Robin Hordon is a former air traffic controller and licensed commercial pilot. He is also a pioneer of CI, “civil informationing.” If you have been to professional sporting events in Seattle you may have seen him out front with his 9/11 truth banner.
But now the Seattle area has gone crazy. The Capital Hill neighborhood is an “autonomous zone” where police are barred even while murders are committed. But across the Sound in Kitsap, you can get arrested for holding a pro-peace sign in a public park! That’s what happened to Robin Hordon on July 4th, 2019—leading to a lawsuit that is garnering mainstream coverage.
In this interview Robin discusses his arrest, which he attributes to the “basic fundamental ignorance and stupidity by people who are in charge of the Port of Kingston.” We also discuss other topical issues, including:
*The current state of the 9/11 truth movement, and the fact that “Israel was involved (in 9/11) in many very deep ways.”
*The demonstrations and riots following the George Floyd murder and subsequent “complete narrow-minding or dumbing down process into general quick violence, as we see in the murdering of black people, that is very prevalent, not just recently, but over the decades.”
*The ruling elite’s divide-and-conquer strategy, exemplified by the “let’s change the conversation to race” gambit to take people’s minds off their theft of $7 trillion from ordinary Americans.
NOTE: Robin Hordon was one of the first people to understand that 9/11 was a false-flag neocon coup. He writes:
“I knew that 9/11 was an ‘inside job…false-flag-event’ by 2PM on 9/11 itself. The ONLY way that NORAD would not have intercepted EACH airliner is IF there was a major breakdown of communications between the FAA and NORAD [NEADS]. Note: I had this happen to me as an ATC…cables were cut by a backhoe and the facility went dark-UGH!!!] So, when I found out that they were talking with each other all along…BINGO…another Pearl Harbor…and here we go into another war.”

I love the podcasts Kevin but please let your guests speak more!
You are very intelligent but you need to let your guests talk!
Kevin, with due respect, lavoisier has a point. hope you take this as constructive criticism
On the contrary – I enjoy Kevin’s [introductory] perspective/s as well. Be mindful that he, as the presenter, generally needs to make his ‘guest-speakers’ feel as comfortable as possible with a potentially intimidating platform. At times this necessitates longer introductions than one plans.
I would like to hear what has happened to Field McConnell and his co-investigative partner from their platform . What has happened to both of them? The last I heard was that Field had been imprisoned on some trumped up charge.
Do tell …
I want the shows to be dialogues, not monologues by either participant. For that reason I try (but sometimes fail) not to go on too long. But I also try to hold up my end of the conversation. A perfect dialogue would be split down the middle 50-50 in terms of time taken up and/or number of words spoken. But since these shows are guest-driven, focusing on topics associated with the guest, the perfect ratio might be 60-40 in favor of the guest…maybe even 70-30 if the topic is complex/scientific and requires longer monologues from guests. If you look at published transcripts of my shows, such as the interviews with Meryl Nass https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/ron-unz-and-other-truth-seekers-to-explore-corona-bioweapon-hypothesis-this-sunday/ or Ken McCarthy https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_ken-mccarthy-tony-fauci-is-corrupt-to-the-core/ you’ll see I often err on the side of letting the guest dominate the conversation.
The only time I want to mostly stay out of the conversation is when I have two guests on at once. Then they can have their own dialogue. That is what happened on Friday night’s show with Eric Zuesse and Peter Simpson.