This afternoon Neil Conan told a man he was going to hang up on him, and he did so. Mr. Conan said that it had been scientifically proved that the towers had fallen from the airplanes that hit them...he was not going to give the man a chance to continue his statement to the effect that we need more investigation. I do not have a twitter or facebook connection, but it would be great if someone who does would address Mr. Conan's hanging up on what I consider at the very least free speech. Talk of the Nation should be what it says it is.
* * *
Call "Talk of the Nation" at (800) 989-8255
Calling in to NPR and other general-audience radio shows may be the best way to keep 9/11 truth in the national conversation.
So please call in to any and all NPR shows - and tailor your comments (and what you say to the screeners) to the shows' (and screeners') needs.
The shows, and screeners, want certain kinds of calls more than others. Most NPR shows have a flat-out "no 9/11 truth" policy, which is not just indefensible, but treasonous and murderous - the moral and legal equivalent of the work of Dr. Goebbels, only worse* - and should be subverted in every way possible short of lethal violence. So you can and must refrain from mentioning 9/11 truth to the screeners! Getting on those shows, by whatever means necessary, is your patriotic duty!
Here's why getting on the air is such a challenge:
"The first thing to remember is that Talk of the Nation is live radio. Well, almost live. There is a seven-second delay in broadcasting the program. That gap is there in the event that the listener gets on but then wants to talk about something else — or worse — so the studio director must be able to terminate the call. Occasionally, some callers have been known to 'bait-and-switch.' They tell the screener that, yes, they do want to discuss the day’s topic. But once they are on the air, they start to opine on a pet peeve. That’s when the audio trap door springs open and the caller vanishes. But aside from that, Talk of the Nation is as live as radio can be."
Given this format, the way to get 9/11 truth into the conversation is simple:
1) Find a connection between "today's topic" and 9/11 truth.
2) Prepare a summary of your point that does not mention 9/11 truth, and give that to the screener.
3) When you get on the air, introduce your point without mentioning 9/11 truth, continue the exposition well past the seven-second cutoff point, and finally deliver 9/11 truth as the punchline to your comment.
This approach is perfectly legitimate and considerate of NPR's and the host's need to stay on topic. People call up and make connections between "today's topic" and other issues all the time! It is unjust for NPR to single out 9/11 truth, the most important issue of the century, for censorship, while allowing people to discuss connections between "today's topic" and other less-important issues.
NPR tells us:
We are looking for callers that can advance the story by giving us unique stories and opinions that broaden our coverage. We let listeners know at the top of the show exactly what we are looking for and who. It will be different for each show. Callers who respond to what we ask are the most likely to get on. Most often, we ask for personal stories that can shed light on the topic we are covering… Sometimes we ask for questions that will expand the story. Often listeners have questions that we have not thought of and their questions can help make a topic more relevant to our listeners' concerns. Sometimes it's more important to get opinions. We make a great effort to balance the range of opinions we air on any topic and not repeat the same opinion.
This is all perfectly legitimate. Try to find a way to address "today's topic" that responds to the show's needs, and works in 9/11 truth as a punchline.
For example, I recently heard an NPR interview with "Professor X," the disillusioned adjunct professor whose book In the Basement of the Ivory Tower argues that many totally unprepared students are wasting their time and money by going to college. I tried to call in, only to discover it was a re-run. Had I connected, here's what I would have said.
Screener: "Hello, this is Talk of the Nation. What would you like to talk about?"
Me: "During the past ten years, I have taught at a top-tier public university, a Catholic college, and a bottom-rung private college, and I wanted to share those experiences. Unlike Professor X, I found that the top-tier university kids were generally well-prepared. But at the private college - whoa! Completely unbelievable! The place was a scam."
Screener: "Okay, please stand by, you're the third caller in line."
A few minutes later:
Host: "Welcome to Talk of the Nation."
Me: "Hi Neil, great to be with you. I wanted to tell Professor X that my teaching experiences haven't been exactly like his. I taught at the University of Wisconsin - Madison from 1995 until 2006, and found that for the most part the students there were reasonably well-prepared, with flashes of occasional excellence. But then in 2006 I left the University of Wisconsin and found a job at one of those admit-anybody-with-a-pulse private colleges. About 95% of the students there were totally unprepared for college-level work. It was a lot like you describe."
Guest: "Why did you leave the University of Wisconsin?" (the obvious question)
Me: "Well, it's kind of a long story. Want to hear the short version?"
Host: "Please go ahead."
Me: "Well, it was a big academic freedom case. To make a long story short, I was witch-hunted out of the University by Republican state legislators because I had publicly discussed the results of my research on 9/11, which indicated that 9/11 was unquestionably a false-flag operation. If your listeners are curious about this, they should google "W-T-C 7 smoking gun." That's "W-T-C 7 smoking gun..."
At this point they'll either steer the topic back to other aspects of my teaching career, or cut me off.
Note that I've gotten on the air, given them what they want ("personal stories that can shed light on the topic") and engaged them in conversation. It will be hard for them to make that snap decision to cut me off.
Obviously it isn't always this easy for everyone to work 9/11 truth into an NPR conversation. But with some creative imagination - and the willingness to meet the shows' expectations halfway - it can be done.
- - -
* The genocidal propaganda of the "radical Muslims did 9/11" variety is worse than that of Goebbels, because the former incorporates the illusion of freedom, anti-racism, "democracy," etc., while the Nazi propagandists were at least honest about the hatred, bigotry and unfreedom they were purveying. A prison that you know is a prison is a much more free place than a prison effectively disguised as something else.
Labels: 9/11 activism, 9/11 truth, academic freedom, call-in, censorship, false-flag, free speech, inside job, national public radio, npr, talk radio