My comments have to do with the fact that I know our spokespeople can do better on tv if they just prepare adequately. I think often people like Zwicker and Tarpley have spent so much time talking to Truthers that they find it difficult to gear down into another speed. Maybe that's what happened here.

Of course, as the cliche goes, all publicity is good publicity.

But let's try to think of our message as it would sound to someone who knows nothing about 9/11.

They need to be much better than they have been--less bias + less speculation + more preparation + be keeping themselves on top of all the research.

These 9/11 spokespeople have SUCH an impact on the effectiveness of the 9/11 Truth movement.
In my opinion, Fetzer and Tarpley have been brutal on the M.S.M.--even detrimental at times to the movement.

When I talk with people about September 11 I tell them I know we can't do anything about 911. That crime is over. Our purpose is to keep it from happening again.

They are surprised by the Truth Movement. The crimes of the criminals are on the street. That is our job. Never Again.

War Makes War, Peace Makes Peace Sitting Bull

"I can't tell whether the movie was meant to get these ideas into the public consciousness to "wake" people to what's going on, or to tease and ridicule "conspiracy theorists", or to scare us with ideas of what "THEY" might be capable of..."

That's the $50,000 statement right there, and I've wondered it myself about many tv programs and movies. Sometimes I think the history channel is talking to...no not ME, but "us". Those who are "onto" them. If they are mad enough to kill innocent people, then why the hell not? It's not like they don't control the content of historical "fact" on televsion. Why shouldn't they be capable of literally anything (within physical possibility)?

As for the interview, I thought it had it's strengths and weaknesses, but the strengths prevailed. It sure as hell was better than Tarpley's recent disaster on fox!

If you get one fact wrong, then the brain-washed public will wonder what other assertions you may have erred on. I've seen Barrie comment on how there was very minimal damage to WTC 7 when in fact there was this huge gash along one side. That's plain irresponsible. They, at the forefront, and someone who claims to be experienced in the medium, must know that the facts they issue must be beyond reproach. All they should do is stick to the facts, what is known and steer clear of speculation. If they do that, then the case will spell things out for itself. I only bring this up because I have this liberal-educated Chomski-ite friend who finds the whole "conspiracy theory" baseless because of the mis-representation and sensationalizing of some facts surrounding 911 truth and its revelations. There are many out there just like him. They are the anti-war left and self-acclaimed "critical thinkers" who seldom look at what is appearing to occur but rather why on earth would it. They are the so-called gatekeepers to which I believe is not so much gate-keeping but rather just plain intellectual snobbery. Zwicker needs to sharpen his mind and delivery to get the message through to this segment of society because if they go and fact check a mis-characterization and find its error, they will then seriously change the channel.

"Critiquing someone after the fact is not going to get us anywhere."

That's one of the dumbest statements I've heard on blogger since Judy Wood's plasmoids comment.

The argument Zwicker makes here is basically this: Hollywood script writers were assembled by the White House to write a story for 9/11 that would be repeated by conspirators to complicit corporate media on the day; these conspirators included several scientists who were asked for comment by mainstream media. He then talks about a guy in a Harley Davidson t-shirt and makes vague allusions to Jerome Hauer.

To the average viewer, that is going to sound wacky. In particular, I don't know where he gets this Hollywood angle from. But the idea that these scientists were somehow part of a plot is ludicrous. These are just scientists who could not fathom -- especially on the day of 9/11 -- that the collapses had nothing to do with the airplanes. What scientist, who makes a living on government grants, is going to tell the NY Times on 9/11 that clearly the towers were toppled with explosives? C'mon. Not everything is part of some ubiquitous conspiracy.

I'm not focusing on his slips. I'm saying he's talking about a dissection of possible propaganda techniques, when the average viewer will find it difficult enough to understand how or why 9/11 was or could be an inside job.

As for the "57 columns" remark -- I would say someone who says he has dedicated his life to 9/11 Truth, and has written a book about it, should not make mistakes like that. How many lectures has he given on the subject? You don't see people excuse Donald Rumsfeld for being a war criminal, because he's old. But fine, Barrie's human, and that's no big deal.

Look, I have his book, and probably every other book that has been written about 9/11. If you want, I could write a 100-page treatise on the subject. For practical purposes, I'm picking just a few items from this TV clip and focusing on them. Overall, I would say anything that makes people more suspicious of globalist power is a good thing. But specifically, I would say 9/11 Truth advocates who land TV appearances have to be better, with a message that appeals to novice viewers.

Sure, Barrie's a media critic and he's good at it. But that doesn't make him infallible. You're just repeating the same reverence for the expertocracy that so many debunkers exhibit.

Agreed that peeps need to get off thier computer and get out and talk to people, and DO ACTION. We need to realize that the people who orcastrated this WILL do something again. If a bully beats you up and takes your lunch money (freedoms in this case) and no-one catches him HE WILL do it again. Each mind we wake up (or even just expose) makes that possibility less likely. So people get out, do things and wake some people up, I hope nothing else nefarious happens but it IS a possibility. I don't know if this is worth while, but a forcefull letter to media outlets explaining that IF another false flag happens (I hope not) they are as (or more so) responsible as those who planned it.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." ----- Thomas Jefferson
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ------- Thomas Jefferson
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ---- Edmond Burke

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ---- Mark Twain

But there is a role to be played by people on computers. How many of us would understand 9/11 without such people?

Not everyone is made to be an activist, and not everyone is made to be a researcher.

Is that Guliani?

I like him a lot and he has been around for ever, respect.

But this time he was in a relaxed enviroment representing some very scientific arguments!

The fact he is a journalist probably gets him of the hook, but I want him to know we want his best carefull, balanced and prepared views. He represents all of us.

Kind regards John

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!