The Abe and Joe Talk Radio Show on 02/08/11
Program:
The Abe and Joe Talk Radio Show
Air date:
Tue, 02/08/2011 - 8:00am - 9:00am
Short Description:
Get out your tinfoil hats -- it's time for some Pledge Drive 9/11 talk. It's been a great Winter Membership Drive. So much so that Abe and Joe are prepared to go where few people dare to tread -- Sept. 11. What really happened? What do we know? What don't we know? More importantly, what do you think you know?
Abe and Joe -- who, for the record, believe that the U.S. gov't did not contrive to bring the Sept. 11 attacks about -- take listener calls on this endlessly controversial topic.
Next Board of Director's Meeting
JUNE 3, 2013 - 6PM
Community Events
05/24/2013 (All day) - 06/02/2013 (All day)
05/31/2013 (All day) - 06/01/2013 (All day)
05/25/2013 (All day) - 05/26/2013 (All day)
05/31/2013 - 8:00pm - 11:59pm
05/30/2013 - 4:00pm - 10:00pm
05/31/2013 - 9:00pm - 11:59pm
05/31/2013 (All day) - 06/02/2013 (All day)
06/01/2013 (All day) - 06/02/2013 (All day)
06/01/2013 - 7:00pm - 10:00pm
06/01/2013 - 5:30pm - 06/02/2013 - 2:00am
Comments
tin foil hat? Really?
...I've heard you both discuss 9/11 before, including the time you invited me on as a guest to present lots of material, including on topics I see mentioned herein.
For reference, interested readers should absolutely explore the 9/11 Timeline Project. Concerned about documenting allegations that disprove the official conspiracy? Them too, that's why it's so heavily sourced.
To take just one high controversial topic - explosions. Here are the search results for 'explosion' in the Timeline. Scroll down to September 11, 2001 and you'll find extensively documented examples of people hearing explosions at multiple locations in WTC 1, 2 & 7 (WTC 7?).
And I could go on and on with this thread, not to mention the
training exercises prepping responders
for a 9/11 style attack; the (7?, 11? more?)
wargames
occurring on 9/11/01,
financial (trading) activity
which very strongly suggests foreknowledge, failure to heed numerous warnings and to follow long-established
air security
(hijack response) procedures during the attacks...
But I'll stop here because I understand that you're not really interested in taking these issues seriously, otherwise your listeners wouldn't be posting the comments they have, at least 5 years after we've been through most of this on the air. However I'll let you have the last word:
I admit it -- I don't know
Submitted by Abe on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:48am.
"I admit it -- I don't know what I'm talking about!"
I Second the Debate Proposal..
...as such.
It would not only highlight the two, differing perspectives but would also make compelling radio.
Maybe as part of a larger special?
Seriously, let's consider it.
There was an offer to debate
Gentlemen,
Theresa Mitchell invited you to an on-air debate about this issue. Would you please consider it? There seems to be a fair amount of evidence being brought forward by credible people (not just the tin hat folks) that there was US government involvement in the September 11 attacks. Why the reluctance?
Grace
Hmm
We have a presidential administration that lied its way into illegal wars, condoned and ordered torture, blackmailed congress into bailing out the big banks. This administration was placed into power by rank treason by the highest judicial authority. This administration practically suspended the rule of law by setting up extra-judicial courts and prisons, and arrogated congress' authority to set the rules of capture on land and water. Practically all of the same people in this administration who pined for a new Pearl Harbor were in positions to, if not inculcate, facilitate 911.
But you're right. The simplest explanation is that 19 people, who just happen to fit the GWOT narrative, having never flown any kind of jet, were able to hit targets with pinpoint accuracy at speeds where it takes miles to make a turn. Their plan, of course, was to stir up worldwide solidarity with the American people, which was what happened, at least until we invaded Afghanistan.
PS Bin Laden first issued a statement that he had nothing to do with 911. If the video you were talking about was the "Fatty Bin Laden" video, well, I don't know what to say.
I will stipulate to all
I will stipulate to all points re: Bush's illegitimate presidency, the illegal wars, torture, etc. But I still maintain that the U.S. Gov't's involvement with the Sept. 11 attacks, at most, extends to (possibly intentional) negligence. I don't buy the line that the buildings were stuffed with explosives, that subterranean explosions occurred, and so on.
The planes were highjacked and flown into buildings, period. Speculations about velocity and turning radius notwithstanding, the highjackers managed to steer them into their targets. The deeds were done, but I don't think our gov't engineered them. However, our gov't certainly did use the attacks to justify their longstanding imperialist urges.
As to the "Fatty Bin Laden" video, I'm not sure what that is, nor am I aware of an intitial statement disavowing any connection with 9/11.
Bin Laden's Statement
Here (http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US) is a CNN story. His complete statements through 2008 are here (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdfz) but you have to dig.
For "Fatty Bin Laden," try here (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/binladinvideo.html) . I'm not endorsing this site, it was the first hit on a Google search.
I'm not endorsing the "government did it" line, either. My point is there are an inexhaustible number of very good reasons for people to be skeptical of the official story. You might remember that an anti-Muslim narrative was building in the aftermath of Oklahoma City. Had Clinton wanted, he could've quashed an investigation and just gone with the flow. That's exactly what Bush did, and that's why I don't think we should just move on.
your tinfoil hat show
Gentlemen, I'm dismayed by the degree of discourtesy shown to some of the people who called in today. In fact, I'm dismayed by the treatment of the topic. I didn't see your reference to tinfoil hats until I came to the website; that explains but doesn't "forgive" the disrespect. If you feel such surety in your beliefs on this topic, why do you feel the need to mock others? "Your" show isn't a platform for this kind of behavior - or shouldn't be - I guess I just hold you to a higher standard and feel you have a certain responsibility to consider every time you go on the air.
IMHO, some good points were brought up by callers and by you. You dismiss the conspiracy theory of 9/11, fine. You brought up a negligence component but didn't go any further with it - if our government lacks compunction to that degree, if our military can't "scramble" better than that, aren't those harrowing enough "beliefs" to consider and question?
As a person who was 5 blocks from the WTC in downtown NY on 9/11, I believe there are a number of questions that need to be answered and it appears to me that some obfuscatin' folk are absolutely devoted to thwarting that effort. Some of the so-called 9/11 conspiracy "nuts" are saying the same thing. So, while I understand that you can't be expected to answer the questions, I wish you could join in and ask, Somebody, *please* answer the [expletive deleted but it starts with an "f") questions!
Thanks for your time.
Sheila
Are we, as talk show hosts,
Are we, as talk show hosts, obligated to show courtesy to our callers? For the most part, yes. That's the default position. But I reserve the right to be discourteous if I feel a caller, or his/her argument, deserves it. I am not required, in the name of decorum, to sit politely while someone talks nonsense or uses hateful language. I also reserve the right (as in the case of the caller who invoked the participation of aliens) to stop the conversation if it stumbles into the absurd.
That said, you are right that you (and we) should hold us to a higher standard. Nobody is going to be cut off simply for being who he or she is, nor for espousing a certain position, nor for approaching a topic from a certain angle. Everybody gets to start from the same place; it's only if someone goes off the rails that they will be cut off or mocked. It's a subjective standard, to be sure.
And I agree that today's topic deserved more time and detail than we were able to give it. Your point about the need to investigate the negligence angle is a valid one. The problem is that we're on for one hour once per week. There's a certain triage that we have to undergo in terms of what we are and are not going to talk about. If we were a daily show, perhaps we could revisit this subject tomorrow or the next day. But in the context of a weekly show, it probably ain't gonna happen.
Thanks for your comments, and for listening.
Figures
The one time in recent memory I'm up at 8am and remember to tune in, and this is the topic. Are real issues too scary?
Real issues are scary enough.
Real issues are scary enough. Today's topic was a bone we threw to those listeners who have been clamoring for it.
I listen to KBOO nearly every
I listen to KBOO nearly every day. I just created an account here to say that the remarks from either Joe or Abe are very disheartening. So what a caller says there are aliens. You allowed him to make almost his full statement only to ridicule him. And to whichever of you said "Da' plane! Da' plane!", that was a perfect example of what happens on the Bill O'Reily show or on Fox news where the actual points aren't discussed in a MATURE fashion, but rather people are overtalked simultaneously being ridiculed. The guy who mentioned the towers were "pulverized into powder" may have been exagerating but the fact is he said some true things, including the falling of building 7 being extremely suspicious and all you could do was pick the one thing you thought was farfetched taking the conversation away from trying to find the ever important truth to the direction of seeming suspicious yourself and blowing it off. I'm not saying I'm suspicious of you, I'm only saying we must avoid heading in that direction, accept anything someone says as a possibility since we can't disprove it, and discuss the points that may actually have importance. And you guys need to educate yourselves a bit on subjects before discussing them, this one included. But whoever said "Da' plane, Da' plane", this is not the first time I've heard you speak on radio. I appreciate and enjoy the genre of you guys' show, but you should just go get a job with FOX. They'd hire you quick.
FOX would probably pay us
FOX would probably pay us more than KBOO does ;)
As I mentioned on the air, I gotta draw the line at aliens. Whatever the real 9/11 story might entail -- conspiracies involving multiple gov't's, etc. etc. -- I can say with certainty that aliens were not involved. I agree that callers deserve a chance to establish and defend their arguments, but as the host acting in the interest of a clear and cogent coversation, I reserve the right to cut off (and, yes, ridicule) callers. In this case, aliens = ridicule.
And I think that your comparison of the discourse on our show vs. that on FOX doesn't hold water. We consistently hold to standards of intellect and fairness that far exceed the drivel on FOX. Yes, we sometimes are dismissive, but the comparison ends there. We do not, for example, knowingly disseminate disinformation or hate speech -- as do guys like O'Reilly and Beck.
I admit that I do not have the in-depth knowledge of this topic that you and other listeners possess. In a way, it's a casualty of being a talk show host -- in order to keep conversations going on a wide variety of topics, we must of necessity be a "mile wide and an inch thick." Today's show was intended to give a platform to callers on this topic, which is among the most requested topics among our listeners. Both Joe and I are skeptics on the subject, which allows us to act as foils to callers' comments.
I don't have the answers about Sept. 11. Nobody does, or if they do, they're not talking. The point of today's show was to have a discussion, not to lay the events of that day to rest. Sure, the collapse of Building 7 was suspicious. Do I think it (and the other buildings) were loaded with explosives? No. It is possible? Sure.
Thanks for your comments.
911
Do you two work for Fox news? I never heard kboo hosts sound so completely fooled by the official story!!!!!
I am trully discussed by your lack of knowledge and couriousity about this important subject!
Joey
911
yeah my spelling sucks.
BUILDING 7
WE KNOW IT TAKES A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO SET UP THE DEMOLITION OF A STEEL STRUCTURE. YET BUILDING 7 FELL HOURS AFTER THE TWIN TOWERS. THREE STEEL BUILDINGS FELL IN ONE DAY. NEVER BEFORE OR SINCE HAS THIS HAPPENED IN WORLD HISTORY.
My perspective
On 9/11/01 I was working in the factory where 767s are built in Everett, WA. I was surrounded by engineers, many of whom study aircraft crashes. As we watched the towers fall on a computer screen, our response was unanimous. "They put explosives in the buildings, too."
Since its inception, Boeing has always studied the crashes of its aircraft, in order to improve design. Why were no Boeing employees involved in the investigation of the four events on 9-11?
I don't know exactly what happened on that fateful day. I haven't had access to all the facts. But I can tell you what didn't happen. The official story is full of bologna. Two airplanes did not cause three buildings to collapse into piles of dust in their own footprint. A poorly trained hijacker did not fly a 757 through a 270 degree banked turn precisely into the one part of the Pentagon where no officers were working because of recent construction. He also did not cause the airplane to fold on both sides of the wingbox (the strongest part of the plane) and enter the building through a hole the size of the fuselage without knocking the engines off their sheer bolts. It's also highly unlikely that several cell phone calls were completed from high altitude just before a 767 dove into the ground, leaving a charred trench and consuming every bit of the entire plane before firemen arrived.
We know what we saw on TV. Please consider all the other events you've seen on TV. How many were fiction? What makes you think this one was real? If it was, why is there such an effective cover-up? I'm not doubting that there were fires in the buildings and all three collapsed, nor that there was a hole in the Pentagon and a mess in a field in Pennsylvania. How do we know what caused all this?
Consider the history of false flag operations...
Gentlemen, really...do your work
Dear Abe and Joe,
I confess I only heard a part of your show, but I did tune in long enough to hear the words "epistomology"and "Occam's Razor" applied. I don't really believe that you two have studiously applied Ferrier and Occam to the "explosions downtown" debate.
If you had, you would not accept "airplane impact and pancaking" as an explanation for the destructions of buildings One, Two, and Seven. A decent epistomology would not ignore the melting point of steel (1370 Fahrenheit, if you're wondering), the maximum temperature of the fires (far, far less), Newton's laws of momentum (which are egregiously violated by the "pancaking" theory of collapse, even had the floors been composed mostly of cardboard), and of course the fact that Building Seven, not hit by planes nor significant debris at all, forty stories high, had only a minor fire on lower floors, and then collapsed into its own footprint.
These buildings collapsed neatly into their own footprints because (here I apply the Razor) thermite charges had been applied at some point in the previous several years to their frames. The charges were put in during "building stand-down" periods, days in which the buildings were evacuated. That (and the rigorous attempts to coverup, denigrate questioning, and stonewall) means the whole affair was a false-flag attack; that means that elements of the US government had decided to continue their decades-long habit of creating stunts as excuses for war, as in Operation Northwoods, as in Pearl Harbor, as in Playa Giron (Bay of Pigs), et cetera.
The official mythology of September Eleventh is a linchpin in the fantasy that we live in a democracy. So I can't stand back and let y'all go on as if you know what you're talking about.
I could go on and on, and I will, if you're willing to debate this with me on air....
love and respect
Theresa Mitchell
I admit it -- I don't know
I admit it -- I don't know what I'm talking about! I have certainly not researched the Sept. 11 attacks with any depth or vigor (at least not for a long time), and I continue to maintain that the attacks are far less important than the actions they were used to justify -- the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, the imposition of a security state here at home, etc.
And I don't discount entirely that what you posit is, in fact, true. I just find it highly unlikely that large office buildings were packed with explosives in preparation for a collision with an aircraft. It's possible, but very unlikely.