It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Howard Stern Show talks 9/11 truth (sort of)

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Any regular listeners to the Howard Stern Show know how they are in New York and are rather sensitive to the 9/11 issue.

Howard himself has been very supportive of harsh military response although like everyone he has grown weary of the war in Iraq since it has nothing to do with 9/11 anyway.

So they had Paula Gloria on yesterday. She pushes the NPT junk with Webfairy and Nico Haupt.

Of course Howard Stern had her on his show BECAUSE she is so clearly crazy so I had to call in to set the record straight with the real evidence.

I was able to get on the "wrap up show" which airs immediately after the main show for discussion and I had a chance to argue with Bababooey, Benji, and Ralph!

They even kept me on the line to argue with a couple of other callers.

I was intentionally over the top with energy so they would keep me on and it worked!

They wanted to paint me as a kook but I think I held my own just fine.

Check it out!






posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
That was great.
They really did think you were crazy, but you got the truth out. It's amazing how people don't even think about 9/11. They just believe what they were told and then never think about it again.

Don't worry your'e not the only crazy one out there.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So they had Paula Gloria on yesterday. She pushes the NPT junk with Webfairy and Nico Haupt.

Of course Howard Stern had her on his show BECAUSE she is so clearly crazy so I had to call in to set the record straight with the real evidence.


Greetings, Craig Ranke!

I hope this new thread of yours evolves into a fruitful discussion.

I haven't been able to yet check out the youtube link (I've only got stone-age dial-up). So perhaps my question to you is redundant, but I'll ask it anyways -- why exactly are Paula Gloria, the webfairy and Nico Haupt 'junk sources'.

I know nothing about these folks. I never heard their names until you mentioned them. I'm also curious what you mean by NPT junk. And I'm assuming you don't mean 'National Pipe Thread' when you say NPT. But acronyms can mean many different things. I'm hoping, no I'm praying, you're not alluding to the no-plane theory (as junk). But hey, if you are, that's okay too. I for one would just like to understand your perspective here.

Best Regards,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/20/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


Haha!

Sorry for using vague "truther" lingo'.

Most people in this forum seem to get it.

NPT = no plane theories at the WTC meaning that the plane hitting the south tower on live television with thousands of witnesses standing below already focusing on the burning north tower was a "cartoon" or CGI or something.

I see it as baseless speculation.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Interesting and fascinating!!

Thank you for the ultra-quick clarification!

Yes, I am SHOCKED that you of all people, Craig Ranke, and 9-11 Penta-Con researcher extraordinaire, think that the NPT at the WTCs is 'baseless speculation'.

But hey, no single subject seems to have more diverse opinions than 9-11. So I'm grateful for your elaboration of your 'position'. My very own brother adamantly asserts he saw UA175 crashing into WTC-2 while standing on the rooftop of his apartment two thousand feet away. Well, when pressed he admits he didn't exactly 'see' it since he was busy cleaning his binoculars. But he insists his friends standing next to him saw everything (the airplane).

Thanks again,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/20/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
the mentality of that last caller is a perfect example of why I have absolutely no faith in people whatsoever.

"Let's say we were tricked, so what? It is what it is, it was what it was, why waste your time?"

Amazing... so from now on, whatever happens - water under the bridge. Global genocide? It is what it is.

Self-inflicted wounds? It is what it is.

Police-state and loss of freedoms? It is what it is.

No use wasting time thinking about the past...



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


The Pentagon attack is much different.

No footage and all the witnesses were taken by surprise.

We only assert claims that we have evidence for.

Here is our mission statement that has always been on our website:





Citizen Investigation Team is dedicated to exposing the truth behind the 9/11 attacks strictly via first hand research and guerrilla investigative reporting efforts. We limit our reporting to data that we have obtained ourselves from direct contact with eyewitnesses, first responders, victims, authorities, as well as complicit operatives in person and on location as much as possible.



We refuse speculation and will only present hypotheses based off data that we have personally obtained. Previous reports from mainstream as well as alternative media will never be assumed correct unless confirmed or clarified.



We patently reject hypotheses that can not be proven and therefore deliberately refuse “no plane theories” or anything based on the use of unknown or “exotic weaponry” as much as we reject the official conspiracy theory.



Although we understand that it is possible for the suspects in question to have access to unknown technology we believe there is enough evidence available to prove the official story false without involving speculation in this regard.


We stress the importance of onsite research and encourage others to make efforts to get answers with this approach.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Oh I know!

You heard how mad that made me.

That was Ralph who is Howard's hairdresser.

Before I got on he was being his usual cynical self by saying how "stupid" and "absurd" it is to assert that 9/11 was an inside job so I thought his tone with me was quite a bit different.

Almost as if I was able to get him to consider the possibility.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
just knowing that such a mentality exists makes it hard for me to feel compassion, or anything really...

kudos to not losing your composure. If it were me, I would have burst a few blood vessels by that point just trying to understand the logic of the bury-my-head-in-the-sand approach.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The Pentagon attack is much different.

No footage and all the witnesses were taken by surprise.

We only assert claims that we have evidence for.

We patently reject hypotheses that can not be proven and therefore deliberately refuse “no plane theories” or anything based on the use of unknown or “exotic weaponry” as much as we reject the official conspiracy theory.

Craig Ranke,

Thanks for posting the Citizen Investigation Team's (CIT) 'mission statement'.
Your group clearly are experts on Pentagon 9-11 issues.

It is understandable that you -- for whatever reasons, perhaps financial limitations -- haven't been able to research the other 9-11 targets, the WTC complex and Shanksville. But then why do you still draw conclusions about what happened at those other 9-11 attack locations? Isn't saying that there were airplanes there precisely engaging in the type of speculation you strive to refuse? Or is the flimsy phony film footage proof enough for you to call the NPT crazy?

In keeping with your philosoply, it seems it would be more honest for CIT to simply say, "Look guys, we just haven't been able to investigate the other 9-11 aspects (besides the Pentagon). Therefore we don't want to comment or judge other hypotheses."

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I haven't heard the Howard Stern Show in years, since they kicked it off the air in Toronto. The idea that Ba-ba-booey has his own segment now just makes me shake my head. Howard, you poor f**k. They got to you. This is what happened to rock and roll. The corporations took over.

The idea that they would fret over giving an insane and rediculous person (not you Craig) a forum shows you where they are now. Howard used to make insane and rediculous people with catastrophic radio voices into stars.

Anyway, good for Craig. Sneaking one in on them.

F.U. Howard!



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

In keeping with your philosoply, it seems it would be more honest for CIT to simply say, "Look guys, we just haven't been able to investigate the other 9-11 aspects (besides the Pentagon). Therefore we don't want to comment or judge other hypotheses."




We simply don't advocate speculation at all and see it as harmful.

Particularly in light of the hard evidence that exists without speculation.

Speculation detracts from the evidence and keeps us spinning our wheels.

And as far as NPT goes......we simply don't buy it and feel that the arguments for it are extremely weak.

We have found no evidence for unknown technology at all in Arlington either.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
In keeping with your philosoply, it seems it would be more honest for CIT to simply say, "Look guys, we just haven't been able to investigate the other 9-11 aspects (besides the Pentagon). Therefore we don't want to comment or judge other hypotheses."

Yeah, I completely agree with this.

Craig, you have investigated the Pentacon attack - fair enough, that's cool.

However, don't be so quick to dismiss what you have not investigated with regards to the WTC complex.

In your radio interview, I think the only time you sounded out of your depth was when you stated "look at how WTC 7 fell...". It sounded more like a plea to believe you, rather than a statement made with the foundation of supporting facts.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Or is the flimsy phony film footage proof enough for you to call the NPT crazy?



I should have addressed this direct.

No of course not. But I don't think there is proof that it is phony either.

But most importantly the thousands of witnesses who were already staring at the event with their mouths wide open are what convince me more than anything.

We have always said that if we went to Arlington and the witnesses confirmed that a 757 came low and level on the south side of the station, hit the light poles, and slammed into the building on the bottom floor we would have reported it and believed it.

We wouldn't have blamed it on holograms.

If the NPT crowd would launch an investigation on the level that we have and interview dozens of witnesses and present that evidence I might be more open to their claims.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
In your radio interview, I think the only time you sounded out of your depth was when you stated "look at how WTC 7 fell...". It sounded more like a plea to believe you, rather than a statement made with the foundation of supporting facts.


Agreed.

I should have left that alone and gone into the FDR instead.

That is hard PROOF of a deception.

Bababooey was exactly correct about the dueling "experts".

I was only inspired to bring it up because an earlier caller already had and they all made some dumb comments as if it fell from "vibrations" from the collapse of the towers.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I should have left that alone and gone into the FDR instead.

No problem. You're big enough to admit a small error of judgement. The rest of the interview was fine. You were holding your own in hostile territory.

Anyway, I appreciate all of your research. Keep at it, until you manage to crack this thing wide open and expose it as the scandal that it is.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Notice the two callers other than Craig don't want to talk about the Pentagon, they want to talk about the WTC. There's this constant moving away from talking about the Pentagon specifically by the official story believers because the Pentagon attack was so obviously a hoax. There was a tiny hole and no plane wreckage, nuff said.

Craig, all you really have to ask those fools is why was so much of the Pentagon footage confiscated??? If there was really a plane it would be a slam dunk to show the footage. The reason, THEY CAN'T!!!!

Good job BTW Craig.


Peace



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   


NPT = no plane theories at the WTC meaning that the plane hitting the south tower on live television with thousands of witnesses standing below already focusing on the burning north tower was a "cartoon" or CGI or something.

I see it as baseless speculation.


WOW hmmm I think you are in the wrong track here, you are basically saying that NPT are nuts but your NPT its all right.
I am actually a lot more convinced that planes were not used in the WTC than at the pentagon. I don't think you are in the position to judge the NPT at all or at least you might want to really dig a little deeper you might discover a whole new world.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The attack on WTC was diabolical, beyond imagination.
Years in planning and carrying out.
I am sure there were weapons designed specifically for those buildings.
I am not a no-planer, but I think they were just the distraction, for the real weapons.
I admire the imagination of some of the no-planers and they are at least looking at the videos.
Webfairy is a good source for some video, other than straight off youtube.
I try not to knock them because most of them mean well.
I just point out where they are wrong.
I would love to have one prove a point.
Alex Jones mentioned the No-planer show, on the Howard Stern Channel, Yesterday, so that is why I am here.
I hope there are not plants, from the gov, promoting trash.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Notice the two callers other than Craig don't want to talk about the Pentagon, they want to talk about the WTC. There's this constant moving away from talking about the Pentagon specifically by the official story believers because the Pentagon attack was so obviously a hoax. There was a tiny hole and no plane wreckage, nuff said.

Craig, all you really have to ask those fools is why was so much of the Pentagon footage confiscated??? If there was really a plane it would be a slam dunk to show the footage. The reason, THEY CAN'T!!!!

Good job BTW Craig.


Peace


Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh maybe they wanted to talk about Ny because uuuuuuuuuuuuuh welll uuuuuuuum THEY ARE FROM NEW YORK?!?!?!

No I dont think that is it though, I could be wrong



[edit on 21-5-2008 by TheBobert]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join