RINF.COM: THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE

Thursday, July 3rd, 2008
RINF Forum
Breaking News | Forum | UK News | USA News | World News | Political News | Sci-Tech News | War & Terrorism News | Sports News | Multimedia | Set Homepage
BREAKING NEWS
NEW RINF FORUM!

Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

By Joseph A. Lopisi

It is hard to pick a place to start in terms of talking about the most outrageous lies that the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission have presented to the people in this country as a reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and to launch a “fake war on terror”.

The reason I say this is that I have been reading articles and watching videos about the lies and deceptions surrounding 9/11 for the past three years. If anything, there are so many obvious unanswered questions about 9/11. However, not only has no one answered any of these questions but in fact no one in the mainstream media nor anyone in the United States Congress except for Representative Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney have even asked these questions.

Some of these questions are:

1. How is it that at the crash site of Flight 93, NBC and Fox News on September 11, 2001 reported on the scene with video coverage that there was no sign of a jetliner, engines, bodies or luggage? You can go to my website which is www.911insidejob.net and watch this video report which is on my home page. It has never been shown again on the mainstream media.

2. How is it that three steel framed buildings on September 11, 2001 fell in freefall time on their footprint? If you watch the two Towers collapse, it is obvious that they are being blown up. No steel framed building prior to this date or after this date has ever collapsed due to fire. Many steel framed buildings have experienced burning infernos for many hours and never collapsed. WTC 7, a 50 story steel framed building, had two small fires in it with no noticeable structural damage when it collapsed on his footprint in freefall time at about 5:40 p.m. on September 11. You can watch this building collapse on the homepage my website.

3. How is it that the most protected building in the world, the Pentagon, was hit by a commercial jetliner that was being tracked by Vice President Cheney in the basement of the White House for over one hour? Transportation Secretary Mineta testified under oath that he witnessed a member of the United States military ask Vice President Cheney several times whether the order still stood relative to not shooting down the oncoming plane. Vice President Cheney’s answer was that the order still stands. You can watch Secretary Mineta’s testimony on the home page of my website. The Pentagon is protected by a battery of antiaircraft guns that would automatically shoot down any plane that does not have a United States military transponder on it.

4. How is it that only five frames have been presented by this government to show supposedly what hit the Pentagon on that date. The Pentagon has surveillance cameras ringing the top exterior ring of the building. The FBI within 10 minutes of the attack were confiscating surveillance films from local businesses around the Pentagon. None of these confiscated surveillance films have been released. I would bet that a satellite sits above Washington, DC 24 hours every day and would have very good video images showing what hit the Pentagon.

5. How is it that a large commercial jetliner was able to crash into the first floor of the Pentagon and punch a round hole through three rings of the Pentagon which is constructed of steel reinforced concrete? The nose of a commercial jetliner is made of aluminum.

6. Why is it that Jamie McIntyre of CNN reported on the front lawn of the Pentagon on September 11 that from his vantage point it did not look like a commercial jetliner had crashed into the Pentagon? Why is it that this report has never been shown on mainstream media but can be seen on my website? Why is it that we have not heard another word from Jamie McIntyre or CNN regarding this report?

7. How was it that four commercial airliners were able to roam at will the northeastern sector of the United States without being intercepted? Of course, Flight 93 was intercepted and shot down by the US military. The northeastern sector of the United States is the most protected airspace in the world. There are several Air Force bases very close to Washington, DC and no jets from these Air Force bases came close to intercepting the plane that hit the Pentagon, despite the fact that Vice President Cheney knew the plane was heading towards Washington, DC for almost an hour.

I could go on and on but I will leave that to those who consider the truth about what happened on 9/11 to be important. You can go to my website or many other 9/11 websites and start reading about how outrageous the official 9/11 story is. You can go to www.youtube.com and watch five videos that I have produced under my call name which is “bushguiltyof911″.

Vice President Cheney met with the heads of the various oil companies right after Bush took office. When the public wanted to know who was there and what they were talking about, Vice President Cheney fought this request to the United States Supreme Court (the same court that elected George Bush in 2000) where he won. They were talking about attacking Iraq in order to gain control of their oil fields. They were talking about attacking Afghanistan to take over the construction of a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban, prior to September 11, 2001, had already said no to the Bush administration’s request that an American company, Unical, construct the gas pipeline and in response President Bush said to the Taliban that the United States would attack them in October 2001. We did.

The Bush administration’s purpose in planning and orchestrating 9/11 was to create an atmosphere of fear in this country so that the military/industrial/oil/private central banking complex could start their fake war on terror which included attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and probably Iran in the near future. None of this would have been possible without the United States Congress and the corporately owned mainstream media being complicit in so far as not questioning the official 9/11 conspiracy theory but in fact labeling anyone who does question the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as a “conspiracy nut”.

Why is it that neither the United States Congress nor the mainstream media question the counting of our votes by electronic voting machines made by companies owned and controlled by neoconservative Republicans? It has been shown extensively and publicly that these electronic voting machines are completely hackable, even remotely, by a high school student. Nevertheless, these machines count approximately 80% of our votes. Why is it that the United States Congress does not require the manufacturers of these machines to make the internal software available for inspection by us before and after these machines count our votes.

Why is it that only Ron Paul speaks out about the scam of the Federal Reserve Bank? Go to my website where I have several streaming videos on my homepage that simply and clearly explain the scam that the Federal Reserve Bank perpetrates on all of us and has done so since its creation. What they call a “business cycle” is actually an intentional manipulation of the money supply for the sole benefit of the cartel of private banks that own the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank prints money and then lends it to this government at interest. Much of our income tax payments go to paying the interest on this loan of paper money that has no backing.

We must not vote for anyone who does not speak out about the lies and deceptions regarding 9/11, the removal of all electronic voting machines from the election process and the termination of the Federal Reserve Bank. Of course, there must be term limits and only public financing of national elections.

Joseph A. Lopisi is an attorney and the webmaster of www.911insidejob.net. He is the cofounder of the Massachusetts 9/11 Truth Group and is a member of the Coalition against Election Fraud. You can contact him through the e-mail function on his website.

See More: 

Have Your Say: Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11
Please note, only selected comments will be published.

Or discuss this report in our new forums

113 Responses to “Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11”

  1. pingback:
    Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11 « Dr Nasir Khan

    [...] Keep reading . . . [...]

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  2. Robert Hoogenboom
    Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am

    Thanks, Joseph!
    Here’s another one for you to consider, the videos of the plane flying into the second twin tower, broadcast by the media as though they were authentic, are fake. One, a so-called “live” broadcast of the plane flying into the tower, shows the plane going through the building and come out the other side; what’s more, nose intact - an utter absurdity. In another video, shown in the evening, a sequence that had actually been broadcast live in the morning had been doctored, with much of the sky and New York City skyline and buildings removed, and the flight of a plane of a plane super-imposed, a plane that was not there in the earlier showing of that same sequence. A researcher called Ace Baker has actually analysed this sequence frame by frame and has found that if you make the scenery of the tower and the background exactly coincide frame by frame, the flight of the plane does not steady accordingly by becomes more chaotic, meaning that it was shot with a different (hand-held) camera and super-imposed. A third video shows the plane disappearing into the building, at an angle, like a knife goes into butter: no slowing down and loss of momentum, nothing breaking off, and creating a hole which is well-nigh equal to itself (with the wall closing up again over the right wing!) A real plane, being made mainly of aluminium, would have smashed to bits against the steel lattice and the concrete of the wall, and against the horizontal floor, which it would have had to plough through. Moreover, it would have most likely burst into flames, and then falling straight down onto the grounds.
    The video of the first plane, so-called shot by the Gaudet brothers, also doesn’t seem authentic. The “plane” covers too few frames in the video, and it is said that the FBI had that video in its possession for at least a day before it was given back.
    Look all of this up in YouTube. You will find many film clips discussing this issue of the fake videos.
    I am claiming nothing else: Those videos of planes flying into the twin towers are fake!

    Sydney, Australia

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  3. pingback:
    Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am

    Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11 « Suzie-Q

    [...] Keep reading . . .  [...]

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  4. roman
    Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am

    There is no need for more conspiratorial proof on the 9/11 fiasco.
    Whats required is for the American people to rise up against Bush and co., and serve them up their just desserts. The world is waiting…

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  5. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    It’s instructive of your 9/11 Denial Movement, that every one of those questions above have been repeatedly debunked years ago. That this author is either too dumb to look up the answers or is intentionally lying shows us that the 9/11 Denial Movement is nothing but a house of cards that will collapse as debris on top of the existing pile of other denial movement debris, like Holocaust denial.

    Eventually you are going to have to grow up and stop reposting pathetic nonsense.

    Amazing.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  6. Indigo
    Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    b. j. edwards

    Can you please provide evidence to support your claims?

    I doubt you can.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  7. Robert Hoogenboom
    Posted: Feb 9th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    b,j, edwards,

    Those questions haven’t been debunked.

    Sydney, Australia

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  8. nathan
    Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    the person here has clearly given you questions that you say have been ‘debunked’, and if that is true it should be easy for you to ‘debunk’ them or at least give us a website or an article where we can go for research.

    keep in mind that people who understand that we have been lied to have done days worth research and are open-minded and willing to look at real information on the subject

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  9. Stan
    Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    He is only posting here to promote his bullshit blog nobody reads.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  10. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    I always find it astonishing that 9/11 Truthers have never had any exposure to critical thinking such that they will uncritically and willingly accept debunked claims and NEVER bothering to question those claims and do their own research. Apparently, you have never considered that people like Joseph A. Lopisi KNOW that they have you as willing sheep and are using YOU.

    It is really is quite amazing.

    So I’ll do one at a time. Starting with claim #1:

    “1. How is it that at the crash site of Flight 93, NBC and Fox News on September 11, 2001 reported on the scene with video coverage that there was no sign of a jetliner, engines, bodies or luggage?”

    Now look at exactly what he is asking you to believe: that a news report on the very day of the crash, long before work had begun to recover the bodies and wreckage should be considered as evidence of no crash and we should STILL be asking questions about it? Who amongst you would seriously entertain that claim? Do you understand that workers and recovery crews arrived later and spent a considerable amount of time digging? Do you believe that there are NOT multiple lines of evidence pointing to the certainty of UA 93’s crash?

    See:

    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page3
    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
    http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  11. troofers are the new geeks
    Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    hey b. j. edwards are you one of those crazy no planers or one of those crazy infowars sheep?

    theres some of us who dont fall for either extreames and support a new investigation into 911.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  12. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    I’m just a rational person, geeks, who goes after ALL of the frauds and charlatans of the 9/11 Denial Movement like the author of the above article. How you could possibly think I have anything to do with that movement in any way possible shows me you are clueless as the above commenters are.

    The burden of proof is on you guys to come up with the evidence to refute the MASSIVE evidence against your claims. After six years, we still have charlatans like Joseph Lopisi above who have nothing to show other than debunked nonsense.

    If you think anyone will ever conduct another 9/11 investigation without reason, you’re sadly deluded.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  13. nathan
    Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 2:59 am

    bj do you work for the government

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  14. ctestawich
    Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    I never understood while reading these kinds of blogs, there are always people who go out of their way to leave a comment like “Your a conspiracy wacko / No one will read your blog / Provide evidence…” Provide evidence is my favorite. All alot of people out there want is more evidence to back up the gov’ts story, show us some of those cameras that were set up around the Pentagon. Even a 10 second clip could silaece alot of critics but they don’t show it out of national security or something. Clips of hijackers gettin on planes something. The way I am trying to look at it, is pretend you were in a coma and missed 9/11.. what kinds of questions would you ask as a person tryin to figure out what happened and why America is in a war across seas… (as a Canadian we rae still wondering how the hell we got into Afghanistan, a war we didnt start and most of us didnt want to go into…) Most of these people want to be proven wrong and are open to the idea that they could be wrong so why redicule them for questioning the powers that be (esp, when they admit they lied to get into Afghanistan/Iraq)? I thought your guys country was founded on such reasoning. Peace to my brothers and sisters in America. I kinda hope I get flamed.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  15. ctestawich
    Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Do some people go out of their way to go to site to site and blog to blog to leave “You guys are wackos” comments? lol

    “I’ll just check out this page cause it says “Some of the Outrageous Lies About 9/11″ and ridicule whomever wrote it! HA HA HA! THERE! My comment shall stifle any efforts you have to coerse the people into outrageous thinking! I am making the world a better place!”

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  16. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    ” Provide evidence is my favorite. All alot of people out there want is more evidence to back up the gov’ts story, show us some of those cameras that were set up around the Pentagon. Even a 10 second clip could silaece alot of critics but they don’t show it out of national security or something.”

    Why do you think you need a video or picture of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon? Are you willing to ignore every other bit of evidence, including the wreckage found inside the pentagon, and the over 1,000 people who either saw and/or recovered that wreckage? Those very people who have never contested that the wreckage was from a Boeing 757?

    The “need” for a video or photograph of AA 77 is just another 9/11 Denial Movement strawman to hide behind so they won’t have to deal with the massive evidence that ALL converges on the what we know is true: AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

    We didn’t need photographs or videos to know the Titanic sank and with AA 77 we have far more evidence.

    The 9/11 Truth Movement has hidden behind the “we are just asking questions” canard while studiously avoiding the answers it doesn’t want to hear. The burden of proof remains on those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. You can’t ignore that fact.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  17. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    “bj do you work for the government”

    LOL. No. Your question is just indicative of another favorite illogical canard of 9/11 Truthers.

    You don’t even have a clue why you asked that silly question.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  18. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 11th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Well, since no one contests the fact that Flight 93 did crash and there was wreckage, let’s move on to question #2:

    “2. How is it that three steel framed buildings on September 11, 2001 fell in freefall time on their footprint?”

    This is an old falsehood. None of the towers fell in “freefall” time. None actually fell in their “footprints”. WTC 7 was leaning and completely destroyed a neighboring building, Manhattan Community College’s Fiterman Hall building. The Verizon Building suffered $1.4 billion in damage from WTC 7’s collapse. It took about 14 seconds for the FULL collapase of WTC 7.

    “If you watch the two Towers collapse, it is obvious that they are being blown up.”

    Who says? This is just another assertion made without evidence. The writer cannot even show us what an uncontrolled demolition is SUPPOSED to or not supposed to ook like nor provide any such example.”

    “No steel framed building prior to this date or after this date has ever collapsed due to fire.”

    Blatantly false and stupid. Hundreds of steel-frame buildings collapsed due fire during World War II. Just look at the exhibits at The Edo Museum in Tokyo, London’s Imperial War Museum, and Dresden’s City Historical Museum .

    “Many steel framed buildings have experienced burning infernos for many hours and never collapsed.”

    With concrete cores. Or never damaged. Or never burning WITHOUT firemen fighting it.

    “WTC 7, a 50 story steel framed building, had two small fires in it with no noticeable structural damage when it collapsed on his footprint in freefall time at about 5:40 p.m. on September 11.”

    Amazing. FOUR lies in one sentence. And you believe this fraud? There were many fires burning throughout the building for SEVEN hours, with no water to fight them, helped long by a ruptured diesel fuel tank, in a structure that suffered severe structural damage on its South Side, that collapsed at a slight angle after fire had weakened the remaining structural steel that was forced to take on the additional structural load from the damaged side and did not fall in its own footprint.

    How could any of you praise this fraud and liar, Joseph A. Lopisi?

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  19. Englishman
    Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 3:37 am

    Nice work.

    Keep fighting, keep spreading the word.

    It’s appreciated.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  20. Joe, Webmaster
    Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    The Hidden Hand of the CIA, 911, and Popular Mechanics

    By Christopher Bollyn
    American Free Press
    March 19, 2005 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050321052700567

    Instructive fast peek at players, politics and patterns behind PM’s recent 9/11 disinfo. - Ed.

    A brutal purge of the senior staff at Popular Mechanics preceded the publication of last month’s scandalous propaganda piece about 9/11. Pulling the strings is the grand dame of Hearst Magazines and behind the scene is her obscure husband, a veteran propaganda expert and former special assistant to the director of the C.I.A.

    The Reichstag fire, a key event in German history, and the steps that followed en suite leading to the Nazi dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, provide remarkable precedents for what occurred in the United States on 9/11 and since.

    The fire that consumed the German parliament building on the night of February 27, 1933, is widely believed, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government to turn public opinion against its opponents and allow it to assume emergency powers.

    The day after the burning of the Reichstag, the government headed by Adolf Hitler enacted a decree for the Protection of the People and the State. Hitlers emergency decree dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights.

    Likewise, a month after 9/11 the U.S. Congress passed, without even reading, similar emergency legislation: the Bush administrations USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The pre-prepared massive security act’s long title is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.”

    Within a month of the Reichstag fire, on March 23, 1933, the parliament passed the Enabling Act, whereby its legislative powers were transferred to Hitler’s Reich Cabinet. This act, passed by a vote of 444 to 94, legally sanctioned the Nazi dictatorship,

    Another parallel is seen in the way George W. Bush and Hitler came to power. Bush obtained the presidency in 2001 through a Supreme Court decision after a flawed and un-counted election, while Hitler secured the German chancellorship through elections in November 1932 in which the Nazi Party failed to win an outright majority.

    Hitlers propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is thought to have let arsonists into the parliament building through a tunnel leading from the official residence of Hermann Gvring, Reichstag president and Hitler’s chief minister.

    Gvring then presided over the official investigation, which blamed the communists. In a similar manner, the Bush administration openly opposed an independent investigation of 9/11 and fixed blame on Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arab terrorists. Based on this official, but unproven, explanation for 9/11 the United States has invaded and occupied two Middle Eastern nations.

    “DISINFORMATION AND DECEPTION”

    “Ninety-five percent of the work of intelligence agencies around the world is disinformation and deception,” Andreas von B¸low, former parliamentary official responsible for the budget for Germany’s intelligence agencies, told American Free Press in December 2001.

    Like Nazi Germany of 1933, American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government’s truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims.

    The magazine pushing the government’s 9/11 propaganda, Popular Mechanics (PM), is published by the Hearst family. Its March cover story, Debunking 9/11 Lies, has been exposed by credible researchers to contain numerous distortions and flawed conclusions. American Free Press revealed that Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old senior researcher who authored the 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The PM article illustrates how a propaganda method, used by dictatorships, is now being employed by the U.S. government: controlling mainstream media outlets to promote its version of 9/11.

    The actions of Michael Chertoff concerning the events of 9/11, the non-investigation that followed, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the propaganda being disseminated in PM, are strikingly similar to actions attributed to the Nazi ministers Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Gˆring.

    While Chertoff is the czar of DHS, he is not sovereign at PM or Hearst Magazines, its corporate parent. The president of Hearst Magazines, one of the world’s largest publishers of monthly magazines with 18 U.S. titles and more than 100 international editions, is Cathleen P. Black, a 60-year old native of Chicago. Black oversees the publication of 175 titles around the world including Cosmopolitan, Harpers Bazaar, Town & Country, Esquire, Good Housekeeping, and Popular Mechanics.

    Black is a former president and publisher of USA Today. In 1983, Black was made president of the new newspaper published by Gannett. The following year she was made publisher and soon became a member of Gannetts board of directors

    Despite her efforts, her biography reads, USA Today did not show an operating profit in the eight years that Black was there. The newspaper’s non-profitability notwithstanding, Gannett paid Black $600,000 a year for her efforts. USA Today reportedly had a circulation of 1.8 million when Black left in 1991. USA Today is often given away free of charge.

    Black left USA Today to become president and chief executive of the nascent Newspaper Association of America (NAA), formed on June 1, 1992. She then became the leading spokesperson and lobbyist for the nation’s newspaper industry. Black’s position at the NAA carried “considerable political heft,” Paul Farhi of The Washington Post wrote, “given that the 1,400 members of her organization control the nations editorial pages.

    In 1995, for an annual salary reported to be “in excess of $1 million,” Black was hired by Hearst Corp. to head its magazine division. Named by Fortune magazine as one of the Most Powerful Women in American Business, Black sits on the boards of Hearst Corp., the Advertising Council, IBM, and Coca-Cola. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    It is often said that USA Today is controlled by the CIA, which, like the paper, is based in McLean, Virginia. The little-known fact that Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, an obscure lawyer who became a White House Fellow in 1977 and served as special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), provides substance to these rumors. Black’s corporate biography does not mention her husband.

    President Jimmy Carter made Harvey a White House Fellow in May 1977. “In that capacity,” Harvey’s biography reads, he “served as special assistant to the Director of the C.I.A. Following that he held senior appointed positions within the Department of Defense.”

    The DCI at the time was Stansfield Turner, who had replaced George H.W. Bush.

    Prior to serving the CIA, Harvey worked at the New York law office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. The international law firm, co-founded by Morris Hadley, a 1916 member of Yale University’s secret society Skull & Bones, has ties to the CIA and lists William H. Webster, DCI from 1987-1991, as a senior partner. Webster also serves on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

    In the 1980s, Harvey served as General Counsel and Congressional Liaison of the U.S. Information Agency, the former external propaganda arm of the U.S. government. Harvey also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army and Navy. In 1992, Harvey was personnel director for the Bush-Quayle 92 Campaign.

    Calls to the offices of Black and Harvey for the purpose of this article went unanswered.

    THE COUP AT POPULAR MECHANICS

    In the months leading up to the Chertoff article in PM, a brutal take-over occurred at the magazine. In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazines former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs, who came to PM with a deputy, Jerry Beilinson, from National Geographic Adventure. In October, a new creative director replaced PMs 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office.

    A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. Three or four people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media.

    PM has long been a supporter of the U.S. military. The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003. Since the purge last September, however, PM readers have noticed that government propaganda has replaced scientific writing. A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  21. Joe, Webmaster
    Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    History Channel Hit Piece: Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud

    The real story behind Brad Davis, NBC, Popular Mechanics and the History Channel - media whore stooges who engaged in deliberate deception, manipulation and chicanery to please their corporate bosses

    Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet
    Tuesday, August 21, 2007

    MP3: Alex Jones Responds to the History Channel Hit Piece

    The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias.

    Bradley Davis, the producer of the show, is a paid liar and a hit piece specialist who deceives people by gaining their confidence and then attacking them behind their back.

    He is famous for the smear job documentary on Michael Jackson and makes a career out of conning people and then stabbing them in the back. His tongue is so smooth, that even the Loose Change crew were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on his impartiality before last night’s hit piece was aired, with Davis having tricked them into believing he was a friend.

    Before filming began, Alex Jones asked Davis point blank if the documentary was going to be a hit piece, which Davis denied. After we brought attention to the History Channel’s blurb on their website, which clearly characterized the show as a hit piece, Davis panicked and promised to alter the promo, calling it a “misrepresentation,” as well as re-edit the entire program to make it more balanced. The promo temporarily disappeared from the website and the broadcast of the show was put back by a week.

    During the course of this second exchange, Davis again promised Jones that the show was not going to be a hit piece and was very upset that we had discovered he was behind the NBC hit piece on Jackson - seemingly frightened that his cover might be blown and his next victim would be alerted to his scheming tricks. He was terrified and kept repeating that he didn’t want to be quoted on anything he said.

    Just like Popular Mechanics swore that their straw man smear job wouldn’t be a hit piece, Davis engaged in journalistic fraud and complete dishonesty by lying directly to Alex Jones’ face in claiming the documentary was to be neutral just so he could secure the interview.

    Just like William Randolph Hearst, the progenitor of the term “yellow journalism,” Davis will go down in history as a liar and a fraud.

    The show itself was deliberately crafted, edited, shot and manipulated to portray the 9/11 truth movement in a completely negative light, while exalting the so-called experts to almost God-like status.

    - The program makers pulled out all the stops to hire nationally renowned NBC news anchor Lester Holt (pictured) to narrate the show, a trusted voice that was utilized to brutally debunk 9/11 truth representatives.

    - The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description.

    - The debunkers’ interviews were pristinely shot and framed, with beautiful backdrops and highly sympathetic camera angles and filters, whereas the truthers were shot from bizarre positions, their images were deliberately distorted and even the color filter of the shot had been manipulated to make their appearance look tainted, blurred and contorted. This was an intentional ploy and a crude act of manipulation to detract credibility from the truthers and violates all known ethical standards of journalism.

    - The producers of the show failed to offer the proviso that Hearst Publishing, the owner of Popular Mechanics, also holds a controlling stake in the History Channel (via its stake in the A & E Television Network), therefore concealing from the viewer a blatant conflict of interest that negated the neutrality of the show before it had even begun.

    - The debunkers were afforded far more time on camera while the truthers were sidelined.

    - The narrator of the show would dismiss the questions and evidence raised by the truthers as unproven or debunked in an ad hominem manner without providing any evidence to justify the assertion.

    - The truthers were edited so that only hesitant responses to questions were broadcast, casting doubt on the veracity of their claims in the mind of the unsuspecting viewer.

    - The show included a clip of Alex Jones’ appearance at the University of Texas, at which around 500 people packed the lecture hall to hear his speech, but deliberately and maliciously edited the footage to include shots taken during recess, so as to make it appear that the lecture hall was mostly empty. In addition, lingering shots of empty chairs were included to further deceive the viewer into thinking few had attended the speech. This is journalistic fraud of the worse kind - a blatant misrepresentation and deliberate skewing of actual events.

    - In a similar vein, footage from 9/11 truth protests was broadcast but the angle of the shot was always tight, so as to make out that few people had attended the demonstration, when in fact thousands were present.

    - Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics, mirroring a dirty trick that was also employed in the BBC hit piece, maliciously lied and smeared Alex Jones and others in the program by claiming that most of the 9/11 families hate them and that they are responsible for causing the families more pain. Coburn and the show’s producers know this is an outright lie and that the majority of the family members are asking the same questions as Alex Jones and others. Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members told the Alex Jones Show directly that over half of the family members have questions about the official story. Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew offered contact details for numerous 9/11 first responders, firefighters and family members that were asking questions of the official version, but absolutely none were interviewed by Brad Davis and the rest of the show’s producers.

    - The producers of the show tried to make out that Loose Change had recanted their position on the issue of controlled demolition, when in fact Dylan Avery and the other members of the crew were merely using their Final Cut version to focus on other topics, having already covered controlled demolition at length in previous versions. This trick was used to claim that evidence for bombs and controlled demolition, which is attested to by scores of firefighters and first responders, none of which were interviewed by the producers, had been debunked.

    —————————————————————————————————————
    The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
    —————————————————————————————————————

    - Articles and text from 9/11 truth websites were shown, but the actual URL addresses of the sites were blurred out, with the History Channel obviously frightened that people might actually visit such websites and find out that the program was a pack of lies.

    - The debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta’s bombshell testimony about Cheney’s actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, “the airplane coming in to the Pentagon,” and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.

    - The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones’ scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night, Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered” but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

    - The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

    - The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

    - The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded.

    - The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded.

    - William Rodriguez’ first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.

    - NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson’s own report at the time which stated, “Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off.”

    After watching this two hour charade, Alex Jones was left stunned and irate that the producers had deliberately set out to create something that goes way beyond the scope of bias - an intentional propaganda attack piece strewn with manifestly provable lies, dirty tricks and misrepresentation, and that the show’s producers, and in particular Brad Davis, had purposefully lied all along in order to shield the fact that this was a savage hit piece of the highest order.

    In comparison, The History Channel makes Fox News look fair and balanced!

    Framing Alex Jones as a demon and making out that he is causing pain to 9/11 families, when in fact during our last visit to ground zero most of the firefighters and police personally thanked us, is a very serious allegation and we are waiting to see what kind of damages will accrue as a result while we consider our next step.

    As we expected all along, Brad Davis and the rest of the charlatans at NBC, the History Channel and Popular Mechanics, have pleased their corporate masters by unleashing the most twisted, distorted, dishonest and savage hit piece in television history. They have shown their hand by deliberately abandoning any pretense at ethical journalism and delivering exactly what their Hearst “yellow journalism” Publishing and GE bosses demanded - a bias, malicious, deceptive, and manipulative tissue of lies and another reason for Americans to disengage from an establishment media empire that continues to hemorrhage viewers on a daily basis due to its ceaseless lies and propaganda.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  22. solis
    Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    bj, despite what you and your “debunking” crowd may like to believe, your arguments consistently offer nothing more than theory, half-baked rationalizing, often a complete lack of logic, and the typical apologist behavior you will see in any dogmatic suppression of truth.

    having been a part of the 9/11 truth movement since early 2002, i have read nearly every single one of your “debunking” sites, articles, reports, etc. in essence, they just discuss the subject, adding in every possible theory (stress, “theory”), and guesstimation, completely reaching for an answer that ends up being more ridiculous and implausible than anything they could be debunking.

    on a more immediate level, you don’t even go that far - you simply submit lies and then claim they are evidence. very weak, to say the least.

    for example, “None of the towers fell in “freefall” time.”

    funny, how you just blatantly make things up to “support” your arguments. in every video of the towers collapsing, ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time. why would you write something so incredibly asinine and demonstrably false?

    “None actually fell in their “footprints”.”

    yes. they did. watch any video. how on earth do you expect to get away with refuting common sense and miles of video footage? and don’t even try to quibble about the definition of ‘footprint,’ they all fell straight downward, EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

    “WTC 7 was leaning”

    show us the evidence.

    “Who says [the towers exploded]? This is just another assertion made without evidence.”

    http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg

    please enlighten us on how this picture does NOT reveal explosions?

    even john kerry admitted WTC7 was demolished:

    http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/220407_kerry_wtc7.html

    “The burden of proof remains on those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. You can’t ignore that fact.”

    oh really? and who made you the grand magistrate? how about the burden of proof falls on a government that provides such laughable lies in its investigation (after fighting tooth and nail to even implement an investigation) that it has lost all credibility in the process?

    “Hundreds of steel-frame buildings collapsed due fire during World War II. Just look at the exhibits at The Edo Museum in Tokyo, London’s Imperial War Museum, and Dresden’s City Historical Museum.”

    please provide proof that these buildings fell directly due to fire, and not bombs.

    “Why do you think you need a video or picture of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon?”

    because everything this administration has given us has been nothing but lies.

    “Are you willing to ignore every other bit of evidence, including the wreckage found inside the pentagon, and the over 1,000 people who either saw and/or recovered that wreckage?”

    the evidence was obviously planted. it was the freakin’ pentagon, for god’s sake. why on earth would a piece of fuselage just randomly appear nowhere near the point of impact, and not even be scratched or singed? did it just fall off the plane? and for that matter, why was the supposed plane tracked for over one hour, yet simply allowed to fly into the pentagon unharmed? it was those damn fake radar blips, eh? nothing suspicious there!

    “Those very people who have never contested that the wreckage was from a Boeing 757?”

    and of course, we all know that those who work for the CIA are unquestionably trustworthy. no gray morals there. no brainwashing. no bribes, threats, or anything of the sort. all just good, simple, hardworkin’ 100% honest folk.

    here is my favorite one:

    “1. How is it that at the crash site of Flight 93, NBC and Fox News on September 11, 2001 reported on the scene with video coverage that there was no sign of a jetliner, engines, bodies or luggage?”

    “Now look at exactly what he is asking you to believe: that a news report on the very day of the crash, long before work had begun to recover the bodies and wreckage should be considered as evidence of no crash and we should STILL be asking questions about it? Do you understand that workers and recovery crews arrived later and spent a considerable amount of time digging?”

    okay, so let me get this straight here. what you’re saying is that evidence of a plane crash will appear to the naked ONLY AFTER clean-up crews arrive? how do you tie your shoes in the morning? what kind of absurd logic is that?

    why did both a FOX news cameraman and CNN correspondent say they saw NO evidence of a plane crash at the site?? oh, i’m sorry — it’s because the clean-up crews hadn’t arrived! the plane was entirely underground! thank you for your brilliant enlightenment, bj!

    meanwhile, a few other questions for you.

    why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize.

    how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings?

    how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly.

    why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001?

    why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one.

    “If you think anyone will ever conduct another 9/11 investigation without reason, you’re sadly deluded.”

    the joint chairmen of congress’s own 9/11 investigatory commission - not to mention the two 9/11 commission directors - now say they were not told the whole truth by government employees who testified, and that their report is very flawed. gee, that sort of sounds like a reason to me.

    the bottom line, bj, is that you are simply non-credible and untrustworthy. you cannot answer any questions, and your lies are blatantly transparent.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  23. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Solis wrote without EVER having done a bit of research

    “having been a part of the 9/11 truth movement since early 2002, i have read nearly every single one of your “debunking” sites, articles, reports, etc. in essence, they just discuss the subject, adding in every possible theory (stress, “theory”), and guesstimation, completely reaching for an answer that ends up being more ridiculous and implausible than anything they could be debunking.”

    Having demonstrated since March 2002 that you 9/11 Truth Kiddies have NEVER produced one single piece of evidence to support what you desperately NEED to believe, one can only wonder if you have been living in a cave in Antarctica, Solis.

    Let’s start with your inability to see and to count:

    “funny, how you just blatantly make things up to “support” your arguments. in every video of the towers collapsing, ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time. why would you write something so incredibly asinine and demonstrably false?”

    I don’t. YOU do, as this video makes abundantly clear:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

    Now, apologize to all the readers here, Solis.

    “yes. they did. watch any video. how on earth do you expect to get away with refuting common sense and miles of video footage? and don’t even try to quibble about the definition of ‘footprint,’ they all fell straight downward, EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.”

    So, your definition of “footprint” includes 3, 4, 5, & 6 World Trade Center within the 208 ft x 208 ft footprints of WTC 1 & 2.

    Amazing. You REALLY need remedial counting education, Solis.

    “please enlighten us on how this picture does NOT reveal explosions?”

    LOL. The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on your shoulders, Solis. Please demonstrate how your photo demonstrates “controlled demolition” in any way whatsoever. And then, you can do what every 9/11 Truth Kiddie ahead of you has failed to do. You can bring to the table examples of what UNcontrolled building collapses look like.

    You are so GULLIBLE, Solis, believing anything frauds and charlatans tell you, never once actually thinking nor doing your own research.

    “oh really? and who made you the grand magistrate? how about the burden of proof falls on a government that provides such laughable lies in its investigation (after fighting tooth and nail to even implement an investigation) that it has lost all credibility in the process?”

    Gosh, you really are dense. First, if you had sat down and even THOUGHT for a minute you would realize that all of the EVIDENCE of what happened on 9/11 DOES NOT come from the government, never originated with nor was ever controlled by the government. You allowed yourself to be taken in by the strawman argument that what actually happened on 9/11 is just some “official story,” that the government foisted on us. Really, Solis, how can you allow yourself to be so taken in by what the 9/11 Truth Movement wants you to believe, completely ignoring the evidence?

    Another example of the same thing.
    ““Why do you think you need a video or picture of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon?”
    because everything this administration has given us has been nothing but lies.”

    The evidence of what occurred at the Pentagon is INDEPENDENT of the government. Duh.

    “the evidence was obviously planted. it was the freakin’ pentagon, for god’s sake. why on earth would a piece of fuselage just randomly appear nowhere near the point of impact, and not even be scratched or singed? did it just fall off the plane? and for that matter, why was the supposed plane tracked for over one hour, yet simply allowed to fly into the pentagon unharmed? it was those damn fake radar blips, eh? nothing suspicious there!”

    My God, you’re dumb. You want us to believe that “something” exploded at the Pentagon, killing people, and magically people were able to “plant” 757 wreckage and burned bodies in airline seats throughout the interior of the Pentagon without being seen and within minutes of the “event?” And not only that, they were able to HIDE the evidence of what actually caused the explosion? Over 1,000 people saw and/or recovered the wreckage and never claimed it was something other than wreckage? Over 200 people were involved with AA77 at the airport that morning, hundreds of family members of the passengers KNEW they were on that flight, yet you cannot even tell us what happened to the flight??? Jesus, Solis, where did you leave your brain?

    “and of course, we all know that those who work for the CIA are unquestionably trustworthy. no gray morals there. no brainwashing. no bribes, threats, or anything of the sort. all just good, simple, hardworkin’ 100% honest folk.”

    So, where is your evidence that over 1,000 people at the Pentagon and 200 people at the airport worked for the CIA and have kept their mouths shut for the last 6 years? Huh? Why are you afraid to tell us what ANY of those 1,500+ people said they saw and recovered from the Pentagon? Scared, Solis? You bet you are.

    Now this is REALLY stupid:
    “okay, so let me get this straight here. what you’re saying is that evidence of a plane crash will appear to the naked ONLY AFTER clean-up crews arrive? how do you tie your shoes in the morning? what kind of absurd logic is that?”

    You haven’t a clue what my statement means?: “Do you understand that workers and recovery crews arrived later and spent a considerable amount of time digging?”” What does DIGGING mean to you, Solis? Playing in a sand box? Do you have any clue at all that the surviving wreckage was in the ground and was DUG out? See: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.html

    “why did both a FOX news cameraman and CNN correspondent say they saw NO evidence of a plane crash at the site??” Because, duh, they didn’t see what they expected to see. And you want us to use them as EXCLUSIVE evidence. Amazing.

    “meanwhile, a few other questions for you.”

    Questions? You mean you’re “just asking questions?” Gosh. Let’s review:

    1) You rely EXCLUSIVELY on 9/11 conspiracy sites.
    2) You NEVER think through what you desperately WANT to believe.
    3) Your claims are illogical and irrational.
    4) You NEVER support your claims with sound evidence.
    5) You IGNORE evidence INCONVENIENT to your desired conclusions.
    6) You NEVER provide answers - you just ask questions.

    You are a perfect example of a 9/11 Truther, Solis, living in a fairyland world of nonsense, never bothering to actually think. You are a perfect example of what the frauds and charlatans of the 9/11 Truth Movement take advantage of: gullible sheep.

    You end up illustrating my point EXACTLY.

    Now, I suggest you get out into the REAL world and do some research on your own. You can start with this massive site of links to every aspect of 9/11. It will take you quite awhile.

    And remember, the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the shoulders of your 9/11 Denial Movement.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  24. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  25. b. j. edwards
    Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Joe, Webmaster, getting very nervous gave us articles by fugitive,
    Christopher Bollyn, and “peer-reviewed” experts, Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson.

    Now THAT”S true desperation.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  26. solis
    Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 3:51 am

    bj, i know it’s wrong of me, but i have to admit i enjoy watching you fall apart at the seams. your “logic” is becoming increasingly absurd, and your desperation is starting to crack through your mind-bogglingly weak “intellectual” facade.

    the following is my NEW favorite.

    now, let’s review this very carefully. essentially, bj says that NO evidence of the flight 93’s “crash” in PA was VISIBLE to any witnesses immediately after it’s impact.

    why? oh, it gets much, much better. because, according to bj, the plane had VANISHED UNDERGROUND! that’s right. i am not making this up. you can even read it for yourself:

    ““Do you understand that workers and recovery crews arrived later and spent a considerable amount of time digging?”” What does DIGGING mean to you, Solis? Playing in a sand box? Do you have any clue at all that the surviving wreckage was in the ground and was DUG out? See:”

    (and THEN! the best part! LOOK at what he uses for incontrovertible “evidence”! this is good:)

    http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.html

    whoa! did you see that?? case closed! well, you sure got me there, bj! my god, is my hat off to you! you really showed me, didn’t you? (please, anybody reading this: CLICK ON HIS LINK)

    my god are you an intellectual lightweight.

    and you know what? you just completely shot yourself in the foot, because if that’s ALL you’ve got to prove that flight 93 ‘buried itself” in the ground, thereby “disappearing” from view and leaving NO visible traces, then not only have you just completely illustrated how flimsy your “debunker” arguments are, but you have also revealed precisely how naive, gullible, and unsophisticated your critical thinking skills truly are. if you actually fell for that, then we need to start talking business arrangements immediately.

    wow. that was good. thank you for that.

    solis to bj: “funny, how you just blatantly make things up to “support” your arguments. in every video of the towers collapsing, ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time. why would you write something so incredibly asinine and demonstrably false?”

    bj: I don’t. YOU do, as this video makes abundantly clear:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

    so, i watched this video, bj, and whoa, you sure made a POWERFUL point THERE! essentially, what your incredibly asinine video says is that — if the twin towers fell in ten seconds, then it’s free-fall speed. but… twelve seconds? well! that just entirely proves that it clearly WASN’T freefall speed, so we all might as well just give up go home! my god… it is truly appalling how simple-minded you really are.

    allow to enlighten you: essentially, the towers did NOT have to collapse at EXACTLY freefall speed to prove that resistance within its path was removed/demolished/exploded/etc. in order for it to have reached the ground that quickly. even it being VERY CLOSE to freefall speed is enough to prove this. in other words, what if every floor had demolitions on it, except, say for the seven? that might have been enough to slow it down a second or two. BUT! if there were NO explosives planted, the building would have taken SIGNIFICANTLY longer to collapse. THAT’S where you fall into your typical “debunker” drivel. we’ll call that one: “splitting hairs.” ten seconds? twelve seconds? fourteen seconds? get a grip, you brainwashed fool.

    bj: “So, your definition of “footprint” includes 3, 4, 5, & 6 World Trade Center within the 208 ft x 208 ft footprints of WTC 1 & 2.”

    and as far as the usual splitting hairs argument goes, here we go again. YES, the buildings collapsed straight into their own footprints. again, despite the fact that you can’t seem to comprehend basic logic when confronted with pictures of ACTUAL evidence, the buildings EXPLODED, UPWARD and OUTWARD. thus causing the damage to the surrounding buildings.

    http://usera.imagecave.com/markyannone/Album9/wtc.jpg

    only a fool would claim this is an implosion, as opposed to an EXplosion.

    “LOL. The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on your shoulders, Solis.”

    no it’s not dimwit, except for in your disturbed little mind. as far as the vast majority of americans who want a new investigation, the burden of proof is on traitors like you.

    “Please demonstrate how your photo demonstrates “controlled demolition” in any way whatsoever.”

    don’t lie to me. i said it was indicative of “explosions” not of a “controlled demolition” and you know it. plus, anyone can SEE that that is clearly an explosion.

    and by the way, anybody reading this, that is a very typical “debunker” logical-fallacy response: change the argument and then refute THAT. this is what is known as a ‘fallacy of ambiguity’ also known as a ’straw man’ argument. sorry, twiddle-brain, your little tricks will not get past me.

    THIS is my second favorite. notice how bj essentially says NOTHING of any consequence, logic, or value:

    solis (in response to bj’s claim that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the 9/11 truth movement skeptics): “oh really? and who made you the grand magistrate? how about the burden of proof falls on a government that provides such laughable lies in its investigation (after fighting tooth and nail to even implement an investigation) that it has lost all credibility in the process?”

    bj: “Gosh, you really are dense. First, if you had sat down and even THOUGHT for a minute you would realize that all of the EVIDENCE of what happened on 9/11 DOES NOT come from the government, never originated with nor was ever controlled by the government.”

    uh… what?

    first of all, WHAT are you talking about?

    second of all (trying to glean any sense out of that statement whatsoever), are you saying that all of the evidence “doesn’t come from the government…”? and if so, what does THAT have to do with anything??

    all right, i’m going to try to be patient here. if you are claiming that “evidence” needs to be “owned” by the government for skeptics to “prove” anything, then you are even more deranged than i thought. what would that have to do with anything?

    second, the government, AND high-level private sector-types (like, say, marvin bush - bush’s brother - who was intimately involved in providing security for the twin towers…) are what would be needed to pull something like this off - NOT just the government’s “ownership” of “evidence.”

    second, even if your weird, non-argument WERE the case, consider that one of the primary pieces of evidence is WTC7, which inexplicably collapsed despite being hit by no plane at 5pm. incidentally, WTC7 also housed giuliani’s $19million private “emergency bunker,” as well as offices of the SEC, the CIA, the secret service. FURTHERMORE, the IRS was housing between 3,000 - 4,000 documents relating to ongoing wall street investigations - including Enron and Worldcom.

    “You allowed yourself to be taken in by the strawman argument that what actually happened on 9/11 is just some “official story,” that the government foisted on us.”

    again, a complete lack of logic here. my guess is that you are either trying to fool us with non-sensical, inherently contradictory arguments, or you’re just that stupid. my guess is it’s the latter.

    how on earth is that a “STRAW MAN” argument, nimrod?? that IS the OFFICIAL STORY!

    bj: “The evidence of what occurred at the Pentagon is INDEPENDENT of the government. Duh.”

    again, your naivete knows no bounds. oh gee, the fact that it happened at THE PENTAGON is just one big coincidence! and besides, pray tell exactly how an airplane is allowed to fly for over an hour in american skies throughout a national FAA grounding of all planes, and allowed to hit one the most heavily fortified intelligence center in the world?

    bj: “You want us to believe that “something” exploded at the Pentagon, killing people, and magically people were able to “plant” 757 wreckage and burned bodies in airline seats throughout the interior of the Pentagon without being seen and within minutes of the “event?””

    i saw the picture of the body in the airplane seat. tell me how that PROVES it was taken at the pentagon? and second, ALL of the wreckage at the pentagon is VERY dubious. this is beyond obvious to anyone with actual critical-thinking skills.

    bj: “And not only that, they were able to HIDE the evidence of what actually caused the explosion?”

    not at all. just tell me exactly why so many people reported seeing a C-130 in the immediate area as well.

    bj: “Over 1,000 people saw and/or recovered the wreckage and never claimed it was something other than wreckage?”

    this is also a very dubious statement. how are we to know what they saw and what they decided to tell or not tell of? again, this took place at the PENTAGON. how do you know they were never skeptical and/or paid off and threatened?

    “Over 200 people were involved with AA77 at the airport that morning, hundreds of family members of the passengers KNEW they were on that flight, yet you cannot even tell us what happened to the flight???”

    this is sooooo irrelevant. yes, they got on the flight (presumably), but then, as in the case of flight 93, why did the mayor of cleveland, a local FOX news affiliate, and United Airlines ALL CONFIRM that flight 93 landed in CLEVELAND?? like these and hundreds more, there are jut way too many questions that need to be answered.

    THEN, here is my third favorite part.

    first of all, i asked bj several excellent questions that he clearly CANNOT answer. they are as follows:

    why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize.

    how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings?

    how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly.

    why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001?

    why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one.

    now, you’d think that, given that those are all pretty good questions that i would personally love to know, bj would be able to enlighten us all.

    instead, his weak and cowardly response??

    bj: “Questions? You mean you’re “just asking questions?” Gosh. Let’s review:

    1) You rely EXCLUSIVELY on 9/11 conspiracy sites. (how on earth would he know this?)
    2) You NEVER think through what you desperately WANT to believe. (a completely unfounded, childish statement that amounts to absolutely nothing)
    3) Your claims are illogical and irrational. (see previous, and also notice how this is one of his own primary faults)
    4) You NEVER support your claims with sound evidence. (see previous, and also notice how this is one of his own primary faults)
    5) You IGNORE evidence INCONVENIENT to your desired conclusions. (again, notice how he continues to turn everything around. i responded to ALL is claims, and - irony of ironies - THIS is precisely the claim he is using to avoid answering any of MY questions)
    6) You NEVER provide answers - you just ask questions. (see #2)

    so, go ahead, bj answer my questions.

    or is it because… you can’t. is it because you are a person of little intellectual fortitude who happened to fall in with the wrong crowd, deciding to go into denial and get his ego-stroked by loud-mouthed morons, as opposed to those with REAL courage and conviction?

    give it up, “bj” you’ve got nothing. i just decimated every single one of your arguments, and the fact that you refuse to answer any more of my questions PROVES that you are a know-nothing, gullible, weak-minded…
    TRAITOR.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  27. roman
    Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am

    Save your breath B.J(and your fingers)your days are numbered. The noose is getting tighter and all the screaming in the world will not loosen it. One day you might realize its your own ass that we are saving.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  28. jthomas
    Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    bj was able to demonstrate that 9/11 Truthers like Solis are completely uneducated in any aspect of 9/11. For instance Solis how this picture, http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg, could not be evidence of explosive demolition, bj asked the logical question:

    “The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on your shoulders, Solis. Please demonstrate how your photo demonstrates “controlled demolition” in any way whatsoever.”

    How does Solis respond? “the buildings EXPLODED, UPWARD and OUTWARD. thus causing the damage to the surrounding buildings.”

    Exploding UPWARD? That Solis still believes that falsehood, debunked in 2002 and easily verified by anyone, is startling. Videos clearly show that dust and smoke were being sucked back down behind the collapse front of each tower. A still photo only captures the moment the picture was taken and Solis thinks the the top of a collapsing tower is perfectly still with stuff exploding UPWARD from it. Take a look at any video.

    Solis claims: “ANYONE can CLEARLY SEE that they ALL collapse in free-fall time. why would you write something so incredibly asinine and demonstrably false?” bj responds with a video CLEARLY showing WTC 2 falling FAR slower than freefall time.

    How does Solis respond, “..we’ll call that one: “splitting hairs.” ten seconds? twelve seconds? fourteen seconds?”, thus evading his own claim and showing that he never took a course in physics, and “freefall” times are open to negotiation, apparently.

    Lets examine how HIGH buildings would have to be to fall in 10, 12, and 14 seconds at freefall times:

    WTC 1 and 2: 9.2 seconds 1,368 feet tall

    10 seconds: 1,660 feet tall
    12 seconds: 2,304 feet tall
    14 seconds: 3,136 feet tall

    Just splitting hairs, huh?

    Solis doesn’t like the fact that the evidence of the 9/11 attacks doesn’t come from the government. This is a fundamental fact. He avoids having to deal with the FACT that over 1000 people DID see or recover the wreckage. His response: the “could have” evasion:

    “how are we to know what they saw and what they decided to tell or not tell of? again, this took place at the PENTAGON. how do you know they were never skeptical and/or paid off and threatened?”

    So Solis has no answers as bj already showed. He has only evasions and questions designed to evade answers. Evidence that Solis doesn’t like is simply dismissed. So he’ll NEVER bother to find out what over 1000 people saw, he’ll never need to tell us how so many people COULD shut up for six years.

    Solis illustrates what the 9/11 Truth Movement is in all its glorious irrationality. bj easily let Solis demonstrate that fact for himself.

    bj really nailed it on the ahead.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  29. ellman
    Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Solis meets this definition very clearly:

    “10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists”
    A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
    http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

    1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

    2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

    3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

    4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

    5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

    6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

    7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

    8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

    9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

    10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

    A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  30. Spook Buster
    Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    The MI5 lead UK 911 Movement failed because supporters EVENTUALLY realised Machon/Shayler were gathering and feeding data to the secret services.

    Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

  31. solis
    Posted: Feb 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am

    ellman,

    as your points that supposedly apply to me are all dubious nonsense (as to be expected), i will now dismantle each one piece by piece for you.

    “1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.”

    i see truth means nothing to you (quite obviously, otherwise you wouldn’t do believe what you do). WHEN did any of the above apply to me? show me ONE specific example.

    “2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.”

    moron. this is an utterly absurd argument. number one: when did i call anyone a “sheep”? secondly, compare your argument to a court case (which it should). if you were a defendant, would you say to a judge: “sorry, sir, but this prosecutor is going on too long. can we declare this a mistrial?” the absurdity of your logic is only matched by the foolishness of the rest of your statements.

    “3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.”

    first of all, don’t even try to give yourslef the badge of honor known as “skeptic.” you are anything BUT. you follishly swallow a ludicrous story, bait and hook, failing to question any of the drivel that seems to taste so sweet.

    and again, you have no concept of honesty, do you? i answered EVERY single one of bj’s questions, while THREE of you now have failed to answer mine. it’s unbelievable how you do something totally inane, and then accuse others of doing it, all the while proclaiming your innocence. with people like you in the world, it’s easy to see how these clowns thought they could get away with it.

    “4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.”

    again, what on earth are referring to? give me ONE specific, example, you bald-faced liar.

    “5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.”

    well, sherlock, would you mind PLEASE telling me how occam’s razor applies to the following questions?

    why, despite millions of dollars of traceable investments (the put options on boeing, united, and american airlines) did the 9/11 commission refuse to investigate, saying only that it was traced to an american-based institutional investor and leaving it at that. and don’t send me one of your inane “debunking” websites. i have read every one of them and they offer NOTHING but theories - no logic or common sense. if you’re going to answer, simply summarize.

    how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply disappear - yet a “hijacker’s” passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings?

    how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen “hijackers” have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE? and do NOT try the old ‘mistaken identity’ lie. EVERYTHING matched up exactly.

    why, in the “evidence” of the “hijackers” being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001?

    why, in a treasonous lie, did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that “no one could have predicted” anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, your “debunking” sites have nothing to say about this one.

    this ought to be good…

    unfortunately, in the “debunker’s” world, occam’s razor is simply the excuse they give themselves for not wanting to actually use any critical thinking skills whatsoever. it is beyond weak. personally, i think it simply makes them feel educated to be able to use a phrase like “occam’s razor” in ordinary parlance.

    “6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.”

    how many ways do i have to decimate this ridiculous “argument”?

    1) the 9/11 truth movement is FILLED with former presidential cabinet members, engineers, science professors, physicists, federal attorneys, high-ranking military officers, scientists, demolition experts, firefighters, etc. etc. etc. sorry, but your stupid claim was “debunked” in, oh around early 2002.

    2) you talk about respectability of sources, but does it EVER occur to you hat it might be suspicious that a brutal purge of the senior staff at Popular Mechanics precipitated the publication of their scandalous propaganda piece about 9/11? oh no, going beyond occam’s razor! or how about that HENRY FREAKIN’ KISSINGER was going to head the 9/11 commission until the brave and informed ‘jersey girls’ (without whom there would BE no 9/11 commission) asked him if he had any clients named “bin laden.” oh, nothing skeptical there at all? occam’s razor!

    3) simply put, none of this even applies. the enormous amount of evidence skeptical of the official story is based on scientific evidence, actual news media reports, NYC firefighters (whose ranks are vastly filled with 9/11 truthers, as is NYC), and mountains of measurable, demonstrable data that utterly contradicts nearly everything in the 9/11 commission report.

    “7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections skeptics make to the previous lot.”

    utter nonsense, as usual. every claim or question i have made, i have backed up with evidence. secondly, bj hasn’t even had the liberty of backing off when he’s wrong, because he simply won’t even answer the questions, just like ellman and jthomas. in regard to the last part of this accusation, R