WTC an inside job

â??BOMBS INSIDE WTCâ??

FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH



By Victor Thorn

NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.â??On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. â??I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know itâ??s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,â?� said Isaac.

The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New Yorkâ??s own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldnâ??t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.

He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, â??We all have to be very careful about how we handle it.â?�

Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005â??that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.

Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.

â??Itâ??s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,â?� said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airlinerâ??s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.

Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.

Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC â??open grave siteâ?� on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: â??I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.â?�

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

most certainly it was an inside job...

american free press is a good site...

[align=center]http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bush_insider.html[/align]
[align=left]BUSH INSIDER CLAIMS WTC COLLAPSE BOGUS[/align]
[align=left]DEMOLITION MORE LIKELY[/align]





http://www.americanfreepress.net/assets/images/RSS.gif [align=left]By Greg Szymanski[/align]


[align=left][/align]


[align=left]A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bushâ??s first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is â??bogus,â?� saying it is likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the twin towers and adjacent building No. 7.[/align]

[align=left]â??If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9-11, then the case for an â??inside jobâ?? and a government attack on America would be compelling,â?� said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas.[/align]

[align=left]Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes itâ??s â??next to impossibleâ?� that 19 Arab terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9-11.[/align]

[align=left]â??It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7,â?� said Reynolds from his offices at Texas A&M. â??If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The governmentâ??s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.[/align]

[align=left]â??More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9-11 right.â?�[/align]

[align=left]However, Reynolds said â??getting it right in todayâ??s security stateâ?� remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9-11.[/align]

[align=left]HASTILY REMOVED[/align]

[align=left]From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was hastily removed by the federal government prior to independent investigation. Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover up the evidence. The recent 9-11 commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9-11.[/align]

[align=left]Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Towerâ??s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ FDNY firefighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9-11 gag order.[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ Even the flawed 9-11 commission report acknowledges that â??none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.â?�[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9-11.[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ WTC-7 was unharmed by any airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and 12th floors of this 47-story steel building, yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.[/align]

[align=left]â?¢ Itâ??s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.[/align]

[align=left]NUMEROUS HOLES[/align]

[align=left]Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has ignored all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.[/align]

[align=left]Hard evidence is lacking due to FEMAâ??s quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, but FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.[/align]

[align=left]And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9-11 attacks at New Yorkâ??s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named â??Tripod II.â?�[/align]

[align=left]Besides FEMAâ??s quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.[/align]

[align=left]â??The government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day,â?� said Reynolds. â??The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.â?�[/align]

[align=left]Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003[/align]

World Trade Center NYC World Trade Center Plane Crash and 911 Terrorist Attack Towers Collapse Disaster Information

The Story Of The Government and The WTC Conspiracy Cover-up

Posted on Tue, 11-06-01


What you will discover here will shatter any illusions you have about the reasons behind the World Trade Center attack.

You will also see a photograph of what appears to be a separate event. A different explosion, separate from the towers? Read on...
Thermal imaging of World Trade Center ruins gives the game away.


See that ruin with a hole at center-left? That was the U.S. Customs building (Six WTC), and its mostly still standing.

See the gap in the buildings to it's left. That was Larry Silverstein's Seven WTC
-now completely ruined.



Take a look to the right of the building with the hole. That pile of rubble was once the North Tower (One WTC).



You can see the tower fell straight down and damaged -but did not flatten-- number Six WTC to it's left (the building with the hole).

So how come Seven WTC (extreme left above) is totally flattened? The North tower would have had to collapse ACROSS Six WTC to it's left to have demolished Seven.

But, as you see, Six WTC is damaged, however large portions are still standing. To the left is smoke emerging from the totally flattened Seven WTC??

In close-up you see the steel debris from the North Tower (One WTC), lying to the right of Six WTC




Six WTC is standing at top right. Seven WTC flattened at center left.



Aerial view of the whole area.




An explosion at ground level

Is Seven WTC being blasted?



Another shot of an explosion
in the area of Seven WTC
-this time from CNN.



As heard on The Power Hour Radio show - Dave vonKleist's question:
What's this below? You see the second tower is standing, and the first one has yet to finish collapsing. Why is there smoke rising from the ground as if another explosion had occurred? Separate event, maybe? Click to enlarge the image.





Click above to view
animation of CNN
broadcast frames
1.6 MB GIF
4 mins @56K

The animation shows the velocity of the plume is clearly too fast for it to be merely a swirl of dust from the collapse of one of the towers. The towers are still standing. The direction of the plume movement is upwards and outwards from the area of building Seven.

All this is consistent with an explosion in Seven WTC. One which flattened it completely.

CNN IMAGES ABOVE FROM
CYBERSPACEORBIT.COM
MORE ANALYSIS
COMMENTS


WESTFIELD,
SILVERSTEIN
AND THE WTC
GOLDEN
GOOSE

The World Trade Center is a gold mine. And Larry Silverstein knows it.
Silverstein already owned number Seven WTC, but he led a consortium that just months ago signed a new $3.2 billion US, 99-year lease on the WTC complex. That was the first time the WTC had changed hands in it's thirty year history.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the 26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and Silverstein the office portion.

The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July -just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy.

Silverstein was ecstatic at that time. "This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect.

The leased buildings included Numbers One and Two (the Twin Towers), Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (3WTC), U.S. Customs building (6WTC) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building were already under lease.

Despite the transfer to private hands, the tax payments would still come from the Port Authority -who had been making yearly $25 million payments in lieu of taxes to New York City. The proper figure should be more like $100 million according to city administrators.

Silversteen is undeterred by the demolition of the complex. He already has somewhat insensitive plans to rebuild. Four towers this time. Although the complex was not insured against an act of war, new policies insured against terrorist damage.

Which leaves everybody financially consoled, even if not emotionally so. The vendors still have the $3.2 billion they made on the sale. The purchasers lease deal had spanking new insurance --with new beneficiaries-- for capital value and loss of income.

Silverstein has insurance money to rebuild and get the $110 million of annual rental income flowing again. Or double that with his planned four towers. Nice money if you can get it. Can he?

Not if the insurers could help it. They are the big losers. And they detest having to pay a claim on a policy taken out only weeks before. Indeed, they often delay payment to investigate cases where immediate claims are made against brand new policies.




Graphics and maps of buildings in the complex. Click to enlarge.










Reproduce freely on noncommercial / alternative media.


WAG THE WTC II
THE BLOCKBUSTER
PART II OF EXPOSING THE WTC BOMB PLOT


by Fintan Dunne,
coEditor, PsyOpNews.com
Research Kathy McMahon
4th October 2001
[email protected]

(Jump directly to the photo brought into question by Dave vonKleist HERE, on the right side.)



FACT: The contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene --to cart away the rubble that remains-- is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! Their WTC cleanup contract is worth over $7 Billion. Are you getting the picture?

FACT: The expert widely reported as certain the WTC was demolished --who later changed his mind-- is a demolition explosives specialist from New Mexico Tech Institute. That's precisely where the people first on the Pentagon crash scene were trained. Tech was also a hot tip to get the contract for training the new Federal Air Marshals. Are you getting the picture?

FACT: Most of the World Trade Center changed hands in a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance covering buildings and rents -payable to new beneficiaries. Are you getting the picture?

TALL TALES OF
THE WAG MOVIE



Let's all hold on to our emotional hats. Let's stop reacting and stop overreacting.

We are MEANT to react in shock. The whole purpose of the audacious World Trade Center attack was to psych us out.

Does the WTC attack feel like a movie? It does? Well of course it does! It has been specifically written as a movie script. Are you getting the picture?

Having studied for years how Americans react in movie theaters, the game planners have decided we are now ready for movie spectaculars in real life.

You are witnessing a cathartic and intense psychological operation. It is designed to alter your perceptions and hence your politics. It's a classic PsyOp. Its a made-for-TV movie with all the cliché blockbuster elements.

It has mayhem, evil warlords and subtle hints of a military coup. It has terrorists who wrestle for control of Flight 93 with Die Hard have-a-go Bruce Willis clones.

It has final deranged exhortations from a terrorist leader. His last letter is found bundled with a "You Too Can Fly a Plane!" instruction manual and some autographed photos of the great enemy --the legendary Osama Bin Gadaffi Bin Saddam-Laden.

It has whispered good-byes: the departure of the American sailors for war, was portrayed in 'Titanic' style on network TV and in print media coverage.



It has poignant last moments: the raising of the flag on the pile of WTC rubble is a director's steal of the classic Iwo Jima flag scene from W.W.II. They have turned the scenes of this devastation in New York into a movie lot to construct a cultural iconography of war.

This entire sequence of: hijack; first plane; second plane; Pentagon ;WTC collapse; phone calls from the planes; copy of the Koran; more attempted hijackings; arrests; plucky passengers; etc., etc., has been scripted by a crew of cynical planners who could care less that REAL people died in the Twin Towers --not political extras on the international stage of military-industrial machinations.

The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"

Well hold my emotional hat, but I don't see buildings or water. I see a barrage of flimsy plot-bolstering fabrications.

So does award-winning British journalist Robert Fisk -if you read between the lines of his doubts about the authenticity of Mohammed Atta's last letter.
In the London Independent, 29 Sept 2001 he questions the "weird references in the note," as he wonders if there is "something more mysterious" going on.

Indeed. Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.

But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess, has people are not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air, and Duluth and Vancouver too. Duh!

But in this "WAG THE WTC II" movie script, nobody knows they are flying over a city for the last ten minutes. And nobody knows what New York looks like. And the stewardess can't tell when an aircraft is descending, so is totally surprised to see buildings and water. Totally.

She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."

But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause is in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things.

So let's pause here, too. Let's jam our emotional hats down firmly and take a look at the MONEY. Let's take a good HARD look at the money. Let's follow the MONEY. Because, there is a mountain of blood-soaked money riding on all this.

VAN THE MAN
CHANGES HIS TUNE



No, not Van Morrisson the singer. But, Van 'the man' Romero. The man in the right place, at the right time.

Van Romero is vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMTech). The Socorro university has levered itself into one of the elite sites in the world for the study of explosives and terrorism, attracting nearly $10 million a year in federal money for programs that test explosives for US and foreign agencies. On the morning of the attacks, Romero and Tech's finance vice president Denny Peterson, were near the Pentagon.

They had come to Washington to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech, leaving them very conveniently located to grab NMTech's slice of the imminent cleanup operation. Because New Mexico Tech offers counter-terrorism training of police and fire first responders to terrorism attacks in the United States!

Within hours Romero was telling the Albuquerque Journal that the collapse of the twin towers could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

And Romero should know. After all Van is a demolition expert and a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies the effects of explosions on buildings.

Nevertheless, ten days later Romero had changed his mind. Not only that, but the Albuquerque Journal changed their story too. They altered the original web page about Romero's views. It now shows his revised views first.

GREEN CHILI STEW
AT THE PENTAGON



New Mexico Tech's success is due in no small part to the advocacy of local Republican representative Joe Skeen, who has lobbied relentlessly on Tech's behalf to lucrative effect.

Skeen has contacted Israeli representatives about the prospect of having a detachment of fighter aircraft stationed in New Mexico. Israelâ??s request is under review by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Meanwhile, Tech's terrorism first responder training is under the auspices of the public /private National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (i.e. military-industrial complex).

You can find Tech-trained first responders right now at the Pentagon scene. They are busy cleaning-up, in every sense of the word. Skeen has 'hung out with the guys' back at their training camp in the NMTech counter-terrorism facility. So naturally he soon followed Romero to Washington, where he called by the Pentagon crash scene to encourage the NMTech crew.

Skeen asked if there was anything he could do to make their task easier and the crew responded by asking if there was any green chili in the D.C. area. Skeen said yes and had New Mexico green chili stew delivered to the hotel where the crew is staying.

"These are the people who have the toughest duty in cleaning up the devastation left by the barbaric acts of terrorists last week," Skeen said. "We owe the people involved in the clean up... a great deal of thanks and gratitude." Indeed. We owe them a great deal of money also.



Tech will gain substantially from domestic counter-terrorism if Joe Skeen has his way. He wrote to President George Bush and relevant federal government agency officials thus: "Guarding against terrorist attacks must be the centerpiece of our plan and New Mexico, particularly New Mexico Tech University, has excellent technical resources in counter-terrorism."

Skeen proposed that the university triple within 60 days its domestic preparedness first responder training. Skeen said New Mexico Tech is prepared to initiate training for Sky Marshals at Roswell Airpark which has a variety of commercial jet liners ranging from 737 to 747 for hands-on training purposes.

"Dr. Dan Lopez, the President of New Mexico Tech has assured me, that all of these resources and any others identified by the government can be made available immediately to our government and I will do all in my power to help you and our country in managing this crisis,'' Skeen noted in his letter to the president.

Are you getting the picture?

BOOMING BUSINESS IN
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble left by the destruction of the World Trade Center could take up to a year and cost $7 billion, according to Associated Press, 28th September, 2001.

"The New York cleanup will be a gargantuan undertaking, whose scale and magnitude will go beyond the customary types of disasters," said J. Mark Loizeaux, president of Maryland-based Controlled Demolition, who brought down the remains of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.



Controlled Demolition Group, specializes in building demolition worldwide. They are one of a handful with the expertise to demolish a structure like the World Trade Center.

"We probably have more experience than anyone on the planet about how to handle this type of debris, and I will tell you right now we don't have all the answers," said Loizeaux. "It is going to be a learning curve for all of those involved, and it is going to take a very long time."

Given the public's suspicions about the World Trade Center collapse, the presence of Controlled Demolition at the site will hardly assuage their concern. Quite the reverse.
A company with vast demolition smarts has handled the cleanup of the two greatest terror bombings in the US to date.

In the case of Oklahoma building, Controlled Demolition carted off the remains and buried them in a hole in the desert before the smoke had stopped rising from the ruins. Then the rubble was covered over, surrounded by a security fence and guarded.

That was an investigative fiasco -given that there is no way an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil ('ANFO') bomb could have blown away a third of the structure. Furthermore, according to retired blast expert General Ben Partin, the blast velocity of ANFO bombs is incapable of the specific damage observed in the Murrah Building. Military explosive ten times more powerful would be needed to rip concrete away and leave steel reinforcing rods exposed.



A report written by an investigative committee was released earlier this year by the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee. Leading member Charles Key, a former Oklahoma state representative, said the report contains volumes of evidence citing inconsistencies and omissions in the government's official version of events.

"There is sufficient evidence to confirm that law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma City, as well as Washington, DC, had sufficient prior knowledge of the impending disaster, yet took minimum measures to avert the bombing," the report said. "Documents and witnesses support this conclusion."

The committee's report also documents "at least four sightings of [additional] bombs inside the [Murrah] building," said Key.

THE PLOT THICKENS

As evidence has mounted, our concerns about the events at the WTC have grown. Yet, at this time there is no credible investigation by any official U. S. agency of the possibility of additional bombs in the World Trade Center. Neither has there been a call by any leading U. S. politician for an official inquiry into these events.

President Kennedy's death in Dallas at least spawned the Warren Commission investigation. But, so far the only examination of the WTC incidents is taking place on alternative web sites such as this.

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Email Address: [email protected]

© The Power Hour 2003

The mistake you guys keep making is assuming GW can't possibly be that stupid. yes, he really is that stupid. You guys are fucking morons. A million people saw the planes hit the towers with their own eyes, a billion watched it on TV. What you expect us to believe, none of us saw what we saw, it was all done with bombs and thousands of people decide to say nothing? Or maybe they had bombs pre-planted, just in case someone decided to crash planes into the building. Oh wait, what about the pentagon? Right, no video, must be bullshit,right? So, why did the US military feel it nescessary to attack the pentagon? Were the attacks on the WTC not sufficient cause for war? Probably not, therefore they chose to risk the death penalty if any of thousands who must have known talked, all to justify a war we were going to fight anyway. You guys make cattle look smart.

Who cares what a "former chief economist" thinks? He is not an engineer or architect.

Popular Mechanics, March 2005:
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS


Published in the March, 2005 issue.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man

by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.2, February 9, 2005

2/07/05: 911Research publishes Version 1 of this critique
2/09/05: Popular Mechanics publishes online edition of article
2/10/05: 911Review.com publishes critique of online edition
6/15/15: 911Research publishes Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

-->The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

"The Lies Are Out There"

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/docs/meigs.jpg James Meigs, appointed editor of Popular Mechanics in May 2004, trashes skeptics of the official story of 9/11/01 as irresponsible disgracers of the memories of victims, apart from "we as a society."

This article has a page of Editor's Notes, "The Lies Are Out There," written by James Meigs, whose previous columns have praised military technology (such as the UAVs used in Fallujah). Meigs places outside of society anyone who questions the official version of events of 9/11/01:

We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists.

Meigs throws a series of insults at the "conspiracy theorists," saying they ignore the facts and engage in "elaborate, shadowy theorizing," and concludes his diatribe by saying:

[T]hose who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

Besides trashing the skeptics, and conflating "this country" with its corrupt leaders, Meig's piece attempts to legitimate PM's "investigation." It reads:

We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by the conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood, or deliberately falsified.

This sounds impressive, but the article provides no evidence to back up these claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.


Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.

"9/11: DEBUNKING the MYTHS"



The main article consists of six two-page spreads, each devoted to a topic. Spanning these spreads are a series of sixteen "poisonous claims," which the article purports to refute, while it implicitly identifies them as the beliefs of all in the "growing army" of "conspiracy theorists." The two-page spreads, beginning on page 70, are as follows:

• Introduction
• THE PLANES
• THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
• THE WORLD TRADE CENTER (continued)
• THE PENTAGON
• FLIGHT 93

Superficially, the topics appear to address the major physical evidence issues brought up by the skeptics (while ignoring the mountains of evidence of foreknowledge, motive, and unique means possessed by insiders). However, the sixteen "most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists" which it attacks are mostly specious claims, many of which were probably invented to discredit skepticism of the official story in the first place. The article debunks the more specious claims, and uses distortion and falsehoods to counter serious claims.

Thus the main approach of the article is to set up and attack a straw man of claims that it pretends represent the entirety of the skeptics' movement. The list includes many of the same claims that are debunked on the companion to this site, 911review.com. The article gives no hint of the questions raised by the evidence in this site, nor any sense of the issues raised by the broader 9/11 truth movement.

Before proceeding to its 16 points, the article's introduction levels more insults at the skeptics -- "extremists", some of whose theories are "byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate." It begins by asking you to type "World Trade Center conspiracy" into Google.com, and claims that "More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published" -- an incredible claim. (Of these supposed 3000 titles, we recommend only a few, listed here.)

The sixteen "claims" attacked by the article are described here under the headings taken from the article, which indicate either the claim, the counter-claim, or a broader issue.

1. THE PLANES
2. Where's The Pod
   http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/p...ehighlight.jpg This image, which appears in the article, is found (with the same red oval) on a <A href="http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#addendumC">pod-debunking page of QuestionsQuestions.net, yet the article contains no mention of the site. The pod-plane idea has been used for over a year to discredit skepticism of the official story. It's not surprising that the article gives it top billing. See ERROR: A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane. The article mentions the site LetsRoll911.org and the video In Plane Site, implying they are representative of the skeptics. Of course it makes no reference to skeptics' sites debunking these productions and the pod-plane idea they feature, such as this page on OilEmpire.us, or this page on QuestionsQuestions.net.
3. No Stand-Down Order
   Here, the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.com and StandDown.net both claim that no jets were scrambled to pursue any of the four commandeered jets. It then attacks this straw man by relating some details of the Commission's timeline (without sourcing the Commission's Report) to suggest that interceptors were scrambled, but that ATC couldn't find the hijacked flights because there were too many radar blips. The article makes no mention of the many problems with NORAD's account of the failed intercepts, but relates the following incredible assertion by NORAD public affairs officer Maj. Douglas Martin that there was a hole in NORAD's radar coverage:
   It was like a doughnut. There was no coverage in the middle.
   This absurd idea that NORAD had no radar coverage over much of the continental US is distilled from the 9/11 Commission Report. Predictably, the article makes no mention of evidence that war games were planned for the day of 9/11/01. See Multiple War Games on 9/11/01 Helped to Disable Air Defense.
4. Intercepts Not Routine
   This section quotes the following excerpt from OilEmpire.us:
   It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.
   It then dismisses this 'claim' with the following sweeping 'fact':
   In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.
   This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!
   From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
   It is safe to assume that a significant fraction of scrambles lead to intercepts, so the fact that there were 67 scrambles in a 9-month period before 9/11/01 suggests that there are dozens of intercepts per year. To its assertion that there was only one intercept in a decade, the article adds that "rules in effect ... prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts," and the suggestion that there were no hotlines between ATCs and NORAD.
5. Flight 175's Windows
   That the South Tower plane had no windows is one of several ludicrous claims made by the In Plane Site video, and, like the pod-planes claim, is dismissed by the simplest analysis. See The Windowless Plane.
   
   THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
6. Widespread Damage
   The article's lead point in the World Trade Center topic is an obscure idea that explosives in the basements of the towers damaged the lobbies at about the time the planes hit. With only sparse evidence to support it, this contention is only mentioned by a few researchers. Indeed it is entirely distinct -- in both the support that exists for it, and the support that it provides for "conspiracy theories" -- from the contention that explosives brought down the towers (56 and 102 minutes after the plane crashes).
7. Puffs Of Dust
   http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/p.../site1049s.jpg The article features this image of the South Tower's collapse, taken about 2.5 seconds after the top started to plunge. It was taken by <A href="http://gulnarasamoilova.com/">Gulnara Samoilova, who risked her life to take the photograph from a vantage point that would be engulfed by thick toxic dust in under 20 seconds. Here the article cites this quote from an advertisement for the book Painful Questions:
   The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.
   By titling this section "Puffs Of Dust," rather than "explosions of concrete," and by showing only a collapse photograph from early in the South Tower's destruction, the article minimizes the explosiveness of the event, but nonetheless goes to lengths to explain these "puffs." It quotes NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder saying "When you have a significant portion of of a floor collapsing it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window" without explaining where the concrete dust came from, or even attempting to quantify the amount of dust that should be expected in the absence of explosives.
   
   The article mentions none of the other features of the collapses that indicate controlled demolition, such as:
   
   • The towers fell straight down through themselves maintaining radial symmetry,
   • The towers' tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel.
   • The collapses exhibited demolition squibs shooting out of the towers well below the zones of total destruction.
   • The collapses generated vast dust clouds that expanded to many times the towers' volumes -- more than occurs in typical controlled demolitions.
   • The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower's rubble cloud revealed in these photos show the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building's profile, an impossibility unless demolition were removing the building's structure ahead of the falling rubble.
   • The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.
   • The steel skeletons were consistently shredded into short pieces which could be carried easily by the equipment used to dispose of the evidence.
   • Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.
8. "Melted Steel"
   
   The article implies that skeptics' criticism of the official account that fires weakened the towers' structures is based on the erroneous assumption that the official story requires that the fires melted the steel.
   
   In fact the fire-melts-steel claim was first introduced by apologists for the official story on the day of the attack, by no less than a structural engineer. The more sophisticated column failure and truss failure theories, advanced in subsequent days and weeks, are the subject of detailed analysis and debunking here.
9. Seismic Spikes
   
   The idea that seismic spikes preceded the collapses of the towers is the subject of the page, ERROR: Seismic Spikes Preceded Collapses. Unfortunately a number of web sites seized upon this idea without critically evaluating it. The article takes advantage of this red-herring by pointing out that PrisonPlanet.com and WhatReallyHappened.com support it, while ignoring the much larger bodies of valid evidence of demolition that these sites present.
10. WTC 7 Collapse
    
    Here the article cites 911review.org, a site that promotes discrediting ideas but purports to speak for the 9/11 skeptics' community. The article simply repeats the site's claim that "the video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to fire, but rather a controlled demolition," without directing the reader to where they can see videos, such as on WTC7.net. The article makes no mention of the facts that skeptics most often cite as evidence that the collapse was a controlled demolition:
    
    • The building collapsed with precisely vertical fashion.
    • The building collapsed at almost the rate of free-fall.
    • The building collapsed into a tidy pile of rubble.
    
    
    The article lets NIST's Shyam Sunder sell the "progressive collapse" of Building 7:
    What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
    Note the guarded language Sunder uses to describe the extent of the collapse. The reader is led to believe that the collapse of a "section" could lead to the total collapse of the building, when in fact there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel frame buildings outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
    
    
    THE PENTAGON
    
11. Big Plane, Small Holes
    
    Here the article cites the claim on reopen911.org that the hole in the Pentagon was "only 16ft. across," and mentions French author Thierry Meyssan, who helped to spawn the "no-757-crash theory", the subject of <A href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html">my earlier essay. The article again implies that this idea is gospel among 9/11 skeptics, giving no clue that there is controversy about the issue in 9/11 skeptics circles, and that many consider this claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon a big distraction. The page ERROR: The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole and others by 9/11 skeptics have long debunked Meyssan's wildly inaccurate description of a 16-foot-diameter entry hole.
12. Intact Windows
    
    Here the article misrepresents an argument by skeptics of the official account of Flight 77's crash by stating that the issue is intact windows "near the impact area," when the skeptics point to unbroken windows in the trajectory of portions of the Boeing 757.
    
    PM uses this part to backhandedly promote the Pentagon Strike flash animation, which appears to serve the same function as this article: discrediting skepticism by associating it with sloppy research and easily disproven ideas.
13. Flight 77 Debris
    
    Here the article drops a URL for Pentagon Strike a second time, in case the reader missed the first one. The lack of aircraft debris following the Pentagon crash has been noted by many people as suspicious, but it is not surprising, considering the nature of the crash. See ERROR: Aircraft Crashes Always Leave Large Debris
    
    FLIGHT 93
14. The White Jet
    
    
    
    Here the article counters the idea that a small white jet reported by eyewitnesses had anything to do with the crash by relating a detailed account by the aviation director of the company that owned the business jet, David Newell. According to Newell, the co-pilot of the jet, Yates Gladwell, was contacted by FAA's Cleveland Center to investigate the crash immediately after it happened. According to PM:
    Gladwell confirmed the account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.
15. Roving Engine
    
    <A href="http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/flight93.html">The far-flung debris field of the Flight 93 crash site along with the eyewitness accounts make a strong case that the plane was shot down. The article takes on this issue by first citing an article on Rense.com that makes the unsubstantiated claim that "the main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site." It then argues that engine parts being found 300 yards from the main site is reasonable for a simple crash, because airline accident expert Michael K. Hynes, who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, states parts could bounce that far "when you have high velocities, 500 mph or more." This theory is at odds with the eyewitness reports that the plane plummeted almost straight down, such as the following:
    
    • He hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.
    • It makes a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then makes a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashes.
    • He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone."
16. Indian Lake
    
    The article devotes this point to the confetti seen over Indian Lake, which is about two miles from the main crash site. It explains that this distance is "easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the blast."
17. F-16 Pilot
    
    In the final point, the article takes on the allegation by retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre that the pilot who shot down Flight 93 was Major Rick Gibney. The article states that Gibney was flying an F-16 that day, but it was not on an intercept mission; rather it was to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State's Emergency Management Office, and fly him from Montana to Albany, NY.
    
    
    
    PM delivers its closing ad hominem attack on skeptics in the voice of Ed Jacoby:
    I summarily dismiss [allegations that Gibney shot down Flight 93] because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at the time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes -- it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there.

"9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED"


Having slain the conspiracy theory army's poison-spewing 16-headed dragon of 9/11 LIES -- PM Popular Mechanics</em> -->declares the enemy vanquished, titling its final section "9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED." On page 128, PM reveals its suit of armor -- a list of over 70 "experts" that it found "particularly helpful." The titles and names on this page are supposed to back the many assertions the article makes in the main section, but the article gives no indication of what experts or reports back up many of its key assertions.

Personally I'm not exactly sure which one to believe or which combo (of all theories definitely not the extreme on either end though) to believe.

However I have noticed one thing , many of those who call PH a liar , propagandist etc, never counter his numbers. I've seen Psycho do it a few times for a select question amongst say 30, but I dont see many of PH's detractor's actually offer up anymore evidence then their humble opinion about PH or Alex Jones (thats the right guy right?) and completely ignore the point, refusing to read or cross reference facts therein. My gods people get a clue the minute you stop learning is the day you've failed as a human being.....Thats literally what we do as a species....please dont dismiss things because you dont like the person saying it. Hell I hate bush but once or twice He's actually said something I agree with...(like wow its a good morning etc....har har ;) had to lighten this somehow :) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdo79

Personally I'm not exactly sure which one to believe or which combo (of all theories definitely not the extreme on either end though) to believe.

However I have noticed one thing , many of those who call PH a liar , propagandist etc, never counter his numbers. I've seen Psycho do it a few times for a select question amongst say 30, but I dont see many of PH's detractor's actually offer up anymore evidence then their humble opinion about PH or Alex Jones (thats the right guy right?) and completely ignore the point, refusing to read or cross reference facts therein. My gods people get a clue the minute you stop learning is the day you've failed as a human being.....Thats literally what we do as a species....please dont dismiss things because you dont like the person saying it. Hell I hate bush but once or twice He's actually said something I agree with...(like wow its a good morning etc....har har ;) had to lighten this somehow :) ).

---

Amen to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WalkaWalka

â??BOMBS INSIDE WTCâ??

FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH



By Victor Thorn

NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.â??On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. â??I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know itâ??s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,â?� said Isaac.

The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New Yorkâ??s own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldnâ??t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.

He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, â??We all have to be very careful about how we handle it.â?�

Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005â??that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.

Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.

â??Itâ??s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,â?� said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airlinerâ??s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.

Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.

Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC â??open grave siteâ?� on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: â??I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.â?�

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

---

do u get piad to post all the crap u do piss'

i mean if i sit here and allow u to just pretend to know so fucking much about it by what some time warner/hearst mofo' put on some BLOG or some snippet in newspaper for u to RUN WITH, i get kinda bugged with ya at times

all the 911/WTC bush did it shit,,sucks ass so i say ,errr uhh fuck ya
i hate bush but that lil monkey faced prick didnt do TWC ,it was osama the cave man,so HUSH with all the big bro did it all

u cloud what they do really do up with CRAP by parrotting some web sites

you would make a great activist to get med weed legal
if u put your effort into that instead of all the conspiracy stuff
peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NowhereMan

do u get piad to post all the crap u do piss'

i mean if i sit here and allow u to just pretend to know so fucking much about it by what some time warner/hearst mofo' put on some BLOG or some snippet in newspaper for u to RUN WITH, i get kinda bugged with ya at times

all the 911/WTC bush did it shit,,sucks ass so i say ,errr uhh fuck ya
i hate bush but that lil monkey faced prick didnt do TWC ,it was osama the cave man,so HUSH with all the big bro did it all

u cloud what they do really do up with CRAP by parrotting some web sites

you would make a great activist to get med weed legal
if u put your effort into that instead of all the conspiracy stuff
peace

---

yep...osama did it.


youre totally right. im glad i ignored that entire in-depth article with people that actually know what theyre talking about.


youve stated that osama did it and bush had nothing to do with it, so you're obviously right.


thanks man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicholasstanko

yep...osama did it.


youre totally right. im glad i ignored that entire in-depth article with people that actually know what theyre talking about.


youve stated that osama did it and bush had nothing to do with it, so you're obviously right.


thanks man.

---

Yes, Osama did it, and US policy since makes certain there will be an endless supply of Osama's. Perhaps, rather than wondering why /if they attack us, we should just listen, they are willing, eager even, to tell us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicholasstanko

yep...osama did it.


youre totally right. im glad i ignored that entire in-depth article with people that actually know what theyre talking about.


youve stated that osama did it and bush had nothing to do with it, so you're obviously right.


thanks man.

---

wished nick took his own advice
'You know...it'd be really swell if you could just shut the fuck up for a change"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NowhereMan

wished nick took his own advice
'You know...it'd be really swell if you could just shut the fuck up for a change"

---

sorry, that advice is aimed at people who talk about things they dont bother to follow up on. ive read every link youve ever posted and thats what i base my posts on...from links that people post and from the research ive done.

you notice a link, figure that its just some conspiracy nut bullshit and make an opinion on pure assumption. its fine if you still dont agree, but its rather obvious you speculate purely on assumption. you make statements that have nothing to do with whats being discussed and you never reference anything from the articles you wish to contradict.


so maybe...just maybe...you should be the one to shut the fuck up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NowhereMan

do u get piad to post all the crap u do piss'

---

Yep, Alex Jones gets a B.J. a week for the info! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Yep, Alex Jones gets a B.J. a week for the info! :D

---

great post :rolleyes:

whats withy ou and this blowjob business all of a sudden?

What would I have to do to get the blowjob a day(week's too long) program? Because that sounds really interesting , and the real question is. Is it a time of my choosing? ;)