But what did you mean when you said that "we don't really know" if the twin towers were destroyed with explosives, and then switched focus to Building 7. And the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are all in consensus about all 3 buildings destroyed on 9/11, not just building 7.

The only other gripe I have is when people say "the laws of physics were violated on 9/11" without adding - unless explosives were present. It just sounds nutty without the context..

Don't get me wrong - good work for getting the word out, that is much appreciated. I guess I'm just saying that context and framing is everything, and that for something like this, our statements should be honed to a razor's edge.

And while no real investigation has been done, that is true, the event isn't entirely shrowded in mystery without one, and what I mean by that is, if the twin towers were brought down with explosives, where the destruction of those two high rise office buildings is THE pivotal element of the 9/11 event in everyone's consciousness when they think about 9/11, then the vast majority of people killed, were murdered, not solely by hijackers in planes, but by the use of high grade explosives. And this is a fact supported by the laws of physics, as a self evident truth. In other words, a new investigation isn't required to know with certainty, what happened to the twin towers when they exploded from the top down on September 11th about an hour after the plane impacts where those impacts could not possibly be the cause of their destruction, but only the ruse to sell the cause of destruction.

A "new investigation" is unlikely to occur, and if it did, it would be co-opted, perhaps drawing the conclusion for example that the cause of the twin towers' destruction is "indeterminate".. and then within that context, opting for the twisted and simplistic cause and effect slight of hand official story use of Occams Razor ie: planes hit, the buildings collapsed, we were attacked.

female presenter, Jackie O, starts by saying "John, do you mind telling us why you, and so many of us around the world, believe that what happened on 9/11 is not what we've been led to believe" By including "so many of us around the world", she expresses a partiality in favouring truth that is sadly lacking in much of the mainstream media. I cringe at the way so many pundits feign impartiality when presenting fact versus fiction, truth versus lies, as if there were no fundamental difference between the two, as if lies were due just as much credence as the truth, as if fiction were just as valid as fact.

John, I thought your delivery was brilliant ... clear, precise and succinct... logical, reasonable and credible.

I do agree with Robert Rice above, that when you say "the laws of physics were violated on 9/11" it is important to add "according to the official explanation", or words to that affect... though I'm sure you realize that and in the moment of giving the interview it was simply an oversight, not an error.

Keep up the great work John, I look forward to meeting you some day

Wonderful job John! You sound so level-headed and competent, pulling in detailed descriptions of things that likely the audience knew nothing about or had forgotten. This was a very good representation for the movement. Thanks for doing it!

It's great to see that Niels Harrit will be down there to speak, and interviews like this are key to pulling in a lot of people. You should get a link up on the 911oz site as well to it.

http://www.911oz.com/