Les Jamieson Interviewed by Ronald Wieck on Hardfire TV

Les Jamieson was recently interviewed by Ronald Wieck of Hardfire TV, a 'libertarian cable-TV political discussion program'. The interview was on the subject of 'What really happened on September 11, 2001?' and is set to air in two parts on July 31st and August 7th.

The interview parts are about 30 minutes each and cover a variety of subjects with Les Jamieson advocating alternative theories and Ronald Wieck advocating possible counter-arguements such as those found at 911myths.com. While the interview starts out somewhat reasonable it eventually evolves into little more than an 'I'm right, no I'm right' type of back and forth with Wieck playing the role of the antagonizer.

Check it out, and post some comments.


Here was one exchange that stuck with me after this interview. It appears as though Wieck is slandering William Rodriguez in suggesting that NIST tried their hardest to have him in for an interview, but that Rodriguez would never show up, and only wants money.

LJ: for instance, Willie Rodriguez [..] had contacted them 4 times trying to give them information
RW: not quite, he shows up at the hearings but when they try to meet him, he never shows up
LJ: they would never contact him back
RW: oh, they tried, but he changes his address. he wants money, he changes his address, he wont show
LJ: that's not what happened, if his address changed it is because he had to move [cut off]
RW: he doesn't show up.. they would like to talk to him, he doesn't show up..
LJ: i know him personally, that's [cut off]
RW: ask him to show up, Mike Newman said they would like to talk to him
LJ: well, that could be easily arranged.
LJ: I'm just saying, i was there and [cut off]
RW: yeah, he shows up at the hearings but when they try to arrange to meet with him he is elusive
LJ: [..] lets see it was summer of 2005, he was there they could have questioned him right then and there, they could've arranged to it. he was saying, "I've contacted you four times, you've never gotten in touch with me"
RW: yeah.. that's not their story though.

I'm a master debator.

I'm a master debator.

To me, it's all about being

To me, it's all about being in the "zone". Once you get to that point, there's no stopping you. Facts and logic just blurt out.

I'm not a bad debater. ;)

I'm not a bad debater. ;) Lemme at 'em.

Debating the events of 9/11

Debating the events of 9/11 is a tough gig, and only those with the rare combination of:
1. a grasp of names and facts
2. an ability to think on their feet
3. an ability to clearly and concisely present the facts
...should be asked to go into the public arena.

The few individuals that come to mind are:

1. Kevin Barrett

2. David Ray Griffen

3. Jim Fetzer (when he is able to contain himself).

4. Jim Hoffman (not sure about this one, I've only heard him speak with a pro-truth movement interviewer).

A few more interviews like this could do irreparable damage to the movement.

Jon, consider yourself added

Jon, consider yourself added to my list :)

Plus Alex Jones, that guy

Plus Alex Jones, that guy just throws out fact after fact without stopping to take a breath it seems...

Plus... Les is very quiet.

Plus... Les is very quiet. He's not the debating, passionate type.

Yes, somebigguy, I didn't

Yes, somebigguy, I didn't think of Alex Jones for some reason.... I guess because I've never seen him interviewed, just interviewing.

The list is growing larger, though still just a rare precious few among thousands. Can anyone suggest others? We should establish a list of able individuals, and then stick to that list.

welcome back Terrence. I

welcome back Terrence. I think we need you around here the same way we need mosquitoes

If Wieck would of went up against Hoffman his ass would of been grass.

oh yeah could you solve this equation for me 6.6 second collapse + 47 story steel reinforced structure + molten metal = ?

hint it starts with "im" and ends with "possible"

Les = Good At Activism Les =

Les = Good At Activism
Les = Bad At Debate

Wieck cuts poor Les a new

Wieck cuts poor Les a new one with facts, logic and common sense.

I am very unhappy with Les'

I am very unhappy with Les' performance. He was not sharp enough. Granted, the host was Mr. Super Skeptic, but Les ruined his arguements with the Pentaagon. Stop with the Pentagon already.

Personally I feel this

Personally I feel this debate hurt the 9/11 truth movement more than it helped. Les simply is not great at arguing the evidence or speaking under pressure, and Ronald Wieck is very skilled at fabricating lies on the fly.

Specifically, too much time went into arguing the more circumstantial aspects of the evidence. It is nearly useless to try convincing a skeptic of the truth by saying no steel skyrise buildings have fallen due to fire before or since 9/11. There's a first time for everything. It's an interesting fact for the already converted, but this is like chess. Don't waste your energy where it's not going to help your cause.

Another: Hani Hanjour couldn't land a Cessna competently and therefore couldn't have performed the manuever of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Again I agree with the concept, but it's simply too easy to dismiss by the layperson who doesn't know a thing about flying but imagines they do.

Another are the squibs we see in videos shooting out of the windows during the collapse of the buildings. It's too easy to refute that by saying that these were simply windows being blown out by the pressure of the collapsing floors above. It doesn't change my mind. I know for a fact the buildings were destroyed with demolition charges including the use of thermate, but you're not going to convince a skeptic with this.

Stick to the hard questions and don't get bogged down in the morass. Kevin Barrett is one of our best speakers so far. Wish it was him sitting in with Ronald on this show.

Ronald Wieck must be getting paid a lot to be a government shill. With his hands spread wide and constant shrugging of shoulders this man is wretched. I love how he seems to have intimate knowledge regarding every expert that Les cites during their debate, and has something negative or derogatory to say about each of them. Sometimes so outlandish that Les has difficulty even dismissing the remark outright.

He states that William Rodriguez won't allow himself to be available to NIST or other agencies for questioning the events of 9/11 and that he only wants money?

He claims that the Pentagon hole was 75 feet wide.

He says we should defer discussion about building 7 until the NIST report is out in a few months..it's been years already. What's going to happen in the next few months? Oh yeah we have to be quiet until the next false flag attack occurs.

He also says while defending NIST "We are a government agency, we are not here to debate". Hmm..what could they be referring to here? The Muckraker Reports attempted public debate with NIST? Can we say Damage Control already?

I like how he defends the photo of the men picking up pieces of wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon "Someone has to pick it up..maybe these are the people who are supposed to pick it up. Who are they?". Nevermind there are no cameras, no rubber gloves. Just men in ties picking up parts with no one around to question them just hours after the hit.

And then the quote he made from a Boeing representative "No commercial airliner made by Boeing can be remote controlled period." Ah..so it wasn't a commercial airliner after all?

I mustve dreamed a thousand

I mustve dreamed a thousand dreams
Been haunted by a million screams
But I can hear the marching feet
Theyre moving into the street.

Now did you read the news today
They say the dangers gone away
But I can see the fires still alight
There burning into the night.

Theres too many men
Too many people
Making too many problems
And not much love to go round
Cant you see
This is a land of confusion.

This is the world we live in
And these are the hands were given
Use them and lets start trying
To make it a place worth living in.

Ooh superman where are you now
When everythings gone wrong somehow
The men of steel, the men of power
Are losing control by the hour.

This is the time
This is the place
So we look for the future
But theres not much love to go round
Tell me why, this is a land of confusion.

This is the world we live in
And these are the hands were given
Use them and lets start trying
To make it a place worth living in.

I remember long ago -
Ooh when the sun was shining
Yes and the stars were bright
All through the night
And the sound of your laughter
As I held you tight
So long ago -

I wont be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
Were not just making promises
That we know, well never keep.

Too many men
Theres too many people
Making too many problems
And not much love to go round
Cant you see
This is a land of confusion.

Now this is the world we live in
And these are the hands were given
Use them and lets start trying
To make it a place worth fighting for.

This is the world we live in
And these are the names were given
Stand up and lets start showing
Just where our lives are going to.

sorry.... great shoud be

sorry.... great shoud be break

Three days left in July.

Three days left in July. Will we great another record?


"Has anyone ever seen this

"Has anyone ever seen this document?"

Is this related to the Delmart "Mike" Vreeland matter?

Looks like someone at C-SPAN

Looks like someone at C-SPAN was playing the Still-Try-To-Link-Saddam-To-9/11 game for Thursday's scheduling.

Look at the broadcast time.

[ http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8881/cspansaddamgw6.jpg ]

I'm going to bite my toungue

I'm going to bite my toungue on this one. If I write what I really feel like writing, it might get me into trouble, so instead I will post some lyrics from Ministry:

Gentlemen we have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government

Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center?


Does anybody else see a problem here?
If the government has nothing to hide why are they so afraid to answer a few questions?

This story does not add up

IÂ’m on a mission to never forget
3,000 people that IÂ’ve never met
We want some answers and all that we get

Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat

Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies

Surpise surprise

Lies Lies

IÂ’m on a mission to dig up the truth
You think weÂ’re stupid and thereÂ’s no proof

Well let me tell you that the time has come

To pull the trigger on the smoking gun

Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies

Surpise surprise

Lies Lies Lies Lies

DonÂ’t listen to me listen to your head

DonÂ’t listen

DonÂ’t listen to anything, theyÂ’ve said

DonÂ’t listen

Lies Lies Lies Lies

America has been hijacked

Not by Al Qaeda, not by Bin Laden
But by a group of tyrants

That should be of great concern to all Americans

IÂ’m on a mission to bring out the facts
You got your stories but they all have cracks

Misinformation, lies and deceit

What made you think that we were all asleep

Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies

Surpise surprise

Lies Lies Lies Lies

DonÂ’t listen to me listen to your head

DonÂ’t listen

DonÂ’t listen to anything, theyÂ’ve said

DonÂ’t listen

Lies Lies Lies Lies

DonÂ’t listen to me listen to your head
Lies Lies Lies Lies


About my last comment,

About my last comment, everyone should know that I chose utopia to drive my life. 8)

Onkyo, Gold had a point up

Onkyo, Gold had a point up there:

"Les = Good At Activism
Les = Bad At Debate"

This mouvement is not homogeneous, but a sort of consensus between the factions should be made when going public.

Les is a known agent. It is

Les is a known agent. It is his JOB to be incompetent, bumbling, unconvincing, focusing attention on teh weakest theories, a purveyor of psyop propaganda through insane literature and video, and CRAZY insane members that he promotes into forward positions in the movement.

His previous association with Urantia was another government operation. He was reassigned after 9/11.

He is a ghost. No history. No background anyone can find. No visible means of support. No job.

The movement is known to be heavily infiltrated, and New York is the prime target. Case closed.

Jon, Ahern29, that's lead me

Jon, Ahern29, that's lead me to believe that people who are going to debate publicly the 911 truth MUST be well prepared, if not professionnaly prepared for that kind of game. It's not that we haven't the better arguments, it's just a matter of the way we present them, against professional debater.



One of the things I noticed

One of the things I noticed was that Les uses colorful adjectives when he shouldn't.

For instance, when he was talking about the promotions people received, he said they "mysteriously" received them.

That word, as this prick showed, can be used against you.

Now, if Les had said that, "people who failed at their jobs, for whatever reason, resulting in the deaths of 3000 people, were rewarded with promotions instead of being held to account."

There's really nothing you can say to that.

Jon, I think you figure out

Jon, I think you figure out what goes in between...
Nevertheless, contromolition is kinda cool. :)

I see a weakness in how some

I see a weakness in how some in the 9/11 movement are debating. 1. Notice how Les Jamison is always on the defensive having to defend his position. But he was ill prepared to take advantage of the ridiculous assertions of the offical commision report. He should had been attacking the official version throughout the interview and therefore the host would had to defend it. The host seemed to be a better debater. He constantly interupted L. Jamison argument to throw him off is stride. I think our the biggest weakness is not be prepared to attack the offical version by quoting what it says and attacking it. 2. The host was attacking our experts as incompitant. We have to attack there so called experts just as they attack ours. We must do better in furture debates!



or does it start with

or does it start with "contro" and ends with "molition"

I found this show

I found this show entertaining, but it's not something I would put on my iPod and play for people (like Kevin Barrett going up against Sean Hannity!). But for people deep into the 9/11 alternative media, it was worth watching.

911myths.com is, as someone pointed out, a totally faceless site. Who maintains it?? There's NO contact info or any type of feedback. I think all of the points it makes are designed to get people to provide reflexive reactions to common questions that come up. It's the same damn thing as when people are told to recite that marijuana contains as much "cancer-causing substance" as 4, 6, 10, or sometimes 20 cigarrettes. If this is true, how come NO ONE has ever developed cancer from pot alone?? Still, people recite facts like these as gospel, but in the end they only have propaganda to point to as evidence. Can you believe this guy was trying to justify 90% of his positions with totally unfounded bullet points he got from a single source that cannot be reached for questioning (!!!!)

I know for a fact the

I know for a fact the buildings were destroyed with demolition charges including the use of thermate, but you're not going to convince a skeptic with this.

Wumpus | 07.28.06 - 3:47 am | #

How do you know?

That's what S. King looks

That's what S. King looks like?

Has anyone ever seen this

here's something sent to me

here's something sent to me on myspace:

From: The Watcher
Date: 27 Jul 2006 09:18 PM

Subject: Tracing Alex Jones URLs
Body: Well i've been playing around with "traceroute" applications recently, and have been checking out a few rather famous (in certain circles) URLs. I started out with Alex Jones' websites like Infowars.com, Prisonplanet.com ... and came out with a few rather startling discoveries.

The list of servers/computers that linked me to Infowars.com included a server somewhere in darkest Israel (!!!) ... which then lead back to the main server Infowars.com is hosted on in the US.

Secondly, this was the same for Prisonplanet.com AND propagandamatrix.com.

I then also discovered that not only does the server for Prisonplanet.tv and Infowars.net reside in Tuvalu (i.e the tv is not what you thought it was) ... but also that this server is the one that GCNlive.com is hitched up to i.e. a physical link between GCN and Alex Jones (shock horror probe!!!!).

I've also just found out that Loosechange.tv has a server list (similar to the Israeli one above) which leaps off into darkest Morocco before leaping back to Massachusetts in the US.

Any one have any ideas why AJ would have his computer linked to a computer in Israel ... or Tuvalu ... or GCNlive??? ... or why the Loose Change bunch would have connections with Morocco ????

Answers on a postcard to ...

I shall check out some more websites over the next few days ... if anyone has any for me to try out, please give me a shout.

Still feeling a bit stunned about the AJ/Israel connection,

Best wishes

The Watcher

DHS, i would ignore that


i would ignore that email.. apparently that person didnt do much research into traceroutes before writing it.

i just did a traceroute of all the web addresses mentioned and non of them went outside the US.. not only that, but they are all located inside the US, which can be gotten from a whois of their ip..

if his traceroutes are actually jumping out of the country it has more to do with the routing of his own ISP than the final desination of the host he is querying.

you can find traceroute programs that show all the jumps graphically on a globe, here is one that you can try for free (the 2nd toolbar button is traceroute, be sure to change your settings to the maximum number of hops):

dz: it was just to show the


it was just to show the anger people have towards Alex Jones.

I wrote the guy a reply that stated that machines are all over the world and alex jones does not own the server where some of his data might be

I am watching the Les

I am watching the Les Jamieson Interviewed by Ronald Wieck on Hardfire TV video--

Well, the first thing that occurs to me is to check out the 911Myths site since R. Wieck refers to this site over and over again.

What do I find? NOT A SINGLE NAME associated with the site. In other words, the site is edited and compiled by "ANONYMOUS". I don't think much of anonymous sources, and I don't trust a site that neither leaves a place for comments and feedback, nor gives credit to the authors. What I perceive most strongly is BULLSHIT and manipulation.

Ronald has his hands full on this interview, primarily because Wieck does a pretty good job of PRE-SELECTING issues that he already has formulated pat answers for.
Naturally, they likely (and I'm not through watching yet) avoid the more sticky issues like molten iron coming out of the windows, free fall descent of buildings 1, 2, 7 that look exactly like demolitions, well heck... if you are here, you know the list.

URANTIA- U.S. Intelligence

URANTIA- U.S. Intelligence Ties

1942: Jacques Weiss (URANTIA Book translator), OSS
1956 -1965: General Duane Faw (URANTIA Teaching
Mission -TeaM- channeling supporter), USMC/United
States Marine Corps, CIA
1969 -1992: Neal Waldrop (Future URANTIA Foundation
trustee), NSA, US Navy, U.S. Department of State
1974 -1983: Professor Duane Faw (Chairman of the
URANTIA Brotherhood's Legal Committee), USMC

1999-2005: Les Jamieson , so far only proven
connections to "EX-Intelligence" (Ray McGovern, Wayne
Madsen, Robert Baer etc...)

Please help Les. Whatever

Please help Les.

Whatever you think of Les: Agent, Urgent 9/11 activist, average dude with too much on his hands, conservative 9/11 truther, clumsy guy but he tries so hard, evasive and uncooperative, really pleasant guy...its obvioius that he needs all the help he can get.

If he's an agent, you can keep him from subverting the movement. If he's an urgent 9/11 activist, then helping him would help the movment. If he's an average dude with too much on his hands, then he really needs our help. If he's a conservative 9/11 truther, then progressives need to help him keep a balance. If he's clumsy guy but he tries so hard, then maybe others should be sharing some of these responsibilities with him. If he's evasive and uncooperative, you must convey to him the benefit of sharing authority and democratic participation. And if he's a really pleasant guy, then none of the above should that difficult to discuss with him.

Engage Les Jamieson. Let him know what you think and be very prepared to tell him why. Ask a good question. Positive and negative, all comments will help him to better represent the movement. Les isn't going anywhere. Les is here to stay. Let us help Les to be the best 9/11 truth activist that he can be.

Our leaders must be accountable, willing to seek out and acknowledge those with greater skill, and relatively open about their past, present, and future. Les has such a responsibility to the movement. As the unstated director of NY911Truth, his decisions have a significant impact on the local movement in NYC. Help him to steer the course, or don't waste your time griping. It won't help much. Instead, represent your concerns directly. Also maybe thank him for what he does well.

If you don't think Les is the best at what he does, and you are not trying to engage him, then try to do something better.

Jules - TruthMove.org

Ever notice how Les

Ever notice how Les Jamieson's name is often spelled differently: Jamison, Jameson, Jamiesen, etc.?

Reportedly, no one has been to his house, no one really knows how he makes money (and yet he works on 9/11 truth full time), he is strangely dispassionate about the movement, he has been caught distributing what can only be called disinformation: http://www.truthmove.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12,
he often repeats the worst evidence (pentagon, etc) and never represents the movement in a forceful, responsible way......................................

Oh, and les is also a member of Urantia:



that interviewer sucked and

that interviewer sucked and it will have zero/nada/zip impact on the movement.

someone needs to take their histrionic pills please.

i used to work on the docks

i used to work on the docks helping tourists fish. i soon became a master baiter!

I support Les Jamieson. If

I support Les Jamieson. If he's an "agent", he's sure got me fooled.

Plus Alex Jones, that guy

Plus Alex Jones, that guy just throws out fact after fact without stopping to take a breath it seems...
somebigguy | Homepage | 07.28.06 - 11:49 am | #

Alex is the best at making the most of 30-second sound bites one gets during hostile interviews!

Alex Jones is very quick.

Alex Jones is very quick. check his performance on CNN Headline News on that entertainment show from a few months back. it was the most informative 5 minutes in cable news history.you gotta watch that tape if you havent seen it.

Speaking of backgrounds,

Speaking of backgrounds, could someone tell what is Mike Berger's background? Who is he? How did he emerge in the movement? What was he doing before?

I thought Les was

I thought Les was awsome.

Especially the way he said "moving on...." everytime his claims were being shredded - like the "hijackers still alive" or "missile hit the Pentagon" nonsense.

Conspiracy nutters either get ripped apart or they yell and scream like that clown Fetzer.

Oh and of course Les is an

Oh and of course Les is an "agent."

Isn't everyone who disagrees with you folks?

My attention was drawn to

My attention was drawn to this site by the blog, "Screw Loose Change." I understand that it is impossible to change any opinions here as the beliefs held by conspiracists tend to be non-falsifiable--no evidence is good enough. There are, however, a few issues that I'd like to clarify.

First, I did not "slander" Willie Rodriguez. I merely reported what Mike Newman of NIST told me. The notion that explosives were used to bring down the WTC is silly. The amount of explosive material necessary to do the job is simply enormous; the building's collapse doesn't suggest controlled demolition (it is suggestive of the absence of explosives); the purpose behind bringing down the buildings and catalyzing a recession AFTER starting a war by flying planes into them is, to put it charitably, hard to imagine. But no matter: no conspiracist will be inconvenienced by reality.
Willie Rodriguez refused to cooperate with NIST's requests for an interview. He is free to contact that agency and tell them what he thinks.

Second, Jim Hoffmann pulled out on us at the last minute. I don't claim to be a great debater, but Hoffman would have faced a far rougher grilling than Les Jamieson. Les struck me as affable, if not terribly well-informed. Advocates for one irrational belief or another typically rely on a playbook. When you disagree, you must be a gubmint agent or whatever. Les never gets too specific, so I chose to discuss more general aspects of the conspiracy theory.
Jim Hoffman, on the other hand, is associated with certain very specific contentions that have been been thoroughly exploded in papers by Dr. Frank Greening (available on 911myths.com, in the section marked WTC (demolition). Like all charlatans, Hoffman is happy to bamboozle an audience of uncritical rubes, but engaging in actual debate with a well-prepared opponent--well, that's another matter entirely.
Finally, my beliefs ARE falsifiable. I lack a background in the hard sciences. I have to struggle to read academic presentations, such as the work of Drs. Greening and Eagar, the NIST Report, the FEMA Report, etc. If anyone can show me demonstrable errors in the material that shapes my opinions, I must revise those opinions. And that, my friends, is where we differ.

Ronald Wieck you blatantly

Ronald Wieck you blatantly lied about the "molten aluminum" pouring out of the WTC. You and your hero Frank Greening have both made idiots out of yourselves with that claim.







What do all those photos have in common? They're all MOLTEN ALUMINUM.

Contrast that with molten IRON:





Tell me, how can you expect someone so completely and obviously wrong to be taken seriously? And what about the fact that NIST parroted the same lies? How can experts make such obvious mistakes? The level of incompetence indicated here is simply staggering. I'd expect to be fired for such incompetence...

I'm not sure what your

I'm not sure what your photos attempt to show. As I have no expertise in the science of metals, I must defer to the opinions of experts in the field. Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT is one such expert, and he believes that the bright yellow substance streaming down the WTC must be--can only be-- aluminum. Dr. Greening's paper on aluminum is authoritative: why not try to read it?

Conspiracists tend to use overheated phrases like "blatant lies." In other words, the statements I make are not merely wrong, but I am aware that they're wrong when I make them.
Conspiracists have, to date, failed to disprove ANYTHING serious researchers have concluded, and they not produced a shred of evidence to support their preposterous fantasies.
Try showing us something that doesn't invent entirely new scientific principles, that doesn't turn the laws of probability upside down, before accusing people of lying.

Wieck- If Dr. Greening's

If Dr. Greening's paper on aluminum is so "authoritative" why have you not provided a link?

"Conspiracists have, to

"Conspiracists have, to date, failed to disprove ANYTHING serious researchers have concluded, and they not produced a shred of evidence to support their preposterous fantasies."

You mean like the White Paper promised by Colin Powell?

I thought I mentioned on one

I thought I mentioned on one of the shows that his work can found on 911myths.com, in the section marked "WTC (demolition)".

Here is the link for the paper on aluminum:

Ronald... you're going to

Ronald... you're going to tell me that you're completely satisfied with the Government's findings regarding the attacks of 9/11?

i dont see how anyone

i dont see how anyone couldn't be.. its not like they didn't go into great detail on saudi and pakistani ties, you know, our biggest allies in the WOT? oh wait, they didn't.

Hello Ronald? No time to

Hello Ronald? No time to dilly dally...

Hey Ronald McDonald, what

Hey Ronald McDonald, what are your thoughts on all the firefighters who heard systematic explosives go off inside the WTC. The news media reported the same thing while it happened.

And saying there "conspiracy theorists" or "far left liberals" isnt an answer.

Ronald, why don't you tell

Ronald, why don't you tell me how satisified you are with the amount of time it took to create the so-called Independent 9/11 Commission. After that, tell me why it is you approve of a member of the Bush Administration being in charge of the investigation.

Better yet Ronald... why

Better yet Ronald... why don't you tell us why you're ok with the fact that the White House pressured the EPA to tell everyone the water was safe to drink, and the air was safe to breathe. Tell that to James Zadroga's family why don't you?

Ronald... tell me why it's

Ronald... tell me why it's ok that Bush and Cheney asked Tom Daschle to limit the scope of the Congressional Inquiry. Tell me why it's ok that the Bush Administration fought against the family members for funding for the so called Independent 9/11 Commission.

Tell me why it's ok that

Tell me why it's ok that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allowed to testify behind closed doors, NOT under oath, with NO recordings of their testimony, and NOT without each other.

Tell me why you're perfectly ok with that.

What's that Ronald... none

What's that Ronald... none of that is covered on 911myths.com? I feel for you. I really do.

Go fuck yourself Ronald. I

Go fuck yourself Ronald. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.


Stallion4 Former General


Former General Albert Stubblebine disagrees with your website regarding the Pentagon...


Honestly, how can you say a 757 hit the Pentagon after looking at that hole. And those little pieces of wreckage doest mean crap cuz obviously it was hit by something.

9/11myths.com is a fucking

9/11myths.com is a fucking joke. The author of the website uses sophistry to "debunk" so-called 9/11 myths. He even quotes anonymous posters on internet message boards who've said they've used cell phones above 30,000 feet as proof that they work. HAHAHAHA!

Stallion4 Former General


Former General Albert Stubblebine disagrees with your website regarding the Pentagon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k...t% 20Stubblebine

Honestly, how can you say a 757 hit the Pentagon after looking at that hole. And those little pieces of wreckage doest mean crap cuz obviously it was hit by something.
Jack Mehoff | 07.30.06 - 6:25 pm | #

^WTF are you talking about?? I posted a link that debunks 911myths.com. I'm not trying to get into a conversation about the Pentagon.

Wieck- Why does he

Why does he completely avoid any discussion of the color of the molten metal which is the color of molten steel and not of aluminum?

The whole report lacks adherence to normal standards of scholarly scientific writing. It begins with the simple assertion that there were no temperatures hotter than 800 degrees, and then works backward to deduce that the only metal that could have melted at that temperature is aluminum.

This is the opposite of the scientific method, which is to examine the evidence first and then deduce the most likely hypothesis that explains those facts.

The assumption that there were no temperatures above 800 degrees is not supported by any evidence. What evidence there is points to much higher temperatures that could only be attained with a high-temp chemical like thermite.

You're gonna have to do better than that. Les was way to easy on you.

If "Dr. Greening" says

If "Dr. Greening" says aluminum can glow incandescent without turning into a gaseous vapor.... he's no Dr. of metal.

Attempt to debate the facts

Attempt to debate the facts with Ron Wieck and all you get is the sound of crickets.

Now that IS weak!

In nearly five years of

In nearly five years of screaming the tinfoil-hat brigade has yet to produce a shred of evidence for their fantasies. When you're reduced to pretendiing that firefighters heard "systematic" explosions, you're holding a very weak hand. Why not acknowledge what is obvious to everyone else? When the jihadists attacked targets in New York City and Washington, D.C., it was just too difficult to make America the perpetrator of the crime. If you start from the premise that America is the source of all evil in the world, you have a serious problem. The jihadists simply had to go. Do whatever it takes: disregard dozens of eyewitnesses who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, rewrite the principles of science, pretend that everyone who dismisses these conspiracy theories is a government agent--whatever. Your beliefs are, to repeat myself, non-falsifiable.

My biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is its sheer implausibility, verging on impossibility. Let's forget for a moment that the largest, most well-financed conspiracy in history decided to start wars with Afghanistan and Iraq, but neglected to make even one of the imaginary hijackers an Afghan or an Iraqi (sure, that could happen!). Instead, let's try some elementary mathematical reasoning:
In assessing the size of the conspiracy, consider that it spans several branches of government and an assortment of industries. The NIST Report alone was the product of over two hundred researchers. We must include everyone who worked on the FEMA Report, the air traffic controllers, everyone in the chain of command at NORAD and NEADS, all the reporters and editors who published schematic diagrams showing where the hijackers were seated, the seismologists, the people at Boeing who insist that no commercial airliners made by them can be flown by remote control, all the representatives of demolition companies who insist that the collapse of the WTC doesn't resemble a controlled demolition, the various physicists and engineers who write for learned journals all over the world who unanimously dismiss the conspiracists' reworking of basic scientific principles--the list goes on and on. All of these people are accomplices to a heinous crime.
We will estimate, therefore, that our conspiracy numbers in the thousands-- it cannot contain fewer than five hundred members.
Next, we attempt to quantify the possibility of a conspirator spilling the beans. Such a person might succumb to the enticements of fame and fortune, both of which await anyone who slays the dragon that is George Bush. I'm old-fashioned enough to hold out the possibility that a few evildoers might eventually wear down under the weight of their moral burden. Being complicit in the mass murder of three thousand people is not a trifling matter, after all, and the urge to confess could grow overpowering. Anyway, let's agree that the chance of an individual conspirator's breaking silence and revealing what he knows varies enormously from the person who'd love to take down the whole Bush administration (and become a rich celebrity in the process) to G. Gordon Liddy, who wouldn't talk unless you pulled out his fingernails. So, the range of probabilities that a given conspirator would keep his mouth shut runs from .1 ( the guy who can't wait to blab) to .95 (Liddy).
Now, we have 500 conspirators with an AVERAGE chance of keeping quiet of, say, .5 to .6.
Well, that won't do. Let's reduce the size of the conspiracy to an impossibly low total of ONE HUNDRED (that's half the number of people involved in the NIST Report alone). Let's make ALL of them near-Gordon Liddys--we'll assign to the entire group an average probablity of never cracking of .9.
Get out your pocket calculator and raise .9 to the hundreth power.
Yup, that's right: this conspiracy has a 99.97% chance of unraveling. The conspiracy posited by the tinfoil-hat brigade, which is much bigger and isn't composed exclusively of Gordon Liddy-types has a much greater chance of falling apart (99.9999...%).
The conspiracy hasn't unraveled because it can't: It doesn't exist.

How pathetic. You made a

How pathetic. You made a statement that was blatantly false, and you did it while sounding exactly like you knew what you were talking about. You didn't say "I think that's molten aluminum". You said it IS, matter-of-factly. Even arrogantly. But now you pretend you can't even tell what a 9 year old can tell from those photos I posted, and you want to hide behind the veil of scientific ignorance. And when that doesn't work you babble on about how certain people use phrases like "blatant lie" and you make up this grand conspiracy to explain it with no evidence to support it. Who's the conspiracy theorist? lol. No, the truth is simple. I use the statement "blatant lie" because that's exactly the appropriate phrase to be using, because you're an intellectual fraud. You pretend you're too stupid to be able to see the difference between molten aluminum and molten iron.

And this nonsense about everyone and their brother has to be in on the conspiracy... that just shows more of your intellectual fraud. Dozens of people have attempted to blow the whistle. And guess what, they've been gagged, punished, or ignored. And there's no way you aren't aware of at least some of these cases.

My only question is why do you care? Why care what the tin foil hat brigade thinks? And btw, you are right about one thing: the conspiracy has about 99.97% chance of unraveling. The only thing that will stop it is WWIII and a very effective gestapo.

Making statements that are

Making statements that are blatantly false while trying to sound as if they knew what they were talking about describes every conspiracist I've ever met. An e-mail sent to me by Dr. Greening appears below. It won't affect anything the conspiracists believe because--yes, I'm repeating myself--their beliefs are non-falsifiable. The whole issue of explosives in the WTC is silly because there obviously were none. The appearance of the so-called plumes is exactly the opposite of what explosions would look like. Seismologists agree that their data confirms a collapse rather than a series of explosions. But, you don't care about any of this stuff. You want to create an alternate reality for reasons that I am not competent to diagnose. Those reasons have nothing to do with logic or evidence.

Hi Ron,

Yes, the appearance of the "molten aluminum" was debated for weeks on physorg a while back. I still believe it could be aluminum, but I have also suggested that it's caused by the release of oxygen tanks/generators that were on the aircraft. They could produce temperatures hot enough to melt steel. Besides, the CDers can't explain why thermite was only seen in that one corner of WTC 2. Regards, Frank

The death throes of a liar.

The death throes of a liar.



It's fascinating that the

It's fascinating that the conspiracy frauds, who have NOTHING to offer but distorted quotes, bogus science, and outright falsehoods, reflexively brand everything that is inconvenient to their myth a lie.
There is a reason that NO structural engineers take your fabrications seriously.
There is a reason that you are unable to confront the implications of the absurdly bloated conspiracy you have invented.

In five years of mindless screaming, you have defamed the murder victims of the jihadists and have insulted the intelligence of everyone willing to pay attention to your nonsense.

You have produced ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support your pernicious and insane fantasies.

Ron Wiek You are long on

Ron Wiek
You are long on insults but very short on facts. The good professor seems to have abandoned the attempt to claim the molten metal was aluminum, but you still persist. What´s it gonna take?

you say we have produced "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" (your caps) as if shouting would help your case. In fact there have been at least a dozen excellent books, as I´m sure you know. BTW, why have there been virtually no books defending the official myth? And why are defenders so loath to debate the issue? The Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been trying in vain to get any experts to publicly debate them on the facts of 9/11.

No, I regret the insults,

No, I regret the insults, but you must understand that people who invent an insane, wildly implausible conspiracy theory out of nothing more than a pathological hatred for the government of their own country will tend to enrage rationalists across the political spectrum. The anti-jihadists have ALL the facts; the conspiracy liars have none.

There are no--zero--"excellent" books defending the wholly fabricated conspiracy theory. David Griffin published a farrago of sheer nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked. Jones's work has been repudiated by his own department and he refuses to conduct the tests suggested by Dr. Greening.


The conspiracists do not seek opportunities for debate; they shun them. I am hardly an expert in the physics of collapsing buildings, nor do I claim any inside information about military matters. I was prepared to question Jim Hoffman on Greening's critique (a devastating refutation, in my opinion) of his theories, but Hoffman failed to show up. Does Fetzer want to appear with anyone who will do more than insult him while he vogues for the rubes?

Look, we have reached an impasse. My views can be changed by evidence; you have nothing. Your views can be changed by nothing; I have evidence.

Here, again, is an e-mail from Dr. Greening:

Hi Ron,
Yes, the appearance of the "molten aluminum" was debated for weeks on physorg a while back. I still believe it could be aluminum, but I have also suggested that it's caused by the release of oxygen tanks/generators that were on the aircraft. They could produce temperatures hot enough to melt steel. Besides, the CDers can't explain why thermite was only seen in that one corner of WTC 2. Regards, Frank

Wieck is one of those

Wieck is one of those professional hackjobs that is trained to focus on how his "targets" are always telling lies and making personal attacks, while totally ignoring the fact that he does the exact same thing, and more.

You can't really reason with him, because like I said before he's an intellectual fraud, proven time and again on this thread. If you try, he'll just ignore it and focus on the straw man. Or feign ignorance. Or respond with some totally irrelevant reply, like how that "molten aluminum" (lol) poured out of only one corner of the building. That's all he's done on this thread and it's most likely all he'll ever do. Bush himself could admit on national tv that the entire thing was pulled off without his knowledge by a black ops squad orchestrated by Cheney, and people like Wieck will STILL SAY YOU HAVEN'T PRODUCED ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE. Blah blah blah. I can't think of a better way for someone to make themself look like a hack.

It reminds me of an exchange I had back in '03 with a diehard neocon shill about the california energy crisis. I said it was enron, he said it was democrats and their damn regulations. I was right, history has proven it, and yet his attitude still is YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE! (The evidence was out in the open even in '03. But it was a conspiracy theory! lolol.) Then he'd go off on some diatribe about facts and logic and evidence and how "you leftists are always spewing blatant falsehoods and bitter vitriol and bromides and blah blah blah." Meanwhile they're hauling away top enron execs left and right. lol.

"Besides, the CDers can't

"Besides, the CDers can't explain why thermite was only seen in that one corner of WTC 2. Regards, Frank"

It is NOT the CDers job to explain that. The ones who were paid umpteen million dollars are the ones that should have explained that. But no, all we get for those millions is "molten aluminum". Please continue underscoring the real issue here: deliberate catastrophic incompetence on such a basic level (10th grade physics) that it can only be indicative of a cover-up and/or total scientific fraud. While they were at it, I'm surprised the NIST scientists didn't conclude that global warming was a hoax.

You'll notice--you'll

You'll notice--you'll notice, but you won't CARE--that the release of the tapes demonstrating the utter confusion at NORAD and the FAA during the jihadists' attacks destroys the conspiracy theory root-and-branch. Clearly, there were a bunch of people charged with protecting the rest of us who didn't know what the hell was happening and had no idea what to do about it. They were covering their own asses--obviously! They were not part of a wide-ranging cabal.
As the reality is, as usual, terribly inconvenient to your fantasies, you will simply ignore it and concoct new fantasies.
Your fabricated nonsense has been destroyed on every level. You rave about "facts," but facts mean nothing to you.
NO structural engineers anywhere take your nonsense seriously.
Seismologists produce graphs strongly suggesting that the collapse of the WTC was NOT cause by explosives.
Physicists refute your disingenuous rubbish about "free fall."
You Don't Care.

Just out of curiosity, who

Just out of curiosity, who "trained" me? Let me guess: I work for the gubmint!

Of course, I don't, never have, and never will, but who cares? Certainly not you.

There is a huge amount of information available on debunking911.com on the physics and chemistry of 911. The tinfoil-hat brigade ignores all of it. Why not point out the errors?

"Is this real world, or

"Is this real world, or exercise"

How does that destroy any conspiracy theory, aside from the one the gubmint peddled?

As for what you say about the "huge amount of information available on debunking911.com" I find that quite humorous, since I was able to tear through that site in a day. Most of the wtc section of that site is dedicated to the truss failure and pancake collapse Theory, which was already fully debunked before that site was even put up. Using cool sounding terms like "viscoplastic deformation" doesn't alter the facts either.

In fact, there is precious little debunking being done by them and people like you. Go back and count your words. 90% of it is ad hominem. When dealing with people like you, you learn to filter it out, and what is left can be analyzed within a few minutes. There is no real discussion of the available evidence. I always ask the shills to explain the shaking before the collapse


and get nothing but the sound of crickets chirping. Yet that was obviously what initiated the collapse. NOT the fire. NOT the plane. Yet there's no mention of it in the "final report". That is pure scientific fraud. You don't have to be wearing a tinfoil hat to see it either.

You write that you were

You write that you were "able to tear through that site in a day." If you had spent a sufficient amount of time to read and comprehend the material presented there, you wouldn't link to a video of the WTC collapse that shows quite clearly that no explosives were involved.

There is a reason that demolitions experts refuse to take the tinfoil-hat nonsense seriously. When they point out that the so-called plumes actually demonstrate that no controlled demolition took place, the loons ignore them or pretend that they, like hundreds of others, are part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.

Debunking911.com has comprehensive information on the science of metals and is particularly strong in refuting the wholly fabricated theory that explosives brought down the Twin Towers. You haven't studied this material, or perhaps you tried and failed to understand it. I stand by my contention that the beliefs of conspiracists are non-falsifiable.

If their information on the

If their information on the science of metals was "particularly strong" then they wouldn't be claiming molten aluminum is yellow now would they.

And I just love how you shrug off that video of the precollapse shaking because you think it "shows quite clearly that no explosives were involved". Again with the intellectual fraud. You may as well just deny the video even exists.

All of the intellectual

All of the intellectual fraud has been committed by the conspiracy liars. Their fabricated theory rests on bogus science and outright falsehoods. The premise, i.e., that Bush and Co. would plunge the nation into a recession in order to start a war with Afghanistan, is utterly insane. The "evidence" of controlled demolition demonstrates convincingly the absence of controlled demolition.

But, again, irrational beliefs are usually non-falsifiable.

I forgot to include the

I forgot to include the following important link. Given that it will be ignored, no harm done.


Irrational beliefs certainly

Irrational beliefs certainly are falsifiable. Saying that people are not capable of defrauding this country for trillions of dollars and lying us into wars and leading hundreds of us to our deaths... none of that is irrational. That is what you get when you let big business run the country. Tobacco companies profit from willfully dealing death and/or misery on a daily basis. As do many other companies, like Dyncorp and Enron. (Not to mention the EPA saying the air was safe to breathe and thereby condemning thousands to a gruesome death...) It's totally within the means of this corporate-run government (or shadowy elements within) to stage a coup in order to milk trillions from the biggest treasury in the world. And that is exactly what has happened... a coup has been commited against this country. That is how history will record it too.

Your sad attempts to frame all of that around "bombs in the WTC" will not change it either. It goes way beyond that. The theories about bombs in the building and no plane at the pentagon are the sensational stories that capture mainstream attention but the real story lies in the hundreds and hundreds of anomolies and related cover ups and gag orders that point the finger right to a criminal conspiracy involving much more than 19 hijackers whose names we know only because we found the list in a hijacker's car!

It's so obvious, and that is why so many people see it for what it is. If "bombs in the building" was all 9/11 conspiracies were about, then only about 1% of the population would refuse to accept the official conspiracy theory sold to us by the government. And that 1% would probably fit the "tinfoil" straw man that you love to attack. Fortunately most people are far too reasonable and rational to scream "conspiracy" without proof. With 9/11 the proof is everywhere. And that is where poll numbers like 36% and 49% come from, despite the media's best attempts at suppression and censorship.

Your fantasies have been

Your fantasies have been exposed. The "anomalies" exist in your own mind and nowhere else. Popular Mechanics has expanded its original debunking article into a paperback book. It is the definitive refutation of the most aggressively stupid farrago of paranoia and unreason ever to be foisted on the public. Nothing is left standing of the conspiracists' sand castle of lies and bogus science.