I'm listening... I'm interested.... And you are NOT crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for your show.

When one obvious answer (to the collapse of the towers and Bldg 7) is disregarded because it is unacceptable to the government, the failure of NIST to call out or even investigate the obvious (that has already been identified in scientific tests) by independent researchers is no huge mystery.

When their answer is to say they didn't investigate the presence of explosives because there was no reason to believe that explosives were used, it demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty that is truly breathtaking.

All the characteristics of the collapse of Bldg 7 conform to those of a controlled demolition. None of them conform to what one would imagine to be a collapse of a steel-frame building due to fire (because there is no examples in history)

Is there any big mystery here? We have a fascist group in charge of our government who immediately become criminal suspects when controlled demolitions are confirmed.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves".
.................B. De Juvenal

criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation.

by Alan Miller

http://www.opednews.com

Official Account of 9/11: “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce”

January 14, 2008 – Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.

more.....

Mr. Brown needs to read more and talk less. He didn't know about nanothermite, didn't know about Dr. Jones' peer-reviewed paper published in mid-April. Thinks that pop-pop-pop going around a building is explainable by random electrical faults.

I think Mr. Brown's ability or his liklihood of understanding the evidence of controlled demolition is in inverse relationship to his dependence on the government for his livelihood.
Maturin's second law of defending the government story.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves".
.................B. De Juvenal

At last ... now we need discussion in the main stream media.....corporate media is not letting this information and debate air

They pulled the bombsniffing dogs out of the buildings after the powerdown on the weekend prior to 9/11.

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]

Yeah ... world trade center 7 completely destroyed ..... controlled demolition....that was probably the command center...

Richard, please keep it up . This will get better with practice.
We are confident in our knowledge of the Reichstag. We can take-on all doubters.

The only disappointment is having to listen to the painful personal attacks, ignorance and arrogance of John Brown.

I'm disappointed the Scott Ritter was not on the show as a role model for this
disappointing "Marine". Brown repeatedly is hoisted by his own pitard with every point he tries to make.

By the way...the bomb-sniffing dogs never allowed to return to the WTC following the unprecedented power-down "upgrade" which presented the opportunity to plant explosives - or the final assembly.

H Saive

This is the moron who's previous claim to scientific fame involved cold fusion, and "proving" that Jesus walked among the Central Americans during his life on earth, a central Mormon myth.

There are a MILLION holes in the government's official story, but using a crackpot LDS physicist with NO academic background in building demo or thermite, and with a history of bogus research is just plain stupid of the part of the 9/11 truth movement.

C'mon, get your act together.

It should be noted that Silverstein fired the security staff months before 911 and a new crew was hired to install the remote controls for the planes that crashed into the towers and plant the charges to destroy the building and hense the evidence that 911 was an inside job. Nothing hit building seven but it was the control center for the holocaust that killed 3000 of our fellow Americans and never has there been such a crime in the annals of time! They only got away with it because America was sleeping then and they are still sleeping and open for more attacks to come.

Thanks for the show... I will tune in next week....

Many thanks to Dr. Jones, Richard Gage AIA, Kevin Barrett, Tony Zamboti, and of course Richard Greene. You guys are real patriots.

Mr. Brown - you are either uninformed or COINTELPRO. Nice try, but you guys have been exposed. Give up, now.

130+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
430+ Engineers and Architects
110+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
240+ Professors Question 9/11
200+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
130+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals

would take exception to Mr. Brown's disinformation.

http://www.ae911truth.org
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

To Mr. Silverstein, it can be seen as an elaborate real-estate/ insurance scam and opportunity to make a major financial killing with insurance and to get away with an officially sanctioned mass murder - about as officially sanctioned as is possible without a declaration of war.
To the shadow government - it's a way to get the New Pearl Harbor that touches off a new phase of American imperialism. It's the launch of the Global War on Terror, an all-purpose label that can be slapped on any new stage of the endless war for the remaining resources of the planet.
To Israel - it's an opportunity to engage the big sock puppet across the ocean in their endless war with all their neighbors.
To Bush/Cheney it's a ticket to reelection of the worst president in the history of the presidency -ANY presidency, not just American. That's a real trick, even if the challenge is to just get it close enough for them to steal.
Go ahead. Add to it yourself. Anyone can play.

a little much of people talking over one another. I only caught the last twenty minutes. If this were done in a more formal debate style, perhaps the result would be better. It is well established, and, in fact, obvious when pointed out, that the energy required to demolish the towers was far greater than the energy from the aircraft impact, the combustion of jet fuel, and the gravitational potential energy of the buildings.

Richard Green has a lot of guts to host these programs, which must be of great interest to New Yorkers in particular, but also to people the world over.

My thanks to Richard Greene and Air America for having the courage to even approach the dirtiest secret of the 21st century. With REAL journalists in such short supply, your organization’s willingness to shine a light into a darkness no one wants to see is laudable. Thank You.
As a person who works with steel & glass in high temperature kilns every day, I can authoritatively say that the “official” report of the events of 9/11/01 are completely unsubstantiated by both science and fact. The idea that a contained jet fuel fire could melt the steel supports of both towers at all, let alone all the way to the basement in such a short period of time is ludicrous. Even had there been a sufficient supply of oxygen available to achieve maximum thermal output, temperatures and time would still have fallen far short of the numbers required to create the kind of results on record.
However, the evidence for the use of controlled demolition at the WTC on 9/11 is voluminous and irrefutable. Any open minded realist can plainly see that the collapse of WTC 7 was the result of a premeditated controlled demolition. Larry Silverstein admitted as much, and look at how much money HE made on his double indemnity insurance policies on two white elephants that had been repeatedly refused demolition permits. The “hollow” core of the towers were actually filled with more than two dozen massive steel support columns. There is no plausible explanation for the simultaneous collapse of these massive I-Beams other than the use of thermite cutting charges. There is a large body of photographic evidence that clearly shows the diagonal thermite cuts with molten edges on a number of the conveniently sized beam pieces being carted away. Thermite residues have been collected from the few remaining pieces of the structure and confirmed by several reputable groups.
No reasonable person can review the evidence and come to any conclusion other than that the conspiracy of 9/11 included far more people than the 18 Saudi hijackers. This wanton act of mass murder on the part of partisan interests is perhaps the greatest crime ever committed in the history of the United States of America. If our democracy is to survive this devilish deception, every patriot, every citizen soldier of our democracy MUST steel themselves to look at the evidence for themselves with open and rational minds. And if what they see there is unthinkable, they must be prepared to think just that.
We must settle for nothing less than justice, or we are lost.

The producer could shut off all the mikes except for the guest who's turn it is to speak.

This would go a long way in controlling the "Browns".....gad...take his gun....please!

HWS

Hey, why isn't this all important 9/11 program available on demand???
I mean Lovely's got an assinine Rush puppet thing going, but something that really matters?

Come On AA! Let's USE the media! Podcast! Promote! Stream!

I do not believe any "official stories" put out by this administration. Something diabolicle occured and I believe that Bush&Co. was instrumental in this tragedy either directly or passively ( gross malfeasance of Office, arrogance, or just plain stupidity) and either of these links should have , at the very least, required Bush's removal from office.

Please keep these 911 Truth Reports coming, We have to get the information out and then , and only then, can we determine the truth of the matter.

Thank you for keeping this vital issue relevant! J.M.

Great show and guests! Please everyone that supports 9/11 truth, do whatever you can in order to promote this series to others, both believers and otherwise. We need to prove that 9/11 truth is mainstream and highly marketable in the media. Hopefully other talk show hosts will catch on and follow suit if the word gets out that this topic is an instant ratings booster which it clearly is. There are millions of us now and collectively as consumers, we have the ultimate power and influence to pave our own destiny by means of creating a strong market demand for the subject. When people ask, "What can I do?", this is what you can do. Please take the initiative to do it.

As far as the actual content of the program. The debunker John Brown appeared to become increasingly volatile and confrontational as the show unfolded. I’m always very suspicious of the motives of anyone who has become so emotionally attached to this subject and to the point of almost unraveling. Why the need to react with such unprovoked anger and sarcasm? Why the great resistance to hearing an opposing viewpoint? It was almost if he actually feared it. I guess the truth can be painful, especially when you're not willing to accept it.

If you had noticed, Brown did very little listening and failed to acknowledge that many of his questions had already been answered. It was as if the cognitive dissonance was setting in and denial became the involuntary defense mechanism. I often see this irrational reaction in many debunkers who want so dearly to be a part of what they falsely perceive as being the status quo. I also feel that one becomes defensive in nature when it’s becoming apparent that he/she is losing the argument. When Brown admitted that he wasn’t even aware of the existence of nano-thermate, it didn’t speak well at all to his professed knowledge of the subject. This seemed to trigger agitation within him and a need to change the subject quickly.

Debunkers tend to cherry pick only the data that satisfies their arguments and ignore or play dumb about countering data. It’s a very un-scientific approach commonly known as junk (or pathological) science where you begin with a conclusion and then work backwards to a supporting hypothesis instead of the other way around, as it should be. Michael Shermer of skeptic magazine is an example of someone who is very guilty of this technique I believe. He often replies to offerings of evidence for which he doesn’t agree with by simply saying, “I haven’t heard of that”. This serves the convenient purpose of preventing him from actually having to confront the information which he probably doesn’t have a logical answer for. Debunkers love to say, “None of the evidence that we’ve looked at supports a conspiracy on 9/11”. That’s probably true, it’s hard to find evidence that you’re not really even looking for in the first place. Other times they really are aware of certain facts and just play dumb strategically in order to divert the focus on to other more vague areas of discussion where they feel more comfortable arguing a red herring that they’ve created. Debunkers will also often accuse truthers of dabbling in junk science. The problem is that many of them had initially believed the official version and then changed their minds after doing the research. This actually proves their objectivity and willingness to analyze both sides equally.

In closing I’d like to suggest that WTC buildings 5 and 6 be discussed in future segments. These two buildings were much closer to the debris field of the twin towers than building 7 was and sustained much more initial damage based on all available photographic evidence yet inexplicably they didn’t collapse. I’ve heard no legitimate explanation for this highly strange discrepancy. At least not in terms of defending the official version of events.

See the image here…
http://www.freewebs.com/911reopen/wtc7wtc6.JPG

This programme/these programmes could be more of a breakthrough than it is/they are.

It is shocking that the mainstream media are not telling the truth about 9/11. Here, Eric Larsen covers the main points which indicate the very deep trouble the mainstream media is in (in the UK and the USA and most other countires).

http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3858/81

I haven't heard all of this broadcast, but my question is this: did ANY of the speakers cover the current Qui Tam cases of Dr Reynolds and Dr Wood. My guess is "no they didn't". This therefore begs 2 questions:

1) Why don't the mainstream media talk about them?
2) Why don't Steve Jones, Kevin Barrett et al talk about them?

When someone starts a court case, it is because they have evidence - evidence that they feel is strong enough to win the case - here, in showing that NIST's contractors committed fraud.

Is this one of the real truths of 9/11 which even supposed 9/11 truthers will not discuss?

Why not check the evidence for yourselves;

http://www.drjudywood.com/
http://www.nomoregames.net/

Are you ready to consider how the towers were really destroyed or do you think it was (a) Jet fuel + gravity (b) Thermite + explosives which turned steel to dust or (c) Something much more exotic.

Again, check the evidence before deciding.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/

Also check who is ignoring this evidence.

I promise for the next show that I will email our 9/11 Meetup group. Give us a bit to get organized on this and keep giving us shows like this one: a debate.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brown was no different than the run-of-the-mill deniers we meet every week when giving out 9/11 Truth literature downtown. Underneath virtually all of their statements is the refrain: "I don't want to believe this happened. I *refuse* to believe this happened."

That mental and emotional block causes the kind of argumentation that Brown displayed:

"bait and switch"--offering up an argument and when it is countered, changing the argument.

"ad hominem"--embarrassing and uncomfortable that these distinguised professional like Gage and Jones were subjected to this on this forum, but part of the process.

and so on.

I just had this experience on Daily Kos. And the comments/replies to me there followed these same patterns that allow the user to continue a state of denial. Another clear pattern was that the longer the debate went on, the more emotional the denier became. That emotionalism when the debate was being lost is also highly typical since there is nothing rational left to support their denial.

I don't think there is anything else to do but continue reaching out to everyone. We've seen so much change in just two years. And the truth is winning.

I second the request for coverage of Dr Judy Wood's and Dr Morgan Reynolds' court cases.

Dr Wood is a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, and Dr Reynolds is the former Chief Economist of the US Department of Labor. Their combined effort, under guidance of mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart, produced two groundbreaking Qui Tam cases in the US District Court, Southern District of New York.

Dr Wood's case alleges that directed energy weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Wood has made some amazing discoveries, including the fact that the government contracted with several sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST Report on the WTC destruction. Prior to her court case, she filed a Request for Correction with NIST where she describes the fraudulent nature of the NIST Report.

Dr Reynolds' case alleges that no planes hit the WTC, and is supported by a ton of admissible evidence. For instance, videos aired by the media have been shown to be faked, as they violate Laws of Physics. Dr Reynolds also filed a Request of Correction detailing the evidence.

It's been two years since Dr Steven Jones went on C-SPAN and publicly declared his "hard evidence" of thermite. One must wonder why Jones hasn't mentioned this hard evidence in the Request for Correction his team filed with NIST. Jones' work does not seem to be leading anywhere.

In contrast, Wood's and Reynolds' official court cases have been mentioned (although vaguely) in the New York Times.

The following two articles offer much additional information:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Did New Yorkers really see planes, or was it a military PSYOPS hologram? The above article contains a link to a Feb 1, 1999 Washington Post article detailing how the military could do exactly that. Take a look!

for treating 9/11 truth with respect. I will make it a point to log in next Thursday and get others to do so.

Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth would be the best choice for debating the Pentagon. IMO

You might try asking jaydeehess or Dave Rogers at the JREF forum to defend the official story.

They are intelligent debaters who faithfully support the OCT.

wcwatching: It will be very difficult to find qualified professionals to defend the indefensible.

Richard
I wish you green lights, blue sky's and great ratings.
Carry on

This is such an important subject. The official story is a joke. More and more people know something is not right. Those buildings were pulverized by explosions. There are witnesses that heard explosions in the basement. The fact that the Patriot act was ready to go so soon. It is all so suspicious. The best book on the whole subject that doesn't get all crazy about what happened, but just lays out with documentation one suspicious fact after another almost like a court case being built, is "Crossing the Rubicon". When I first read it I had no idea what it was about. It had NEVER occurred to me to question what happened on 9/11. The book asks you to just read with an open mind and promises that by the end you will know that it was either LIHOP or MIHOP. I was so shocked I closed the book and didn't open it for a couple of days. I started listening to the news and really started to question some things, like how quickly we were fed a narrative.

The look on GWB's face while in the classroom, really set me off. I am an artist and have painted many portraits. His face was guilty and shifty and scared. I opened the book and read the whole thing and boy did Michael Rupert lay it out. After reading that book, I believe you would have to be a coincidence theorist to believe the official story.

Check out the Jersey Girls... google is your friend.

I agree with some of the other comments, that the program would have been much better with a more qualified panel. I particularly noted Brown's comment that he "wasn't a structural engineer". I have a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, but I'm not a structural engineer either, and I certainly would defer to someone with tall building expertise. So, without much effort, I was able to find the following paper by a faculty member of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf

His paper provide's insight (from a technical perspective), about the building's collapse.

Now, about the "controlled explosion" theory. Let me get this straight ...
- The U.S. Government and Osama Bin Laden conspired together to arrange that planes would be hijacked and crashed, at precisely the same time that buildings would be exploded.
- Thousands of people died, yet no one from the conspiracy has been caught, or come forward to confess.
- Steven E. Jones, famous for the "Cold Fusion" fiasco at BYU in the 1980's, found "evidence" at the WTC site
- And what was the MOTIVE for this? The most complex conspiracy in the history of mankind?

I think you guys spend WAY too much time on the internet!!!

Anyone watching the video of the collapse of Tower 7 can see that it was a controlled demolition.

Then there is the interview of Larry Silverstein where he said the fire department had advised him that they could not control the fires and that the only option was to "pull it". The term "pull it" is used to describe a controlled demolition.

Then there is the BBC reporter who announced that WTC 7 had collapsed while the building was showing behind her still standing. The building collapsed about 20 minutes later.

There should be answers as to why the building was "pulled", who knew it was going to be pulled, why it was wired in the first place, and who did the wiring.

Proof that 9/11 was an Inside job

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&si...

In your reply to my comment about the Seffen article, you state: "With my degree in physics, however, it is not a problem to assess this piece. But I have to say, Dave, intuitively I do not see how you can lean towards this explanation. On its face it seems to defy all logic and laws of nature."

Since it defies ALL logic and laws of nature, perhaps you could name just one?? Then, you can explain it to the engineering department at Cambridge.

For the others, who say the motive for the conspiracy is obvious ... exactly why would Osama Bin Laden want to team up with George W? Why would they trust each other with a conspiracy that had to involve hundreds of people? If it was ever exposed (say Mohammad Atta gets picked up by the FBI ...), it would be disastrous for both Osama and George W.

I think you need to look at the people angle here ... your conspiracy theory doesn't sound like real people (maybe science fiction, but not any people I know).

The conspiracy just keeps growing! Now we have Wall Street traders included ..., and you say that Osama Bin Laden was not involved? So who were the 20 hijackers on Sept 11 (filmed on airport security cameras)? I suppose you will say that the entire federal law enforcement apparatus is involved??

I think the comment above about the 9/11 airplanes being PSYOPS holograms deserves a place on this blog ... the logic fits right in. In addition to the comment about "Agent Provacateurs" who are planted. This must now be a cast of thousands, if not tens of thousands! All involved in a meticulously planned and perfectly executed plan. Give me a break.

Now, about the near free-fall of the buildings. As a physicist you must remember about the huge impact of momentum. The occurrence of "pancaking" with tall buildings (especially under construction), is not uncommon. When a large mass starts moving at more and more velocity, the beams designed for simple floor loads cannot begin to resist that kind of impact.