Webster made a lot of points, even though they have the volume up louder for the hosts than the guests.

In fact he might have made all the main points people need to know.

- That WTC7 was hit by no plane and displayed classic demolition characteristics, free-fall speed, falling in own footprint, smoke streamers, etc, the bldg was not damaged, you can look at the film on the Internet.
- That Kerry was talking about WTC7, not another building.
- That Kerry and Democratic party are just part of the elitist oligarchy. They won't bring us 9/11 Truth
- Motivation was war of civilization by the people who brought you the Gulf of Tonkin, and this is what we see, wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran.
- Controlled demolition had to be done by experts before 9/11,
- It could not have been done by Al Qaeda, which is the CIA Arab legion, a troupe of actors assembled by US - UK intelligence, created by Robert Gates, current Defense secretary
- Bin Laden doubles - confession discredited.
- The ploy about the families is a demagogic argument
- The reason this is important is that Cheney is preparing a new 9/11 for a war on Iran. That's the whole point. To understand the next one you have to understand the first one.

Pretty good when they only gave him 3 minutes to talk.

I'm going to go digg this video.

rose and stop attacking Webster just because it didn't sound like a msm truth sound bite! This is the Info war! This is real..

Have you ever tried shooting a riffle after running a hundred yards? Well trying to shoot your point across on this battle field is easily twice as hard! Anyone that has tried to argue with a hostile amateur about 9/11 knows how difficult it is once your blood is up, now multiply that by 10 and that’s how it would be in this forum, think about before you criticize him too hard.

Webster's the man!!!

Some respect please!

11th of every month!

Kind regards John

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!

You hit the nail on the head. Not as easy as it looks.
Here is the link to digg the story
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Video_Tarpley_on_Hannity_and_Colmes

_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!" -Dr. Frank Greening

Hey stal how can somebody put a "diggs" tag like you've just did? I just don't know how to do it!

Thanks.
Drummerboy
**********************************************************
You can't hide a lie for long. Truth shall come out.

http://digg.com/tools/integrate#2

Best wishes

They gave you an inch and you took a mile :-)

You kept your focus and calm demeanor, despite their double-barrelled attempts to knock you.

Many thanks and best wishes

going on Faux Noise.
The delusional psychotics that run & Listen to Faux Noise are unreachable, they represent about 30% of the country that are totally hopeless and will never stop believing in the "Church of Bush".

I thought Alan Colmes looked psychotic and Hannity who is souless just rattled on like the energizer bunny.

How do we know that 30 million people watch Fox. What if they all stopped watching a couple weeks ago during a "progress in Iraq" report.

I don't trust any of the MSM metrics being generated. Its like the inflation index which leaves out fuel, food and housing. What does that number mean?

http://www.truthcult.com

Alex Jones say that Fox was down to about 2.5 million viewers.

...while DRG was on that he has talked to Colmes privately and he (Colmes) is scared. I though that Colmes was way more whacked out than usual. Maybe he is trying to covertly tell viewers that Faux is the crazy conspiracy contingency?

--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

i couldnt agree more. this place has a way of expecting perfection out of our "spokesmen". its just unrealistic to think that any of us would perform our best during the 3 minutes of hate that Webster went through. could he have done better? sure but overall i think he did a fine job considering the circumstances.(though like dz said, it would have been nice if Tarpley mentioned who occupied WTC7 :-)

He didn't know what he was talking about. At least he didn't know what the questioner was talking about.

Speading the nonsence about Kerry and WTC7 is a disinfo ploy to make us look like idiots. This is why Hannity had Tarpley on.

Pay close attention to who the debunkers like to have on their TV shows and in their British documentaries.

And another thing, WTC7 was certainly brought down by controlled demolition. But saying it wasn't hit by a plane is a weak argument. It was hit by tons of steel.

The credible argument is how debunkers want to have it both ways. If WTC7 was so severely damaged by falling debris, which it probably was, that is all the more reason to know it should not have collapsed straight down into its footprint..

NOT a disinfo ploy, but your above post IS a disinfo ploy.

WTC-7 was at least 350 feet from the nearest tower. It suffered minor damage from debris being ejected during the controlled demolition of the North Tower. (Even Larry Silverstein said the building was pulled when he was asked about it.)

Since only 3 buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions that day, which building did Senator Kerry think the questioner was asking about?

The PBS Documentary "America Remembers" contains footage of the final building left standing at Ground Zero being brought down by the site workers.

This footage of building 6, which was by then only a steel frame skeleton, was discussed in the documentary as being "pulled" because the close proximity of this structure to the exposed slurry wall dictated they had to exercise caution, or the Hudson River would flood the site. They actually had chains attached to this structure, to insure it fell where they wanted it to, and they used cutter charges and brought it down.

Kerry mumbled something about "controlled fashion" and "protect the wall" in is reply to the Truther's question. There never was a concern expressed on 9/11 in any other videos I have seen regarding danger to "the wall", as the wall existed below ground level, and was only exposed during the cleanup.

Therefore, I suggest this whole Kerry thing is a dead end, and ultimately, will leave us looking a bit foolish if we keep thrashing about with it, trying to make it look as Kerry knew WTC7 was a controlled demolition, and was thoughtless enough to casually say so.

John Kerry never heard of WTC-7 before???

Not much can be based on that isolated comment from Kerry. I guess Kerry's interviewer did not ask him specifically if he was aware of the 47-story WTC 7, which was the third skyscraper that was totally destroyed on 9/11... It doesn't hurt to be specific enough.

The thing to do is be more specific next time.
We have to remember what these guys are saying and make them live up to their promises, or clarify vague statements.
Before long, they will be backed into a corner and forced to give real answers on 9/11.

The reason we aren't getting any pearls from swine like Kerry and Edwards, is because we are going into battle in our boxer shorts. These guys actively study and practice the manipulation of language. They're professionals in this department, it's part of their job! How can we expect to trap them if we are just blurting out unstructured questions like amateurs?

Start studying language and propaganda, and start thinking strategy. Please pass this around the movement. We need to be using our brains.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

responded properly to the lead-in charge by fox by saying that Kerry was talking about building 7. I don't think they expected that and of course Tarpley could have backed up by saying that that was what the question was about that was asked of Kerry. So it remained an equalised sort of debate since charges are flying on either side while Tarpley remained the more informed.
Thats the idea on fox to prevent the tag team from winning, it's all about who wins no matter the cost in honour because thats what the viewers respond to.

the interviewer gave Kerry. You must not have seen the full clip.
The interviewer specifically asked about Building 7, the third building that collapsed on 9/11-- specifically at 5:20 p.m. on that day. He then mentioned Larry Silverstein's comments regarding this building. There was no "wiggle room" for misinterpreting
the question. The 3rd building ON 9/11. Specifically, the 47-story Building 7 that the BBC prematurely reported having collpased.

The full video is available from 911dvd@gmail.com (I just received mine as part of WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11. This is admittedly better than the clip you might have seen.)

It's painfully obvious Kerry is not talking about WTC7. The only good thing to come from this episode is more exposure for 9/11 Truth. But when people such as Tarpley pretend Kerry is referring to WTC7, they make us look foolish.

Also, Tarpley said there were "no" fires in WTC7, which is patently false.

Come on, people, at least make the case for 9/11 Truth within the set of available facts. Every little slip of the tongue pushes us all closer to the Reynolds/Fetzer contingent.

guy who started out by praising Kerry's book. Watch the video embedded in a post further down in this page.

You, Douglas, Visa, et al, seem to be on Kerry's damage-control team the way you're trying to downplay his ducking the question.

I suggest that everyone just email Kerry personally & ask his to answer the question directly.

(Kerry & his billionaire wife are NWO NeoCons, btw.)

No one is saying Kerry wasn't ASKED about WTC7. What we're saying (and what is abundantly clear from the video) is that Kerry in his answer was not talking about WTC7. He's clearly talking about a "wall" from building 6, which we have all seen brought down on film.

Once again: Kerry was asked about WTC7. He responded by referring to WTC6. The whole episode is making 9/11 Truth look foolish.

And no, I'm not part of John Kerry's "damage control team". Please pay more attention to the videos you are watching, and less attention to the ad hominem attacks you are delivering.

@ metalious

You must have been watching a different broadcast to the one I was watching. Webster Tarpley, very much did know what he was talking about. As soon as the interview started the questioner began with the insults, which Webster handled supremely well. The questioner talked over Webster without answering the points raised by Webster and continued to spout the popular mechanics mythology.

1. Have you actually seen the interview where Kerry is asked specifically about the collapse of Building 7 in Austin, Texas? Granted, Kerry is unable to answer a question without obfuscation and confusing himself and everyone else. Kerry answers the SPECIFIC question concerning Building 7 by saying ‘I know it was brought down in a controlled way’ he is making reference to either the wall (which if brought down would have flooded Manhattan) or making reference to Building 7. Which is it to be? He is not talking about the other buildings, because the questioner is asking about the events of 9/11 not weeks later, when buildings were demolished and everyone, even you, would know this.

2. WTC7 was *NOT* hit by 'tons of steel' I don't know where you get that information from, but it is FALSE. The only photographs which are credible show WTC7 with superficial damage, scattered broken windows, scattered fire of undetermined cause and light damage to the façade of the building at best. The one picture given out by debunkers which supposedly shows 1/3 of the building missing (a chunk taking out by flying steel - allegedly) which you have obviously brought into looks badly photoshopped. The damaged part of the building the supposed 1/3 missing chunk is heavily obscured by smoke. The smoke looks artificial at best, and this is no doubt a fake.

3. I recommend you read Webster Tarpley’s book, if you can’t afford to buy a copy then a previous edition is available for free on PDF:
9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in the USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119638.pdf

Alex Jones huh? the only MSM(at least in this country) that allowed him on was a CNN HeadLine News CELEBRITY show and he shined. his appearance on SHowbiz Tonight was ROUNDLY lauded around the 9/11 truth community even by people who cant stand Alex Jones. he fired off fact after fact and came off surprisingly rational. i know its popular to shit on Alex Jones around here now but at least get your facts straight first. also, Steven Jones was on MSNBC and decided not to do any MSM since then. that was HIS decision. again, facts straight.

He performs under pressure, and he knows when to reign in his "kookiness". He's extremely confident, so he doesn't get rattled. From what I've seen he's very sharp and only says what is appropriate to the forum in which he's speaking. I think that most of the people who shit on him are either coming from the stereotypical "liberal" crowd (most of my friends), or have problems with his statements about immigration. I don't agree with his tone on that topic, but I do agree that the "elite" might be using illegal immigration as a tool to destroy national sovereignty and help usher in the N.A.U.

------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Partly because he is a radio person and has been doing that for years, and has also had years of experience being on the hot seat, and being an activist, so it is probably second-nature for him at this point. (although I have seen him kind of falter now and then, but it's not very obvious)

So I cut others some slack who are not in his league in that sense. (like Steven Jones, and some others — David Ray Griffin also seems to be able to hold his own pretty well, too)

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent

http://www.chico911truth.org/

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)