Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Libertarian VP candidate & 9/11 truth filmmaker Art Olivier, David Ray Griffin assistant Elizabeth Woodworth

Truth Jihad Radio Wed. 12/14/11, 3-5 pm Central, American Freedom Radio (archived here.) Call-in: (402) 237-2525 or post your questions to my Facebook page.

First hour: Art Olivier ran against Dick Cheney in 2000 (Art was the Libertarian). If he'd known what was coming, he could have promised not to blow up the World Trade Center, and taken away all of Cheney's votes. He also ran against Schwarzenegger in 2006. Now he's involved with a brand-new 9/11 truth feature film, Operation Terror (watch the trailer).

Second hour: David Ray Griffin's assistant Elizabeth Woodworth is a key player in Consensus911.org, which has developed consensus points on which rational people can agree, using the Delphi Method, against the official version of 9/11.

12 comments:

  1. The WTC was not blown up on 9/11; it was hit by airliners hijacked and crashed by al Qaeda suicide operatives, and the damage and resultant fires caused 3 major collapses. Barrett's heroes tried explosives in the North Tower in 1993, and were unable to damage even one column. Inconveniently for Barrett, Ramzi Yousef very willingly and defiantly admitted to his role in the 1993 bombing at his sentencing hearing, so denying it on his behalf is rather futile.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Kevin:

    Thanks so much for the opportunity you gave me to discuss the Consensus Panel -- what it is and what it isn't, which is important for people to understand, as there has been confusion about that.

    Thanks too for your suggestion that we plan some kind of a newsworthy "event" to focus attention on it. Will think about that!

    The interview that led to my appearance on your show is getting some attention, and is posted:
    to the top of Global Research TV at http://tv.globalresearch.ca/
    to Disclose TV, which gets over 800,000 global viewers per month
    (http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/84880/Face_to_Face_with_Elizabeth_Woodworth_and_9_11_Consensus/ )

    Thanks for all you do for truth and justice and Seasons Greetings,

    Elizabeth

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great work, Elizabeth!

    Albury, you forgot to mention that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and visits us in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.

    Restating the tenets of a myth does not make it any less mythical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What part of my comment would you like to try denying, Kevin?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You forgot to mention that you don't post replies to your comments, run from honest discussion, and threaten people who don't drink the Kool-Aid, Kevin.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your "comments" are vapid, overly general non-sequiturs. You're a complete waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I know I am, "Jihad" Kevin. Since you're a top 9/11 researcher, would you please explain to me why 12 different insurance companies, at least 4 of which were foreign-based (Copenhagen, Zurich-2, London) all paid a guy a total of $4.68 BILLION for his 9/11 losses if he publicly admitted to blowing up his own property?
    Thanks so much.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Okay, that's specific enough to qualify as a meaningful question. Unfortunately I doubt you're honestly looking for an answer.

    In the unlikely event that you are, start by reading Bollyn's Solving 9/11 http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book and Jeff Gates' Guilt by Association http://criminalstate.com/ for background. You'll come to realize that a loosely-knit criminal syndicate made up of many of the world's biggest financial players was behind 9/11. For these guys, 4.68 billion is chump change.

    For evidence that the Rockefeller family (and presumably their friends in the other big dynastic families) orchestrated or participated in 9/11, watch Aaron Russo's interview in which he discusses how his then-friend Nick Rockefeller was bragging about 9/11 before it happened.

    Rockefeller Reveals 9/11 FRAUD to Aaron Russo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

    Maybe Russo's coming down with cancer shortly after outing Rockefeller as a 9/11 criminal was an accident. But I doubt it.

    4.8 billion is also chump change to people with their hands on the trillions in black and gray money that passes through the Pentagon and its private and semi-private affiliates. Watch Donald Rumsfeld on C-Span announcing, on 9/10/2001, that the Pentagon has lost track of 2.3 trillion dollars. The then-comptroller of the Pentagon, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, is on everyone's list of 9/11 suspects. See: http://solari.com/articles/missing_money/

    Given the above, the 12 insurance companies' directors may have been (a) screwed, (b) paid off, (c) on board with the operation, or (d) some combination of the above.

    Let's imagine that they were all innocent, and screwed by Silverstein. The two entities I've just mentioned - a loosely-knit mafia of trillionaire families, and the Pentagon and its allies - are not exactly people you're going to mess with if you're some ordinary schmuck who became director of an insurance company. If an insurance company chief decided to fight Silverstein by calling him out on demolishing his own building, he'd be going up against not only the forces outlined above, but the whole establishment that has a stake in the official story. That guy's life and/or career would quickly be over.

    If none of this strikes you as plausible, you have a very naive understanding of how power operates in today's world.

    If it strikes you as plausible, and a good answer to your question, but you still think I'm wrong on 9/11 and therefore on this particular question...well, that would at least allow for the possibility that you are intellectually honest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm very honestly looking for an answer, Kevin, and I'm wondering:
    -why Silverstein would publicly admit to this alleged deed in a PBS interview.
    -why all 12 insurance companies legally contested the ~$3.55 billion in "chump change" that Silverstein's two planes=two incidents claim represented to their bottom lines, but ignored a public admission of insurance fraud.
    -what motive the owner/landlord could possibly have had to destroy a modern, almost fully-occupied 17 year-old building, lose more than $100 million annually in cash flow from a 30-year lease agreement with Salomon Brothers, plus more from other long-term agreements with established tenants.
    -why you think he did it when "they," i.e. the FNDY, "made that decision..."
    -how he and the FDNY knew that flaming debris from a much taller collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for this alleged controlled demolition.
    -what Silverstein Properties has to do with Rumsfeld, the Pentagon, etc.
    -where all of the shareholders' lawsuits are.
    -what "such a terrible loss of life [in the tower collapses]" had to do with demolishing WTC 7.
    -how a 5:21 PM collapse that killed no one could possibly have furthered anyone's interests, since it occurred more than 7 hours after nearly 3000 innocent lives and billions in property damage had already been lost.
    -why ConEd didn't file charges against Silverstein, since their electrical substation beneath WTC 7 was not only put out of service, but totally destroyed, resulting in millions in lost revenue and replacement costs.
    -whether the FDNY was in the controlled demolition business before 9/11.
    -how "pull it" became a term for explosive demolition, when not one C/D contractor's web site shows it used that way.
    -why, if Barry Jennings heard demolition charges at ~10 AM, Silverstein and the FDNY were discussing at ~2:30 PM WHETHER to blow up WTC 7.
    Thanks for posting my comments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your keen interest in meaningful questions and intellectual honesty seems to have waned a bit, Kevin. I'll re-send my follow-up comments if you've misplaced them, although that strikes me about as plausible as your last response.
    I'm still very honestly looking for answers regarding motive and perpetrator[s] of this alleged deed, which involved the secret explosive severing of 24 interior columns that looked like this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
    before their 730#/lineal foot and ~215 square inch cross sections were roughly doubled with heavy steel plates welded across their flanges on both sides, along with 57 exterior columns weighing only 500#/lineal foot sans reinforcement plates. If that can be accomplished multiple times in seconds with the same result as what's produced with a large band saw, 7+ minutes, and loads of water, you may have the key to revolutionizing the steel fabrication business.
    Let's do the motive and perps thing first, however, and thanks once again for not hiding my posts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Albury, you're a notorious chronophage. If there is a less subtle troll out there, I haven't had the misery of meeting him. If you're being paid to get me to waste my time exchanging comments with you rather than doing something productive, collect your two shekels and move on to your next victim.

    Over and out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. as evidenced by his inordinate amount of official spin regurgitation, ( a quick google for albury smith 911 will show a history of his commenting on every blog concerning 911, posting the same lies, distortions and obfuscations ad nauseam, 24/7 ) this shows that he is either paid to do this or has severe mental disabilities, as pointed out by most everyone who has the misfortune to have ever crossed paths with the unflushable turd, and is as obvious as is the explosive destruction of the 3 towers that day.

    the only people who would argue against a transparent, unfettered independent investigation into the events of 911 are those with a vested interest in supressing the truth.

    frankly, to hope that albury would voluntarily disclose such things as his real name and qualifications, to add just the slightest credence to anything he says, is as likely as there will ever be credible proof beyond all reasonable doubt that bin laden was killed in may of 2011.

    ie; NONE

    there is irefutable evidence that the events of 911 did not happen as we are being told,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jazdG3-ZETM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iND-b8Q3jc

    but despite that, and despite not being asked, albury will continue to offer his unqualified, anonymous opinion, as if he is the final arbiter of truth, in relation to ANYTHING to do with 911. a self proclaimed expert..

    its so pathetic, if it wasnt for the fact that on the backs of the lies of that fateful day, hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children have been killed, civil and constitutional rights have been shredded, and the world has been subjected to a never ending war of terror, it would be funny.


    This video puts to rest ALL of alburys arguments and shows exactly why 911 needs a proper investigation.
    Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) - 10 Years After 9/11 The Official Account Does Not Add Up

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY

    ReplyDelete