It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


MP3 of Alex Jones, showing that guy smith is just ignorant to 911 truths.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:26 AM
Guy Smith is thee person who made the 911 documentary that showed on sunday. He went on Alex Jones radio yesterday, and he could not stand up at all to the statements that Alex was throwing at him.

Whatever you think of Alex, he really has investigated this 911 stuff, and he shows that Guy Smith is just ignorant to most of the best evidence that the 911 truths come up with.

Remember at the end of sundays show, when the narrator said that its just a conspiracy, with no evidence. This radio show below shows that Guy and his team, totally are denial about some real evidence. It was just clear on that radio show, it was always his intention to do a hit piece.

Just listen for yourselfs, and see does he answer any of alex's questions, in a way that an objective person would. Heres the clip

Alex on radio talking to guy smith, maker of the 911 bbc docu, in mp3

Any views, and please listen to the clip first before replying.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:16 AM
I am not a big alex jones fan. I had listened to him for a while, and feel that he is a good investigator, but he often goes too far with things, and easily alienates people.

He needs to get his emotions in check at times. I went to see him at a live event not too long ago, not because I am a "follower" but because I just wanted to see the guy in action. I talked to a lot of people there to get a feel for the crowd, and it really felt like I was in the middle of some sort of "cult of alex jones". When he got up there, he could have said some good things, but instead he spent the next hour yelling, screaming, and pumping his fist. It started to look like some sort of Hitler rally, and was so obnoxious, that I left. had it not been the fact that the place hosting the event sold beer, I would have left even earlier, as the one thing that made it seem a little less scary was being slightly intoxicated

So getting back on track. I would say that alex and the gang REALLY destroyed this guy smith gentleman, and the audio would have been great, and probably would have been a great thing for people on the fence about 9/11 to hear. But about an hour in, alex loses control of his emotions, and starts his mocking and taunting with guy smith, and it totally destroys everything that alex had built over the last hour.

9/11 needs more Steven Jones and Paul Watson's, and less Jim Fetzer's and Alex jones.

I am not saying that Alex Jones is not a FANTASTIC investigator, but I really think he needs to step out from behind the microphone and stick with his research, and allow someone else to deliver it.

Like it or not, he comes off as a lunatic, ESPECIALLY to the group of people they really need to win over in order to make 9/11 a dinner table topic.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by ReadilyUnavailable]

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:16 AM
Listening now. Alex Jones hasn't 'destroyed' Guy Smiths position yet, but he has comprehensively run rings round him.

If that sounds contradictory let me explain, Smith is only claiming they followed the the evidence and are not covering anything up. Smith has made a great case for the holes in the programme, but has not (yet - its still on) proven any sort of cover up.

One flaw I have noticed is that Alex Jones has claimed an audio from CNN clearly shows that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished and yet when he played the tape it does no such thing, the police officer only saying "get back, its going to blow up, its coming down". Jones however claims the officer says "we are blowing it up, we are brining it down".

These are not the same thing and I just wanted to note that before the programme moves on and I forget it.

edit ; Jones position has just weakened a little as he is sadly swaying off the topic and instead trying to pick holes in the British interpretation of the phrase 'drop-out'. This is irrelevant and Jones is wrong anyway (as is the Sheffield guy and I only live five miles away from there so I have to conclude that part is a stitch up)

edit2, now they've cut to the chase (at last) and Smith is on the ropes. It is clearly demonstrating his ignorance on the subject, but not that he is part of the cover up.

edit3, Why does Jones do this? Just when he is one the brink of absolute victory on the argument itself he has now started making pronouncements about the BBC that are purely off the top of his head and designed to destroy the credibility of Smith, in doing this he has lost the plot and has reminded me of the argument I've recently gone though on this site. He was doing so well before this and I was hoping for some clarification on WTC 7, but this has not been forthcoming, the one claim he has made in relation to this was blatantly false so, despite his overall mastery of this interview I am feeling a bit disappointed.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by waynos]

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:22 AM
ReadilyUnavailable -

I'm going to agree to disagree on your comments regarding Jones.

Yes - I do agree that he has a tendency to be over-fanatical at times. However, without Jones and other emotional supporters, the "Truth Movement" would lose the intensity that it has today.

I think alot of people within the movement need to embrace more of the emotional leaders - especially the younger generations - because we are the ones who are going to be dealing with many of these consequences directly, long after the Jim Fetzer's, Steven Jones, etc. are gone.

From my own experience and being a part of the "younger generation", I really feel that we have the potential to make or break this movement. We are also more emotional about it because we are the ones that at young ages saw the events, most of us no older than seniors in High School, and will be the ones paying the consequences in the long-run with the "War on Terror".

The Truth Movement as a whole must unite and quit dividing. We are already in too deep to let ourselves crumble from the inside out.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:53 AM

I understand what you are saying, but what you miss is that the "truth seekers" are not the ones that will bring the whole thing down.

If your endgame, and the reason for all the meetings, speeches, websites, videos, etc, is to bring the MASSES into agreement, and to bring about a showdown between the government and the MASSES, then the yelling and fanatical approach is not the way to go.

Please don't take this as a belittling comment, but I think that you are probably still a bit too young to understand the psychology of individuals in their late twenties through fourties, and on up.

When they see someone like alex jones ranting, raving, sweating, and spitting, all they see is an absolute lunatic, and ignore the importance of the message that he is trying to convey.

I am not debating whether or not these people are good investigators, and that their information has merit, but rather that they are in desperate need of someone else to make it pallatable.

I took someone with me to alex jones's event, and while they are a "fence sitter", they were TOTALLY turned off by what appeared to them to be a madman ranting and raving, a video (terror storm) that jumps all over the place and makes little sense to the NON 9/11 researcher, and a bunch of followers who appeared to be on some sort of jim jones kool-aid.

Coming into the bar like a bunch of millitants wearing a stupid shirt that says "ATF" Anti Tyranny Force is just stupid.

Yes it works with the younger generation, but that is not what REALLY matters right now.

By the time the younger generation is able to mkae the difference it will be too late, just like it is with JFK. 99% of the people involved will be out of office or have passed away. It won't matter then.

9/11 needs a whole new image if they wish to get SERIOUS coverage, and not just the hannity & colmbs straw man act.

The BBC video really reflected poorly on the community. The front men should not be able to have their video twisted and skewed so easily. Avery should not have brought this camera crew to his dilapited housein the middle of nowhere new york that looks like the same house terry nichols brother lived in, in that michael moore movie. It was easy to portray a "crazy backwoods moron" image with dillon avery.

Fetzer shouldn't have gone off on these lunatic rants. I realize the stuff was probably taken out of context, but any INTELLIGENT person, KNOWS thats what happens, and must be VERY mindful of how they portray themselves.

I must say, in the video, alex jones presented himself quite well, he had a suit on, was calm for the most part, and projected a good image. He needs to start sticking with that.

I guess there is a point where you need self reflection, and ask yourself, are you just portraying yourselves in a poor light in the most inopportune moments, OR are you really just teh lunatic raving madmen that you claim not to be.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:22 PM
I am not really big on Alex Jones either, he is entertaining and I like him to be around, but I do my research elsewhere.


There is no denying that he is a 'pit bull' that won't let go. He basically made the BBC guy look like someone who had an Agenda, by not putting on the Police Officer, or any other emergency responders(who believed there were bombs), to not talk about the bombs that were heard.

I disagree with the comment somone made on the clip Alex Jones played, he didn't repeat it exactly, but it is essentially the same thing, because the question is...How did these people KNOW THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BLOW UP??

Operation Northwoods for myself is very relevant, in that Gov's do plan and do things like False Flag Terrorism for many different reasons, it does show the planning process involved.

If Smith really meant his "let the people decide" then he should have included Operation Northwoods in the docu.

Furthermore with things like Operation Northwoods, it shows the history of how Gov's think. What the BBC producer was saying was that doesn't link the current adminstration, however that is like saying the MAFIA only commited crimes under certain leaders!

So, we don't need to investigate the new leaders or be suspicious when a hit goes down~!

Operation Northwoods is only the tip of the iceberg and I can only imagine what *Is Still CLASSIFIED*

How in the world was the *FUNDING* of ATTA left out? How was the BBC un-biased?? They were totally biased and Alex and his people showed that completly with this point.

I think we need Alex Jones as well as needing people who hold the opposite viewpoint, it helps people get the story right.

The BBC Producer looked very bad in this, and I found myself wondering why kind of evidence was he looking for?

Was he looking only for an absolute *smoking gun*??

Well in the real world often times this type of evidence is not available, it isn't always available in a court of law but you can begin to build your case based ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

And on that Smith failed completley, he didn't even respond to all the circumstantial stuff, he just kept saying :" thats not evidence".

Well, frankly saying "That's not evidence" is evidence of nothing as well! He couldn't give any logical accounting of such thinking.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by talisman]

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:31 PM
I listened to the entire 3 hour show.

Guy smith without a doubt was doing a hit piece.

As for the "drop out" he was accusing the loose change creator as being a drop out, How is that not trying to destroy his credibility? Instead of going after the ball he goes after the player.

Alex Jones trounced this guy.

Guy Smith is a biased boob, he already had his mind made up the moment he started making his film.

Listen to Alex Jones live 2-5 CST and refeed 9-12

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Lysergic]

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:33 PM
Talisman, I agree we need alex jones around, and he did destroy this smith character and made him look like a fool. But in reality, no one cares about this EXCEPT for the 9/11 truth community. If you played that for an "outsider", they would have no clue what was going on, but would instead hear a guy(smith) who never lost his cool, and jones starting to make personal attacks on smith.

While it was amusing for us, it amounts to nothing but a big circle jerk.

My harsh criticism of Jones is not because I dislike him, I think he is a true patriot and a great man trying to make a difference in this world. He just CANNOT be the public face of the 9/11, just like Jim Fetzer.

And yes, depite the fact that bill gates was a dropout and the richest man in the world, the general public isvery superficial. But it's not the ONLY thing.

We need good public speakers who keep their cool, and have credentials to back it all up as the face of 9/11 truth.

Steven Jones, Paul Watson, etc, need to get more facetime. Paul Watson is often thought of as a young sidekick of Jones, but this guy has really got the smarts, and the credentials to make an impression on the sheeple.

This movement really needs a complete makeover IMO.

Dillon Avery is a good guy, I respect him a lot, and I think he is a smart guy. But he really is in over his head when he has to start debating. Jones is good, but I would agree he starts to get overwhelmed as well.

So far, the only guy I have really heard in this movement that seems to be able to handle direct scrutiny and at the same time keep his cool is Paul Watson. But I don't think he is that comfortable with being a "frontman".

I know I am kinda rambling right now, but I am trying to throw some things out there.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:08 PM
I know we're all different but I never got the impression of Smith having an agenda, only of him not knowing nearly as much as he thought he did.

I disagree with the comment somone made on the clip Alex Jones played, he didn't repeat it exactly, but it is essentially the same thing, because the question is...How did these people KNOW THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BLOW UP??

That was my comment so I will reply with how I heard it. No, you are right, it wasn't exactly what was said, this is my first bone of contention because Jones repeatedly claimed that it was *exactly* what was said and that it could be *clearly* heard. To me this is Jones hearing what he wants to hear and trying to force that view on everyone else because although it *could* have the same meaning, it could also mean that they had simply seen the damage and knew what the result was likely to be, this is not even unusual, never mind unlikely, so it is far from being the conclusive proof that Jones purports it to be. There is a big enough margin for interpretation to be applied and I suspect Jones knows this which is why he reworded the 'quote' just enough to mean what he thinksd it means whenever it was mentioned. Otherwise why not simply quote it word for word? He has obviously heard it often enough to know it by heart. It is because there is too much ambiguity in actual wording.

That is actually the only part of your reply that I can definitely disagree with as on the other points you are right that Smith offered nothing in return. This does not prove that Jones is right of course, but Smith did nothing to promote the opposite view and was unable to conclusively disprove anything that Jones threw at him.

In fact, I don't know if you noticed, but the point I have picked up on here was not even mentioned by Smith at all, he just let it ride, if he even noticed it. Very slack.

Although he said he'd be happy to come back for another go, I bet he didn't really mean it

[edit on 20-2-2007 by waynos]

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by ReadilyUnavailable
Please don't take this as a belittling comment, but I think that you are probably still a bit too young to understand the psychology of individuals in their late twenties through fourties, and on up.

I do take this as a belittling comment - although I try hard not to. I am almost done with undergraduate studies at a very good university for my major. This very "reasoning" that most adults try and press on the youth of not understanding the mindset of the older folk is the same reasoning that makes us youth even more powerful.

You, as the older folk of the movement, must understand that we are the future. In thirty years, you will all be long gone or close to it while we are the ones who are in the same shoes you are today.

I had the opportunity to be a part of an excellent conference last month the night before the "anti-War" march in Washington and I was one of three or four younger scholars there talking. We were treated as equal among a crowd that I was surprised to be around. Guys like Webster Tarpley, Matt Sullivan, Les Jamieson, and many others who are much older than I. We were treated equally because that is what this movement is about - equality. We are all Americans fighting for the same thing and age - a random variable in this whole calculation - should not justify reasoning for not giving us the same sort of power and respect we deserve.

9/11 needs a whole new image if they wish to get SERIOUS coverage, and not just the hannity & colmbs straw man act.

I agree with everything you are saying that we must find that common medium between the extreme emotional side of the debate and those who want to use pure logic - but what I just said is true... we need to FIND that medium.

Aleinating the movement to strictly scholarly arguments will not do good in convincing the American public. There's an argument that many truthers feel needs to be justified and that is the fact that those scholars "flex too much muscle" in their talks with the general public about 9|11.

The public does not know nor care about thermite and thermate explosions or the possibility of that within the towers. The public cannot comprehend the idea of the Flight Data Recorder and the barometric pressure readings informalities in comparison to that of the Commission Report's findings. What they need to know - in order to touch base and open their mind - is the emotional, less "flexing the muscle" side of things.

They need to start easy. Asking questions about the confession tapes, asking questions about the squibs forty stories below the debris line, asking questions about Pakistani Intelligence Officials wiring money to lead hijacker Muhammad Atta. Then, when they form the interest, that is when the scholars can come in. It's just a matter of finding that fine line. No matter which direction we approach it from - we're all kooks in the eyes of people who have already made up their mind.

And - as for the younger generation once more - If I recall correctly it was Dylan Avery and a bunch of other younger gentleman the same age as I who createda documentary that literally ripped wide open the truth movement. No matter how deviated their documentary was, there is not one person who cannot deny the publicity Loose Change has given to the movement as a whole. Who was it that made the difference in rallying against the Vietnam war? Who was it that made the difference in civil rights in America? Yes, we had the older leaders, but it was the strength of the youth that was able to rise up.

All I ask is that the truth movement embraces the younger generation not only socially - but as equals as well. I can't tell you the number of heads I turned in DC spewing facts about 9|11 in debates with older people. All I'm asking for is to have faith in the youth because we have faith in you, our country, and the movement.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by ReadilyUnavailable
So far, the only guy I have really heard in this movement that seems to be able to handle direct scrutiny and at the same time keep his cool is Paul Watson. But I don't think he is that comfortable with being a "frontman".

i heard him last night, and my impression is also he does not want to be a front man, he just sounds so quiet. at this time all the 911 truth seekers have is really alex jones. even though he admits he did not do much in education terms, if he had a masters degree in something i do think more would listen to him.

I also agree with the person who said, that they should of not let themselves be in those positions, to be in a bad light. Hopefully they know now not to take people at face value, because its a dog eat dog world.

for the person saying what do they hope to gain, is simply this. In the real world conspiracies really happen, and the fact they have rubbished the words conspiracy theory, it makes truth seekers jobs much harder.

All these people want really is that people acknoledge that conspiracies really do happen, and for people to see that. This is all people can hope for.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:55 PM
TruthseekerMP, I think you kinda got the wrong impression of what I said, and that is probably my fault in the way I portryed it.

I PERSONALLY do not think your points, your research, and you as a person are any less valuable than me, or any of the researchers. In fact, I think a lot of the 9/11 guys are on theopposite side of the spectrum, old and out of touch.

If I met you at an event, I would certainly treat you with just as much respect as anyone else.

What I am getting at, is I don't think the youth sometimes understand how to approach the older generation. I don't mean the older generation that is IN the 9/11 movement, I mean the older generation who has no clue.

A guy like dillon avery or an alex jones type is gonna make them say "look at this punk kid, what does he know, why does he keep saying man and dude". Look at this alex jones guy, he is so loud and obnoxious, he reminds me of those television evangelists that scammed everyone in the 80's".

I certainly don't agree with their assessments, I think a lot of the older generation is EXTREMELY out of touch, but we have to find a way to get in touch with them.

They respond to level headed reasoning, and soothing voices...

Yes, I realize that loose change has brought a lot of people into the movement, but it is mostly high school and college age kids.

I am not saying these people are unimportant, and most of them are probably more intelligent than the older generation. The problem is, if you don't get at the core group of say 30-60 year olds, you are never going to get the votes, etc, to get bozo's like this out of town.

Yes, in 20 years, this country may be fine, but don't we want this settled NOW while it is still fresh in the minds of the american people, while these guilty of treason can be put in prison.

My fear is that the 9/11 movement has become very myopic. Instead focusing on EXACTLY what happened, they need to start focusing on HOW they can get the message out EFFECTIVELY to the rest of the nation and the world that something is WRONG.

The 9/11 movement seems to think that if they can just find the smoking gun, then everything will fall into place. It won't. If you cannot present the evidence properly, and in a way that is received by the masses, no one will listen.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:35 PM
Alex Jones is just an idiot who gets a kick out of trying to "Expose" everyone and everything weither their is a conspiracy or not.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:48 PM
I liked the part when the guy was corrected for calling Dylan a college drop out.... Dylan corrected him by saying... Im not a drop out, I applied twice and was rejected. (not the exact quote) Way to go Dylan!

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:02 PM
Two things I look for when deciding if there is bias...

An attempt to use emotion before facts. This is a common trick. This is something that's used to 'assualt' your oppponent and listeners into thinking that you must be right/truthful, because you truly believe in something. Hitler was great at this. Get the masses pumped and then they're open to suggestion. You see this at sporting venues, etc, etc...

Is the 'interviewer' actually trying to hear a side of the story, or is it a witch hunt? It wouldn't matter if this guy had video from 15 different angles of the planes going into the buildng frame by frame, they would be explained away as a dis-info attempt by AJ. This is a great Rush/Oreily method.

So AJ has long since decided what occured. Now its not about facts anymore, it's about who is a more convincing speaker.

I can place a check next to both criteria here...

The only thing I heard is someone that can talk better than others. I've argued people into a corner trying to prove their own existance to me... and thre's no questioning that... but it's fun to do.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:05 PM
When it comes to Alex Jones and 911 my opinion is close to Daryl Bradford Smiths;

"Don't be fooled by Alex Jones,, Bob Bowman, Mike Berger, Professor Jim Fetzter, Webster Tarpley, Kurt Nimmo, DailyKos, Wayne Madsen, Mike Ruppert, Aaron Ruso and Jordan Maxwell"

Also Stanley Praimnath brings up several important issues here;

AJ seems to focus on unimportant detail while overlooking the important facts. Firemen start small fires to fight a big one, and Alex Jones and behaves as firemen; they tell small truths to cover the Big Ones. Thats why AJ talks the way he does; personal attack and so on.

Alex Jones summary;
Altogh Daryl does seems to be a bit paranoid... but being paranoid does not prove he is wrong !

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Royal76
Alex Jones is just an idiot who gets a kick out of trying to "Expose" everyone and everything weither their is a conspiracy or not.

by this statement all you've done is shown yourself as the one trying to get a kick outta "exposing" alex jones whether you have any facts or depth to your argument or not.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:57 PM
Whether Alex Jones is credible or not Guy didn't fair well in this debate. It was obvious that Alex had a far greater body of knowledge to use against Guy. He seemed like he was just hired to do his hit piece without a great amount of prior knowledge and spent the whole time playing catch up.

My theory is that Guy probably doesn't realise that the reason he was selected to produce this doco would have been based on his previous work. I'm sure if one was to look into it they would find he has a history of producing very conservative pro government docos.

So when Guy said that he was not pushing an agenda on behalf of the Government he was probably telling the truth. What he doesn't realise is that his own bias against conspiracy theories which is clearly evident would have been the tool used by any powers that be. He may be unaware that he is a Government proxy, but whoever was responsible for choosing him to produce this doco would have done so knowing what result would come of it.

Does this make sense??

[edit on 20/2/07 by mustbebc]

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:48 PM

Here is a short video that has A LOT of good information!

[edit on 20-2-2007 by GwionX]

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:21 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
I liked the part when the guy was corrected for calling Dylan a college drop out.... Dylan corrected him by saying... Im not a drop out, I applied twice and was rejected. (not the exact quote) Way to go Dylan!

I give him credit for saying that in the first place. And if you knew anything about the school he applied to, you'd know that it really is not an easy school to be accepted in under the undergraduate study he wanted to do.

But hey, I'm sure you have the credentials of a rocket scientist!

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in