On Saturday, July 29, 2006, C-Span allowed radio host Alex Jones and a panel of people Jones considers "experts" to talk for two hours about the ongoing 9/11 "conspiracy theory".

::::::::

I listen to talk radio. I've tried listening to Limbaugh, Hannity and other so called "conservatives", but when they start calling people names or say something that's obviously untrue, I turn to progressive radio.

The most balanced and fair progressive radio host is Thom Hartmann. He actually invites people who don't agree with him to be on his show. He debates them and, in my biased opinion, he usually wins.

He's courteous to his guests, no matter what their opinions are.

I've called into Thom's show. I've been able to say most of what I want to say and he usually gives as much of an answer as possible.

Hartmann is a knowledgeable historian, lucid and articulate.

Ed Schultz is another talk show host. He considers himself a progressive. He is center of left . He changed stripes somewhere along his career from conservative to progressive, so the center of left position is understandable.

On Saturday, July 29, 2006, C-Span allowed radio host Alex Jones and a panel of people Jones considers "experts" to talk for two hours about the ongoing 9/11 "conspiracy theory".

I have progressive friends who can't bring themselves to believe that the official explanation of what happened on September 11, 2001 is untrue. I've given them books, including the two by David Ray Griffin, and I've pointed them towards videos that expose how impossible the official explanation is.

If one looks at one or two pieces of the evidence, one may be able to claim that evidence is a fluke or a coincidence. However, there is a boatload of evidence, situations and circumstances that, when taken together, make it obvious that the official account is not accurate.

My progressive friends read the books and watched the videos and still can't bring themselves to believe that people in the American government would do such a thing. They love America and don't want to believe that Americans could elect people who would be involved in something so nefarious and monstrous as the events of 9/11. I understand that.

Someone called the Thom Hartmann program and asked him why he thought that World Trade Center Building #7 collapsed in exactly the same manner as buildings 1 and 2, although 7 was never hit by an airplane. Hartmann said that he'd read and heard about that anomaly and just doesn't know how it could have happened. He gave the caller no less time nor courtesy than he gives other callers. Hartmann admitted that one just doesn't know what goes on "behind the scenes". Hartmann did not say that he believes the alternative theories about 9/11. I believe he doesn't because, if one begins to look into the alternative theories, given how great a crime they imply, one would do almost nothing but dwell upon those theories.

In striking contrast, Schultz has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe that "America hit itself" on 9/11/01.

Those of us who think that there's an alternative explanation don't believe "America hit itself" on 9/11 either. We believe that enemies from within may have hit the United States.

He's quite discourteous to anyone who calls his show to talk about the "crazy conspiracy theory".

Worst of all, Schultz said that he "gave the theory a chance" by beginning to watch the July 29 program on C-Span. However, he claims that he could only watch two minutes of the program. He claims that one of the panelists, 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, is known to "chase conspiracy theories".

Fetzer made the statement within the two minutes during which Schultz gave the theory "a chance" that the nineteen hijackers could not have been taught enough about flying to have pulled off their dastardly deeds.

Schultz, a former pilot, said that was absurd. I'm not sure if Schultz piloted commercial airlines, jets during one or another war or Cessnas, but he was up in arms about Fetzer's statement. Schultz claims that, in just ten minutes, anyone could have been taught to do what the hijackers supposedly did. He then called those of us who believe that there's an alternative explanation "conspiracy nuts" and "crackpots".

A person called Schultz shortly after his tirade and asked about the maneuver that the pilot who hit the Pentagon had to make and Schultz said he knew nothing about that.

Schultz may very well be enabling a criminal. One may commit a crime, a vicious, unspeakable crime and, because of who one is, people say the person could never have been involved with the crime.

It would be nice if every criminal who is picked up by the police was let go because he or she said, "I'm (fill in the blank) and you know I wouldn't do anything like that" while throngs of people became so indignant that the criminal wasn't even charged, let alone put on trial.

Schultz finally said, "Listen, you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe."

OK, Ed. We'll believe what we believe based upon the many hours, days, weeks, months, in some cases years that we've been researching the events of September 11, 2001 and the anomalies we've seen that make the official version of what happened look like a very bad fairy tale.

And you can believe what you want to believe base upon you're "in depth" two minute study.

Authors Bio:

Michael Bonanno is an associate editor for OpEdNews.

He is also a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's government's job to help the needy and that leaving the people's well being to the so called "private sector" is social suicide.