The Abe and Joe Talk Radio Show on 02/08/11

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. 

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

 

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

Copyright © 2012 KBOO Community Radio | Copyright Policy | Community Guidelines | Website Illustration & Design by: KMF ILLUSTRATION