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.

"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.

... 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 "ae911truth.org".

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.