Patriot Saints for the Kingdom of God on Earth
New > - Forming Local Support Groups
Silencing Cheney Dissent – How BYU Obstructed 911 Justice

Sister Sites:

Patriot Saints is
Affiliated with

Remnant Saints Inter-Continental Congress

   Survival of Remnant
   Spiritual Prep.
- FreeEnergyNews
You are here:
Patriot Saints > News > 911 > Conspiracy > Bush > Sterling Invited to Interview with Colmes > Report
flag and cross

911 Conspiracy
Bush Complicity in 911: Response to June 17 Fox News Interview with Alan Colmes

Sterling summarizes points he made during interview, provides follow-up evidence to timeline question, comments on Colmes' overbearing interviewing style.

By Sterling D. Allan
June 18, 2004

An open letter to Alan Colmes of Fox News Radio.

Dear Alan,

Thanks for the opportunity to be on your show last night to discuss President Bush' Complicity in the Sept. 11 Attack on America.

I have some follow-up points to make.

Alan Colmes
Fox News,2933,110858,00.html

You reported last night about the new development in the 9/11 Commission investigation. I read two LA Times stories on the development this morning.

According to the article, "Just before 9 ... Cheney was seated in his White House office ... when an aide came in and told him to turn on the television... The vp was wondering 'how the hell a plane could hit the WTC' when he saw a second aircraft strike the South Tower."

Meanwhile [not mentioned in the story], Bush has just entered the Booker Elementary classroom. And as any one can see in the widely distributed video, the only communication Bush had during that time in the classroom was when, at 9:05am, two minutes after the second plane hit, which Bush had seen on TV just before entering the classroom, Andrew Card came and told him the second tower had been hit and that America was under attack; and Bush continued for at least another 7 and perhaps as long as another 18 minutes in the classroom.

The story continues that secret service agents then spirited Cheney into an underground tunnel. "Halfway down, Cheney paused. In front of him was a secure phone... He asked to speak to the president. He told the president of the three planes and of the hit on the Pentagon."

The story makes it sound like this happened shortly after the second plane hit, but according to, it wasn't until 9:32 am that Secret Security agents "burst into Cheney's White House office" to spirit him away.  That is hardly "things happened quickly." reports that the first Bush-Cheney call took place at 9:23am (before the Pentagon was hit), and that authorization was not yet given to shoot down.

The Pentagon was hit at 9:37 am.

My guess is that it took several minutes to take Cheney underground, and that the phone call to Bush in which Bush authorized shoot down would have happened shortly after 9:37 am. That command most likely resulted in the downing of the last plane in PA.

That supports my supposition last night upon hearing of the new news in which I posited that no such order was given until after the Bush press conference at 9:30 am, supporting my assertion that Booker was an alibi to give Bush an excuse for inaction until it was too late, to allow the attack to proceed, to have the impact that it had.

For those reading this open letter, I will review briefly the points I was able to make last night on the show.

- Ann Tatlock, whose office complex was hit dead on, in the second tower, was scheduled before sept. 11 to appear at an event at the invitation of Warren Buffet at Offut Air Force Base in Omaha Nebraska.  She was en route to that facility at the time the first plane hit.  She arrived just in time to be spirited by military personnel to a TV where she saw the second plane smash into her office complex, killing 67 of her employees.  George Bush showed up at Offut Air Force Base later that day.  This convergence of prime victim, wealth, and power must be looked at carefully as it has all the makings of conspiracy.  Colmes completely dismissed this information as totally irrelevant.  I said it was astonishing that Colmes would have the audacity to say it is irrelevant.

- Bush knew at least 15 minutes before his Booker Elementary event that the WTC had been hit by a jetliner.  Even though an accident could not be ruled out at that point, as Commander and Chief of the nation, when a national terrorist target is hit, the first thing you must presume is intent.  He should have immediately scrapped the events of the day, but he did not.  Even when he was informed by Andrew Card on video, for all to later see, he still went forward with the Booker event (holding the book up-side-down).  This inaction on his part bespeaks foreknowledge and intent to carry out a pre-arranged alibi.  I invited all to watch the video of that event and watch the gamut of emotions on the President's face, to see if they are consistent with foreknowledge and complicity.  I posit that they are wholly consistent.  They range from "Oh, my God, what have we done," to "what suckers."  He even has a chuckle look on his face at one point.  One of his emotions is that of blanched terror.  "I can't believe I agreed to this."  And "Well, it's happening."  The main point is that he just sat there and did nothing.  According to witnesses at the school, he didn't even hurry to leave when the event was over, but lingered in the classroom, even after the press had left.

- I also touched on background and motive.  Bush is Skull and Bones and a life-time secret society member, and that he is part of a conspiracy to subvert the American Constitution to a police state stripping of fundamental rights.

- I also touched on his foreknowledge of the likelihood of not just a terrorist attack in general, but of the use of airliners in specific, so that when a primary terrorist target in the US is hit by an airliner, he should have immediately known that a terrorist attack was the most plausible explanation, and should have dropped everything to attend to the matter at hand.  I quoted a statement from.

I read this statement:

"White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes..."  -ABC (5/16/02)

None of these points made even the slightest impression on Colmes.  Rather, almost from the beginning, he painted me as a kook of the most extreme hue.

* * * *



I found your style of interviewing to not be fair. You ask, push, and before the person has a chance to muster and answer, you begin barging in and cutting him off, calling him names, making him have to talk over you in order to even have a sliver of a chance to get heard by the listening audience. I've been on with many talk show hosts. You are among the most inconsiderate that I have encountered this regard.

On a matter as complex as this, it is entirely unreasonable for you to expect a one minute answer. If it was that simple, it would be widespread knowledge. When I didn't give a satisfactory answer in the first few seconds of our time on the air, you immediately went into ridicule/steamroller mode and did not let up.

I would recommend that when an interviewee does not immediately satisfy you, that you say, "That answer doesn't do it for me because.... Do you have anything else?"

Three sentences, then give them another chance, and another, and another.

Then your audience will feel satisfied that you gave the person a fair shake. If they have truth to impart, it will come out. If they are full of BS, you will have been able to methodically point it out, one point at a time.

Your approach of ridicule and bullying serves no purpose except to possibly intimidate your interviewee, and what kind of answer are you going to get then? That is not productive.

If you are in a quest for truth, such animal tactics are not the way to get to it.

Verbally, it is not better than the torture chamber.

Be more of a gentleman.

At least I had guts to stand up to you and talk over you [unless of course you unplugged the line at those times].

I was not impressed.

Your style is part of the reason I didn't dare start naming names when you asked me to do so. That would have taken us another direction. I knew it. My comment should have been, "I'm not sure who not to name of the present establishment." Most are low-level unwitting lackeys, such as yourself. Few are wolves, such as Scowcroft and Bush Sr.

Buch Jr. is a low level, reluctant conspirator for which the movie Skulls is an interesting parallel. I was hoping he would opt out, but he hasn't. Too much of a wimp.

Another thing I would have clarified last night had I not been flustered by your steamroller approach to interviewing, would have been that Bush has "some parallels" to Hitler. We all do, to a certain extent. It is a matter of degree. It is not an mirror identity situation as you made it come across, and didn't give me a chance to correct.

Thank goodness to the Internet, so the world has an alternative to the mainstream apparatchik organ of which you are a part. Reporters who do know what is going don't dare say anything lest they lose their job. Most are just yuppies going along with the insider crowd -- the useful idiots, to use Lenin's vernacular.

You might be brilliant of mind, but you are not fully honest at heart.

When you decide to be more honest, it will come through by you actually listening to the people who have views contrary to yours, rather than pulling out the ridicule card at first opportunity and lambasting them.


By the way, because I announced the Chicago Radio interview with Dan Saviao along with the announcement of my interview with you, I should give a brief report of that one as well.  In contrast to your interview, we had a dynamic, wonderful dialogue and covered a huge amount of territory in the hour of time we had, interrupted by just two, two-minute breaks.  What a contrast.  No confrontation.  We talked about the Dan Burish saga, the politics of non-disclosure of the ET presence in general, and the pending emergence of alternative energy technologies.  Given your interview style, it would have taken me ten hours (that you would never give me, I'm sure) to make the same number of points I did in Dan's show.


Also published at:


Alan Colmes' Reply

From: "Colmes, Alan" <alan.colmes@FOXNEWS.C*>
To: <sterlingda@greaterthings.c*>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:36 PM

Thank you for your "open letter to me, " but I don't agree with your
assessment of the interview or of my style. I feel as though I gave you
ample opportunity to make your points. Must points we made quickly and
sometimes without as much time as we'd all like? Yes. That is the nature of
commercial radio. I did say your theories sounded crazy, but I did not call
YOU crazy, and so I don't agree that I'm guilty of name-calling.  As for the
caller who didn't get on, we processed many many calls, some of whom agreed
with you. There are always disgruntled callers who feel they should be
pushed to the head of the line.

Nevertheless, thanks for coming on and I do hope we have the chance to
further explore what you've been saying.



A Caller Who Didn't Get In

From: Joe Liberty
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Patriot Saints on Alan Colmes radio tonight.

I listened last night.  I called in and was on hold the whole time ready to back you up, but they never put me through.

* * * *

You Nailed Colmes

From: Dennis Stewart
Cc: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 1:54 PM
Subject: FW: [allan2004] Bush Complicity in 911: Response to Last Night's Fox Interview with Alan Colmes

I didn't get a chance to tune into this interview, but I did happen to accidentally land on Alan Colmes' (on Fox) later that evening and AS is dead on in his below analysis about the interviewing "style" that moron has.  I've never seen one of his shows before and could only stomach about 30 seconds of what I saw last night.  It was just too damn obvious he was running along right out of the playbook.  Personally, I think they're all starting to feel the warmth of the light that is shining down through the cracks above them and they're continuing to try and shrink away from its ever increasing intensity.  Sometime or sooner they will all find themselves with their collective backs huddled against the same wall that will come tumbling down.  It's old, it's tired, but here it's just the tip of the iceberg.  I know, but it had to be said.  It is just the tip of the iceberg.  Mayhaps the global warming up to the truth will hasten its complete meltdown.
We can only hope and continue to pray to God that the light shines ever brighter by the day.

* * * *

A Silver Lining in the Story -- Could Have Been Worse

From: Currie, Christopher [website]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: [SDAfriends] Bush Complicity in 911: Response to Last Night's Fox Interview with Alan Colmes

Has anyone ever pointed out how lucky we (and our Congress) are compared to what could easily have happened on 9/11?  The plane the hit the Pentagon was originally supposed to he the White House.  But the White House is difficult to see from the air (it is surrounded on three side by Treasury buildings), so they failed to see it in time to home in on it.  At that point, they could easily have executed a shallow turn and flown the plane into the Capital Building.  Congress was in session at the time (which, as we know from this week's 9/11 Commission report, was one of the criteria Bin Laden used for choosing that particular day for the attack).  But the terrorists in the third plane didn't even attempt to hit the Capitol Building, apparently because according to their plan, the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was supposed to hit it.  So instead, they turned their plan the other way and proceeded to hit the Pentagon.  Since they weren't originally planning on hitting the Pentagon, they evidently knew very little about their new target.  Rather than hitting the Pentagon's (top-floor) Join Chiefs of Staff area (which they could easily have done), they instead hit the building low on the side that was closest to them.  Luckily for us,  that turned out to be an area that was largely empty due a renovation project. In a matter to just a few seconds our nation got TWO "lucky breaks" with regards to where that third plane ended up, due to poor planning on the part of the terrorists.  
So actually, there was sort of a "silver lining" to this story.

* * * *

Calming the Kids Was the Right Thing

From: <Zzmile3@cs.c*>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Greater Things] Bush Complicity in 911: Response to

Sterling I find all of these statements and facts interesting. Perhaps even alarming would be a better word to use.

One thing I feel compelled to mention is George Bush's visit at the elementary school was handled in the proper manner. From experience and training, that comes from running and maintaining, a day care center George Bush did the right thing by following through with his presentation.

Holding the book upside down may have come from nerves and anticipation?

Now this does not mean Bush knew he was doing the right thing by remaining calm, and not alarming the children-could be coincidental or there is a possibility he was taught or rehearsed the situation before hand (unlikely, but I've always suggested everyone should keep an open mind).


From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.c*>
To: <Zzmile3@cs.c*>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Greater Things] Bush Complicity in 911: Response to

When the house is on fire, you don't finish the bedtime story you were reading your children.

* * * *


From: Lynford Theobald
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [FE_updates] (OT) Bush Complicity in 911: Response to Last Night's Fox Interview with Alan Colmes

* * * *

Your Brain is On Backwards

From: "Ali Bali Gumba" <ali_bali_gumba@yahoo.c>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.c*>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: (OT) Bush Complicity in 911: Response to Last Night's Fox Interview with Ala
--- In, "Sterling D. Allan"
<sterlingda@g...> wrote:
>  a..  (OT Report) > Bush Complicity in 911: Response to Last Night's

Now your stupidity extends to complicity in 9-11.

Are you next going to blame it on the Israelis?

I think your brain is on the wrong way.

* * * *

From: "Sterling D. Allan" <>
To: "Ali Bali Gumba" <>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: (OT) Bush Complicity in 911: Response to Last Night's Fox Interview with Ala
In this day when up is down, and down is up; black is white, and white is black, to say my brain is backward is about the best complement you could pay me.


* * * *

Colmes is Just Doing His Thing

From: Robert Hale
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: colmes interview
I found your article using the Google News search email notification.
Nice to take the interview opportunity, but you couldn't really be surprised at Colmes' handling of you? He is doing exactly what he is paid to do. Telling him he is inconsiderate compared to others won't prick his conscience. He has achieved his position for exactly this behavior. Yes?
Hang in there.
Robert Hale
Gilbert AZ

* * * *

Thank God for the Internet

From: Larry <tmc@color-country.n*>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [allan2004] Bush Complicity in 911: Response to Last Night's Fox Interview with Alan Colmes
Thanks for your effort and yes, thank god for the internet. Keep up the good work. 

* * * *

Prior to 911, X-Files Had a Movie about Planes Commandeering toward WTC but Thwarted

From: <vcrepair@juno.c*>
To: <sterlingda@greaterthings.c*>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: (OT) Bush Complicity in 911: Response to Last Night's Fox Interview with Alan Colmes

I looked at the link you had. It seems you believe Bush & Co
planned the September 11 2001 attacks. The reporter on Fox News
disagreed with you and considered that "conspiracy theory".
I never watch Fox News but guess that Colmes has an "in your
face" interviewing style where he tries to make everyone
look bad. Fox News is owned by Rubert Murdoch, isn't it?
How much money has Murdoch contributed to Bush's campaign?

Fox News has a reputation of sensationalistic news. Jay Leno
on the NBC "Tonight Show" has made jokes about Fox News
reporters not being "qualified journalists". Fox network runs
UFO shows like the "Alien Autopsy" video and the "We Never
Landed on the Moon" show, etc.

BTW, have you ever read  That has links
to stories that are critical of president George Bush. One of the
more "interesting" links was "Is George Bush crazy?"

Speaking of old Fox shows, I did watch X-files for entertainment,
they kept trying to pretend the stories where real. ;-0
Anyway there was a spin-off show from the "X-files" about
some computer nerds who seek the truth, etc. SO one episode had
an airliner under remote control that the pilot couldn't override
that was headed straight at the World Trade Center. The computer
nerds got the newest microprocessor installed in their computer
just in time so it could break the code for the remote control
and the pilot was able to pull up in time. I remember that
show was several months or year before September 11 2001.

Wonder if the show date and title could be found at
the Fox network? What it did show was that writers could
conceive of airplane being used for "missile". So when
government officials stated that "they had no idea that
someone could use airplane as a missile", they must not
have been well informed.

Still, hindsight is 20/20. It was hard to figure out exactly
WHAT was happening, first one plane flies into World Trade
Center, then the second one. You figure, maybe just an accident
for the first, then trying to figure out why a second plane hit.
Too bad that the 4th plane crashed and they couldn't have
gotten control back from the hijackers and landed safely.

As for scrambling fighter jets, it does take some time and
those where PASSENGER AIRPLANES, full of innocent
people. It's one thing to have a foreign fighter enter American
airspace, and the air defense would scramble intercepts quickly,
but who knew what was happening September 11 2001?

* * * *

Booker Continuance Defied Secret Service Protocol Required President's Person Safety

From: Silence Dogooder <silencedogooder@yahoo.c*>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [888] Re: [Greater Things] Bush Complicity in 911: Response to

What would be the problem with him simply saying, "Sorry, kids, something has come up. The president is a very important man so I'm going to have cut this short." A) WHO WOULD SAY THAT THIS WOULD ALARM THEM?, AND, B) SO EFFING WHAT IF IT DID???? BETTER THAT THAN THEY BE ALARMED BY A PLANE CRASHING THROUGH THE ROOF!!!


See also


Page created by SDA June 18, 2004
Last updated on August 17, 2004
Copyright © 2000-2010 Patriot Saints

Home • Mission Statement • Branches • Calendar •  Activity • Forum • Contact
Health Alliance • Education Alliance

Greater Things • Free Energy News • Inter-Continental Congress