Debunking the 911 Debunkers, with gusto!

Debunking the 911 Debunkers, with gusto!
Sun Sep 17, 2006 19:33

Debunking the 911 Debunkers, with gusto!

>Must listen: Arizona radio show wherein the interviewer KNOCKS OUT a rep
from Popular Mechanics who is going around the country giving interviews to
promote PM's new BOOK (with intro by John McCain!) about "Debunking 9/11
Conspiracy Theories." -- I mean, he flattens the guy.
>
>This is really worth listening to. Very good points are made.
>
>20 minutes long, mp3. Download at
>
> http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=009309
>
> http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3



>>>>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:03:20 -0700
Subject: (c)FW: AZ Radio Host Deconstructs Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Disinfo
Researcher
From: jeff strahl
----------


From: Zn365@aol.com
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:02:02 EDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Fwd: AZ Radio Host Deconstructs Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Disinfo
Researcher

9/11 Truth people will love this! Anyone still believing the official
story on 9/11 will not. They might learn something though..........
Naa! Too much to hope for. Zan Overall.


This Rocks my world! If anyone can find this in audio, I would be much
obliged.

Best,
Katy


AZ Radio Host Deconstructs Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Disinfo Researcher


9/11 Facts and Myths: Charles Goyette interviews Davin Coburn, editor /
researcher of PM's original 9/11 conspiracy slam

Charles Goyette Show

KFNX Radio
August 23, 2006

Ever wonder why prominent "official story" apologists always shun 9/11
truth debates? Here perhaps is the nightmare that they dread. Show host
Goyette is not an overt 9/11 skeptic, just a fearless interrogator with a
very logical mind. One guesses the battered Mr. Coburn will be picking his
interview venues with much more care next time. A podcast of this powerful
show is available here. - Ed.
UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

PM - Popular Mechanics: Davin Coburn "researcher, editor, reporter on the
original 9/11 article"
CG - Charles Goyette, Radio Show Host

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?

PM: Very little... there is very little that has been held back as far as
the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we
looked into.

CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were
withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon
we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven't
seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report
goes.

PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal
investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with
the Judicial Watch materialŠ

CG: I've talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they're not very happy
about it, they released like four frames that don't really show much of
anything.

PM: They don't show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame
per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second,
from that distance it's not surprising that there was not a whole lot
caught on that video.

CG: Are you telling me that's the only video?

PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they're still being
used for various investigations.

CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were,
they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of
God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it's five years
later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?

PM: I think there's plenty of evidence out thereŠ

CG: It's not the evidence we've seen that we're concerned about, it's the
evidence we haven't seen. Does that make any sense?

PM: Oh sure it makes senseŠ. The evidence is abundantŠ

CG: It's the dog that didn't bark... We know the evidence we've seen, that
doesn't cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don't see. It's
not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big,
powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?

PM: "Hearst."

CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining
the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to
say, "Oh shut up, you peons don't know what you're talking about,
everything's fine, keep on moving, there's nothing to see here." Hearst
should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that
will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn't it?

PM: (does not answer this question)

CG: ŠI want to come back to the unseen evidence - the dog that didn't bark.
Hearst has a lot of muscle - where are you in lobbying for the release of
all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and
distrust?..

PM: It's not up to usŠ

CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don't know
about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We're told
who did it, we've invaded two countries in response to it, we've spent
billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?

PM: How can I answer the question?

CG: Because you don't know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane
flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly
hurt?

PM: (Cannot answer question)

CG: ŠBuilding 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular
MechanicsŠsay that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of
the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsedŠ there was damage to Building 7Š. What
we found out wasŠabout 25% of the building's south face had been carved
away from itŠ Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the
wreckage from the North TowerŠ

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may
not be trueŠ I go, oh that's interestingŠif that's true that would go a
long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the
pictures in your book about Building 7 you've got a picture of Building 7,
but it doesn't show that. So I'm going, OK, instead of just somebody
asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the
picture. But you don't show me the picture.

PM: ŠWe have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department
and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission
to disseminateŠ.

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen
can't see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? Š.What did you see there
that I can't see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that's dangerous for me as an American
citizen or a voter to see. You're publishers, if anybody is concerned about
evidence in a criminal case or something, they've done the worst possible
thing, they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my
frustration here? I didn't know we had different classes of citizens. You
can't tell me it's because it's a criminal case because they've shown it to
a damn magazine publisher.

PM: Š.I can't answer that question.

CG: I know you can't.

PM: (is speechless)Š.

ŠCaller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the
British press who came forward and said, "We're alive, what are we doing on
the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We're alive and well." How do you
explain that one?

PM: It was one BBC report - I am saying that is false.

Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?

PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have
been on those planesŠ

Caller: What remains?

PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.

Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder,
there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were
still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you
insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the
hijackers, where are those reports? I haven't heard anything about autopsy
reports.

CG: I want to know, even if we presume you're correct that they recovered
the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their
original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of
a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had
they submitted DNA before they, uhŠI mean, where the hell did they get it?
You're not even talking sensibly with me.

PM: Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that.

CG: Of course you don't.

PM: I'll get back to you with it.

CG: Is that a promise?

PM: I will do my best.

CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say
on the show that he's gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against
those Islamic terrorists who hadŠhijacked those planes. Good, I'd like to
hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these
kinds of representations are made?

PM: No, actually I don'tŠ

CG: You don't understand why when you tell us that they found the
hijackers' DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did
they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against - Do you
think that's bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it's
conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA
evidence that matches the hijackersŠ

PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a
question that's worth answeringŠ.

CG: ŠYou've told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their
original DNA to check it against? You're the one with the answers, I'm not.
I just ask questions.

PM: ŠA seven year old can ask why, over and over and overŠ.

CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country,
we've invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we're gonna spend
trillions of dollars. It's not a seven year old asking why, I want to know
where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What's so hard
about that?

PM: The way that you're framing it is intentionallyŠ

CG: Of course it is, 'cause it's five years later and we haven't heard the
answer. And you haven't given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to
God, that's it. You see, it's the way I'm framing it makes it an
illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask
it differently.

PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.

CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that's it. Hey Davin,
thanksŠthe Charles Goyette Show.

END

Main Page - Monday, 09/18/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)