, but bypassing all interactivity is not a good thing in a show. Especially in one where you *are* given time to say what you want to say. They weren't like interrupting you all the time.

No need to apologize, Vesa

I value everyone's opinion, and I feel that I represent everyone in the movement when I speak publicly (including on trash talk radio), so the more people I hear from, the better, imo.

You and I have shared this space for many years, so I am very happy that you took the time to listen to the show and give me your feedback.

Everything is a learning opportunity. What is interested about this to me is that when I work the public in the street, my main tactic is to ask them if they have any doubts or questions about the events of that day, and use their reply as a starting point for dialogue.

I will definitely prepare more thoroughly next time. Life is learning.

Less is more, but I could do without the cuckoo clock noises and other very rude nonsense.

Thanks again, and keep up the great work in Finland.



Thanks for taking my short criticism constructively

As I said, I think you did quite fine for most of the show. What I see as one problem with some parts, like the long introduction and especially the end, where one could just hear you talking but could no longer hear *what* you were talking, was some kind of a lack of spontaneity. It felt a bit like you were talking from scripts.

But my main criticism was and is this: if the hosts ask you to mention some links to their listeners at the end, you give them links with perhaps short descriptions, but you don't start to go into how this or that double-agent did this and that there and there and so on ad infinitum. Some context sensitivity is required.

I know it's not easy, and I don't think I'd fare too well in such situations. That's why I don't do interviews. :-)


Since I plan on doing many more interviews,

the more feedback I get, the better, imo. Everyone has made useful comments and we can always strive to do better.

Upon reflection, my performance on the show would properly be described in my family as "boorish", so I'm giving myself a "D+" (just barely passing). We're all our harshest critics, just part of being a truther, I think.

I may even find my way back onto that show, but that is not a high priority.

Thanks again.

Kippis !

That is the spirit!

They get easier, and you'll get better.

"Since I plan on doing many more interviews"

You are way too harsh on yourself.

It is a taboo subject.

Their intention from the onset was to ridicule you.

Thinking and speaking like this is much harder than than people think, especially those that never have.

excellent job

cognitive dissonance - more like dishonesty - failed attempt at whitewashing. you should speak more. skip the pent-grass and doing the expounding on details of their attempted water-muddying. thanks!

Thanks for the feedback

Could you clarify a few things for me as your comments are somewhat abbreviated.

you should speak more

Are you saying that you think I should make myself available for more interviews? I already talk way more than my friends and family would prefer (partial joke).

skip the pent-grass and doing the expounding on details of their attempted water-muddying. thanks!

I was just relaying my impression that the lawn at the Pentagon (before they covered it with gravel) looked a bit too clean, especially when some reports had the plane bouncing off the ground, which clearly did not happen.

I'm not at all clear what you are saying in the next part of that sentence, please clarify and expand on this.

You're very welcome, thanks again for the feedback.

Be well.

The truth shall set us free, but only if you are open to it.

Love is the only way forward, and love means having the patience and fortitude to deal with people who may have hidden and not-so-hidden agendas.

my last comment

was from my phone. I'd be glad to explain more.

I'd never heard you speak before and I appreciated your clarity and intelligence. You weren't speaking to quickly, imo. I'm glad you kept it going, especially when you were being ridiculed. When I said you should speak more, I meant publicly and more often. Maybe, if you do already, I should just listen more.

I thought the hosts were either experiencing cognitive dissonance or, more likely, just petty lying pricks.

On the pentagon grass comment, I didn't disagree with anything you said. That was meant to be a mild criticism about steering away from pentagon issues. In a similar vein, when they try to muddy the water with holograms and other nonsense, I didn't disagree with what you said, but thought that a quick "that's bs" statement might allow more time for the river of useful information that was flowing out of you.

Again, great job!

Thanks, again

I generally avoid the Pentagon issues unless someone brings it up.

I mentioned the Time magazine photo because I think many people had a similar reaction to mine and it was a way of showing that I didn't jump onto the "conspiracy bandwagon" right away, that it took seeing WTC 7 going down YEARS later for me to realize that 9/11 was clearly something entirely different than what the federal government was telling us. This allowed me to introduce the third building in a fairly natural way (although the near lecture was not at all natural for an interview, admittedly).

I hope that you and yours are well.

Enjoy your day and KEEP TRUTHING.

Salut !

Thanks for speaking up

I commend you for having the audacity to speak the TRUTH publicly as you did.

I've had the experience of being interviewed several times. Twice I was allowed to say anything and everything I could squeeze into forty minutes with the radio host playing "incredulous". We had agreed to this approach beforehand.

Another time I was ambushed by a couple of jackasses.

And then I have been interviewed for a minute or less by reporters.

It is really difficult to think optimally as these are in motion unless you have had a lot of practice.