The Alex Jones Show – L I V E – September 11th With William Engdahl & Ralph Nader

Prison Planet.tv
Thursday, September 11th, 2008

On this anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Alex talks with Rob Jacobson, Luke Rudkowski, and Jason Bermas from Ground Zero in New York. Alex also welcomes back economist and author F. William Engdahl. Bob Chapman of the International Forecaster also makes an appearance. In the second hour, Alex talks with independent presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, who is calling for an investigation of 9/11.  

http://prisonplanet.tv/members/livetv/LiveTV_Archive2.php?id=20080911_Thu_Alex

Not a prison planet.tv member? Consider the great benefits of subscribing – click here. 

 

• 
• Social bookmarks
• 
• Email this article
• 
• Print this page

Comment Terms Of Use

4 Responses to “The Alex Jones Show – L I V E – September 11th With William Engdahl & Ralph Nader”

1. portuguese anarchist Says:
   September 16th, 2008 at 6:59 am

   “Ralph Nader, a perennial ‘independent’ presidential candidate, “much admired for his anti-establishment stance,” is financed by the Rockefeller network in his attempt to destroy the free enterprise system. Principal Nader financiers are the Ford Foundation and the Field Foundation, both CFR-interlocked. According to a Business Week article reprinted in the Congressional Record of March 10, 1971, “John D. Rockefeller IV is an advisor to Nader.””

   http://www.danielestulin.com/?.....;idioma=en

2. Danny Says:
   September 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

   Wow thanks for that info Portuguese. It never even occurred to me. I wonder if he is still working for those elements or inadvertently it was just something he had to do career wise.

3. portuguese anarchist Says:
   September 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

   To Danny and all:

   I finally got a chance to hear the interview today.

   His statements about government crack down on corporations appear to confirm the quote I made from Estulin.

   I seriously doubt he has become some sort of dissident on “them” and been able to maintain a high-profile with the help of the controlled media and not been a victim of character assassination or reprisals.

   Calling for a new 9/11 investigation doesn’t necessarily mean he wants a *real* investigation or that, with all the easily available evidence, he is admitting he knows it was an inside job and might mean he just wants another more elaborated whitewash to try to silence the critics of the previous one. Some of whom, notice, he says make “outlandish” questions. Is there ever going to be such a new investigation? Should you spend your time and concentrate your efforts on that? If there’s a new investigation, who’s going to make it? The Government? The same organization that was responsible for the attacks? Like Alex says about Congress, the people in key positions have all already been bought and paid for! All the way up to the Supreme Court that gave George W. Bush the election. Would the investigation instead be made by one of “their” groups, foundations or controlled NGOs? Who would convict the government? The same judicial system that killed Stanley Hilton’s lawsuit?

   Two more things you should notice in the interview:

   Number one: He wants a “leading” opponent of the 9/11 Commission Report to debate it on TV. He wants a single person in a single debate to appear as a representation of the 9/11 Truth (grassroots) Movement. Would he be the one choosing the person in question? What more easy way to divert, misrepresent and distort the 9/11 Truth Movement’s message than to put one of “them” on that side of the debate. A debate at the National (controlled) Press Club? Under which rules would that debate take place and about what specific topics would it be about?

   Number two: He calls the Gulf of Tonkin and the 1898 incidents “provocations” not “false flag operations”. While calling for your votes, he conveniently uses a not very clear rhetoric making it appear he’s on your side. He says “yes” after Alex asks him if “governments do stage events and blame it on their enemies”, appearing to be on his side, and then slightly clarifies his position by calling them “provocations”. Almost surely, if someone asks him to be more clear about this, he will say he means the government provoked (teased) their enemies to the point that they ended up attacking his ships, so that the government would have a pretext to counter-attack and not what Alex is talking about.

   You have to be very aware of people who present themselves as your supporters and then try to either become leading critical “gatekeepers” that only point out to petty wrongdoings by the government and hide the (much more important and revealing) rest and people that lead you into traps, false solutions, or try to make you adopt counter-productive or time-wasting ineffective forms of struggle.

   Always think and decide for yourselves.

   Like someone who was part of a fake 9/11 investigation team said to me some years ago:

   “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
   — Vladimir I. Lenin

   *****

   “any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn’t matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious – so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.
   “This is the common feature between the seemingly dissimilar positions taken by members – they have a higher common objective in which clash of ideas is essential. So long as rights of the individual are not introduced into the discussion the clash of ideas generates the conflict necessary for change.
   “As the objective is also global control an emphasis is placed on global thinking, i.e., internationalism. This is done through world organizations and world law.”
   — Antony C. Sutton, “America’s Secret Establishment”

   “As a rhetorical technique, good cop, bad cop may refer to the joint effort to gain compliance from a community over an issue that is unpopular. The bad cop, who may be a politician, first may make statements regarding an issue that are considered extremely unpopular. The good cop then poses a moderate, compromising solution that seems preferable.”
   — http://www.wisegeek.com/what-i.....ad-cop.htm

4. portuguese anarchist Says:
   September 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am

   For those of you who might still come here, just to add something I didn’t say in the previous post, when I talk about a possible debate organized or promoted by Nader, I’m assuming that there’s ever going to be such a debate. But given the usual difference between what politicians say they’re going to do and what they actually do, I strongly suspect he’s just saying that in order to get the people who question 9/11 to vote for him.