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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Sorry for the confusion. You'r right the wrap up show is not on HowardTV I was just referring to the episode.




posted on May, 22 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Hi Craig,

Kudos for having the balls to call in and share your views. May I offer a couple of observations?

1. The Howard Stern show is not the place to discuss serious topics, with serious people. That is, if you want to be taken seriously. The HS show - IMO - is a circus act of freaks. Nothing wrong with that, per se.........if you want to be entertained. Unfortunately, you were used as something to be laughed at - part of the entertainment and nothing more. The typical audience of the HS show is not listening for constructive, thoughtful debate. They are listening for the (often – IMO) gross nonsense that makes up a lot of his show. Again, nothing wrong with the show. If you like that sort of thing, more power to you! I am suggesting that this was a really, really poor choice for airing your views.

2. Keeping in mind number 1 (above); they weren't listening to you or trying to honestly engage you. They were trying to provoke you (for entertainment) into rants. They succeeded. Meaning: they were more interested in how you were communicating, not the meat of the nut so-to-speak.

3. What you may think is passionate came across as manic, bordering (and crossing IMO twice) on unstable. You claim you were a little over the top (my paraphrasing, not yours) so they would keep you on the air. I have no reason to disbelieve you, so I take you at your word. The constructive critique centers around the notion that your intended audience has/had no idea of your strategy and hence, you come off sounding – and frankly (at points) acting - completely unglued. Subtleties only work when the intended audience is ‘in on it’. Otherwise, in a medium like radio, the audience goes off of what’s right in front of them.

To a skeptic and outside observer (admittedly hostile to your point of view) you called into one of the last places I would go for any serious discussion and came off sounding – frankly – fairly loony. I am not saying you are loony, just that you sounded that way. People who know nothing about you came away with more confirmation (to them) that the 9-11 club is made up of the kind of people that call into radio shows and make disjointed rants.

If you were trying to rally the troops, so to speak, you succeeded no doubt about that. However, if you were trying to spread the gospel……what people heard was far from what you intended. As others have said: the truth message was delivered but, I don’t think it’s at all what you intended. After all, if the truth club is to ever be taken seriously you need to cater your message to those who don’t believe or have (justly deserved IMO) preconceived notions.

I know this criticism is harsh, but not intentionally to hurt your feelings or flame you.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Actually not harsh at all.

In fact I agree with just about all of it and I appreciate the reasoned response and words of advice.

But you are over analyzing the situation a bit.

Howard Stern is one of my guilty pleasures and one of the few times in the day where I typically DON'T think about 9/11.

The fact that they were discussing 9/11 truth became an opportunity for me and I seized it.

Could I have done it differently and made some better points?

Sure!

Am I surprised that the Bababooey and the gang were reluctant to believe me?

Of course not!

Nothing I said would have convinced them and I knew this.

But knowing the show I also knew that if I was animated and quick that they might keep me on longer and they did!

But convincing Bababooey wasn't the goal. The goal was to get thousands of people who never consider 9/11 truth to come to my website and look into it further.

It worked!

Fabulously.

The response has been phenomenal as the spike in views on our site was off the chain and the significant number of email responses I have received from HS listeners have actually been about 90% positive.

Thanks again for your concern.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
first off, great job Craig.

Secondly, , I'm still picking my jaw up off the floor, after hearing that guy say "so what, if it was a deception?, who cares it is, what it is, move on."

"What are you gonna do about it.?" he says.

Well obviously your doing something. These people scare the hell out of me. It's sheep like that jack off, that allow our government to pull crap like this and get away with it.

Man I woulda been kicked off that show, cause after he sais, "just move on", it woulda been *beep, ba-beep, beeeeeeeeep*, you beep*, beep*in, beep*er, prick!

Man just knowing there is people out there that would spew something like that.....I feel sick right now just thinking about it. I'd like to.....ah forget it, I won't even go into what i'd like to do with that guy.

Anyhow, it's amazing how many people there are out there, that no nothing of what happened on 9/11.

But good job again hanging in there Craig, they may think you came across sounding like a nut case, but I don't , and you did good by saying your acting crazy becaause you believe so strongly about the subject.

I'm sure they were also a bit shocked when they thought they were gonna get you to hang yourself when they said "well what if we sent gary the retard out and he brought evidence in to the contrary?" and you said, you'd look at it, and if it was plausible and correct, you'd accept it. (i dont remember your exact words sorry if I'm misquoting you). But i'm sure you blew them back with that response, i think they were looking for a totally different reaction.

I, personally wouldn't have been able to hold it together.

Good job again, and sorry, if I misquoted you again, just trying to make the point, I know that's not what was said word for word. Just trying to get the general idea I had out.

What i'm saying is you did a good job of not letting them push your buttons. Like Benjii(wtf, i hate that guy, what kind of name is that? wasn't that a famous dog?)with the WWE stuff, he was trying to get a reaction from you, and probably also try to change the subject to something he's actually knowlegable in, haha. Again good job not falling into the multiple traps they laid for you, and keeping as cool a . as you could


Starred and flagged.


[edit on 22-5-2008 by Nola213]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I thought he was a sex show.
Well porno took over 911 on youtube so that caught his attention.
Take your age off the channel info and live a porno free life.

911 was a magic show... where did the core beams go...
Give me a F E O 2 ALS what do you spell THERMATE

What does it do.. make core bean disseapear into dust.

Such a high technical miracle to amaze the people.

Suffer the last judgment on your own cause I'm gona tell.

ED: Fixed a miss type, waiting for Mr As reply, if it was for me.
Hop around Cassidy was almost as good.
ED: Must check Anonymous ATS conditions, referencing must be
out because what anonymous could anyone be talking to, quite
unfair. That means just flat statement are allowed.





[edit on 5/22/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 5/22/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Craig,
You appeared to become very very angry. A poster above cited unglued which I would agree.
The 2 moments of anger:
1) The WWE comment
2) The Gary the retard comment
Are you saying you were ONLY ACTING angry and playing it up?
Were you angry?



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Craig,
There were 2 instances when it seemed you became very very angry
1) The WWE comment
2) The gary the retard comment.
Are you saying that you were acting when sounded angry and your voice shot up 10 octives?



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Craig,

Good job trying to get the word out there. The Stern show may not be the best way of doing it since they are such a bunch of tools on that show but at this point any publicity for the most part is good. Personally, I can barely listen to Howard anymore. He'll bitch and moan about people in the government and the crap they pull yet he believes everything they say about 9/11. How ignorant. He even admitted in the Jesse Ventura interview that he knew nothing. He should shut the hell up if he doesn't know anything. Heck, I'm even pissed at his cohorts Bubba the Love Sponge, they were all over Ron Paul there for a while now they are backing Obama. Spineless, if you ask me.

Oh well, it's the media, what should I expect? Truth? I think not.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 


The word for Stern's situation.. captured by the Illuminati.

Don't make waves...

Well in his favor... he didn't spend two years noticing 911 web pages
and forums to see the questions and shifty answers.


He has to boggle his way through sexual people and not recount
all the conspiracies from events of 911.

ED: I heard the show, Craig. Good testimony.
They will not dive into any controversy.
They suck on the tit of Tesla's 100 year old radio invention.
They are nothing to look up to.


[edit on 5/23/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 5/23/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
But it really isn't absolutely necessary (to interview witnesses) to prove that there was no plane crash there. All one needs to do is look at a still picture. The same thing goes for Shanksville, AND, yes, even the WTC's! After all four 'attacks' there were neither hide nor hair of traces of those (huge) aircraft. So, regardless of what was 'reported', filmed, and said, THERE WERE NO PLANES. Sometimes it doesn't matter what people think they 'see'. It's the physical realities on the ground which determine what is and what isn't. I didn't hear Paula Gloria. But you may be way wrong for calling her 'a nutcase'.



Man I'm sorry I didn't respond to this because your posts are always totally awesome and every single one of them deserves a response.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the bold.

Looking at a picture is not proof Wiz.

Independently corroborated verifiable evidence that is devoid of opinion or interpretation is proof.

I agree that looking at a picture is enough to be convinced and/or suspicious enough to motivate you to go find proof.

Certainly the pre-collapse images of the Pentagon were enough to make me look further.

But proof can only be definitive hard evidence.

That is what we seek to provide and what we are 100% certain we have achieved particularly when considering the data we have yet to release.

Stay tuned Wiz.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Craig,
Will the "researchers edition" that you have been promising for over a year be released so that you can FINALLY fulfill your promises of hearings to begin?
I mean you wouldnt sit on the evidence would you?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Hello Craig Ranke!

Thanks for the compliments. Sometimes it takes all of us a while to respond. But that's okay. That's the beauty of inernet forums -- it doesn't matter when one retorts. There's no pressure, no threat of being cut off, like on Howard Stern's talk shows.
(Bastards!)

Sometimes pictures are proof, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they're real and sometimes they're fake. Your witness interviews at the Pentagon prove that there was a flyover. The 9-11 pictures at the Pentagon show that there was no plane crash, because, well, -- since there is nothing remotely resembling a plane wreck to be seen there! It doesn't matter what the news stations say. It doesn't matter what deranged 'eye witnesses' say/said. If it's not on the photos, it never happened.

Now of course, many will protest vehemently that the 9-11 WTC films show planes. Well, indeed it is true, on film, however crappy, there are flying blobs shown smashing into the twin towers. If this had happened in reality, then there would have to be photographic evidence of this (non-)event AFTER the impact. But, lo and behold, there is NONE.

NOTHING was filmed in the streets around the WTC. NO 'LIVE' REPORTS were made showing plane wreckage. NO REMNANTS of AA11 or UA175 were exhibited on television on the morning of 9-11. All that was shown were the 'smoking' towers. Why do you think that's the case? The answer is simple. Because it would have been technically impossible to 'fake' such footage, i.e remains of huge Boeings 757/767's smoldering in the streets of NYC.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/25/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods


NOTHING was filmed in the streets around the WTC. NO 'LIVE' REPORTS were made showing plane wreckage. NO REMNANTS of AA11 or UA175 were exhibited on television on the morning of 9-11. All that was shown were the 'smoking' towers. Why do you think that's the case? The answer is simple. Because it would have been technically impossible to 'fake' such footage, i.e remains of huge Boeings 757/767's smoldering in the streets of NYC.



I agree that it likely wasn't from AA11 or UA175 but there were remnants.






posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Howdie Craig, again!

You already know what I think about those pictures -- they're FA-AKE!!
The two with the jet engine cores are fake because they show a type which is not used on Boeing 757 or 767 (per John Lear and colleagues) and the bystanders are clearly 'uninterested' which means the picture had to have been taken BEFORE 9-11. Also it's cute how the Murray street sign is placed in front of the part -- reeks of being staged!

But that's neither here nor there. What's important is that on 9-11, during the entire time after the two 'plane impacts' only the smoldering towers were filmed. Hardly any the newstations were swooping their cameras through the streets around the WTC to show what was going on at ground level, i.e. on the surface of the road pavement. Why not? What is it the media didn't want us to see? No one is supposed to have known that the towers would 'crumble'! So why weren't the cameras concentrated toward the plane wreckage on the ground -- don't news crews normally go where the 'action' is? Why the never-ending 'boring' shots of smoky towers?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Howdie Craig, again!

You already know what I think about those pictures -- they're FA-AKE!!
The two with the jet engine cores are fake because they show a type which is not used on Boeing 757 or 767 (per John Lear and colleagues) and the bystanders are clearly 'uninterested' which means the picture had to have been taken BEFORE 9-11. Also it's cute how the Murray street sign is placed in front of the part -- reeks of being staged!


Well here is video footage too:


You can see the small piece still smoking when they zoom in!

So let me get this straight......is this a "cartoon" or did they dump this engine off a truck and stage the scene?

I'd be more inclined to believe the latter but I don't believe either.

Particularly as busy as the streets obviously were with pedestrians.

Plus if they faked it you'd think they would use the correct part. No?

As I said I do not believe the original planes hit the towers so if the part doesn't match it is more evidence to me that it really came from the impact.




But that's neither here nor there. What's important is that on 9-11, during the entire time after the two 'plane impacts' only the smoldering towers were filmed. Hardly any the newstations were swooping their cameras through the streets around the WTC to show what was going on at ground level, i.e. on the surface of the road pavement. Why not? What is it the media didn't want us to see? No one is supposed to have known that the towers would 'crumble'! So why weren't the cameras concentrated toward the plane wreckage on the ground -- don't news crews normally go where the 'action' is? Why the never-ending 'boring' shots of smoky towers?


I would hardly call the WTC burning gash "boring".

There is a lot of footage Wiz.

Clearly the footage of the building itself would be the most compelling and the most repeated.

I would think that debris on the ground would be considered extremely "boring" compared to that.

There wasn't a whole lot of time before the collapse either.

I can't imagine how any news outlet would see the ground as more compelling footage.

But lo and behold there IS footage of debris on the ground even though you said there was none.

Clearly that is incorrect.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Plus if they faked it you'd think they would use the correct part. No?


Craig...

WOW... you ARE a thinker. I don't care what anyone has said in the past.

I agree...

Why would they government plant FDR with the wrong flight path?

why would the government doctor a video only to mess it up?

Oh.. i could go on ..........



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Plane parts neatly dropped like a pile of poop.
Sirens in NY are every day.
Those parts most likely invoked the missile or small plane theories.
Or the fake evidence theory.
People were running from the area not walking by in normal order.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt


Craig...

WOW... you ARE a thinker. I don't care what anyone has said in the past.



Nice sarcasm.

That is not conducive to civil discussion.

Courtesy is mandatory here.



Why would they government plant FDR with the wrong flight path?

why would the government doctor a video only to mess it up?

Oh.. i could go on ..........


Quite simple....because the plane did not hit the building in Arlington which is why it was not caught on live tv and all the security footage was confiscated and only leaked if it didn't show anything conclusive.

You see Wiz?

This is why NPT is so harmful. I strongly believe it is cointelpro designed to keep people away from the Pentagon discussion.

The planes hitting the towers are what conditioned everyone's mind to believe that the plane hit the Pentagon.

The south tower impact was the Zapruder shot on steroids that would be used to mentally manipulate millions for years to come.

But obviously the perpetrators had no intention of completely demolishing the Pentagon, their home base.

They could not risk the random uncontrolled damage that would be incurred from a plane hit plus the risk of failure would be too great.

The final maneuver attributed to flight 77 is (not the loop but the final descent after the VDOT antenna) is aeronautically impossible.

The plane would have broken up before it hit the building if the FDR altitude is even close to accurate and we know this for a fact.













[edit on 26-5-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


So, what your saying is:

The government was careful in not planting the wrong plane parts at the WTC.

but

Was not AS careful regarding the evidence that was "planted" at the Pentagon?

Gotcha!

Kind of like your witnesses talk of the NOC and seeing the impact of the airplane...

but

We only believe that they saw the NOC and NOT the impact.

Yeah... I got it.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join