Veterans for 911 Truth Challenge Popular Mechanics Magazine to Debate

Contact Popular Mechanics and tell them The Veterans for 9/11 Truth are looking for them.

To: Popular Mechanics Writers of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"

My name is Matthew Naus and I'm a Co-founder of Veterans for 911 Truth. We currently have 235 members that don't believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are a myth. If your evidence, or facts as you call them, are so solid as to call 9/11 conspiracy theories a "myth" then you should have no problem debating members of Veterans for 9/11 Truth on the events surrounding 9/11/01.

We at Veterans for 911 Truth challenge you to a debate of the information put out by: The 9/11 Commission Report, The 9/11 Investigations - Staff Reports Of The 9/11 Commission - Excerpts from the House-Senate Joint Inquiry Report on 9/11 - Testimony from 14 key witnesses, including Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and Condoleezza Rice, any of your magazine articles on debunking 9/11...

We are so sure of our research into the events surrounding 9/11 that we're challenging you to a debate without even reading your paperback book "Debunking 9/11 Myths". We want you to take us up on this challenge in a nationally televised debate. We will be anxiously waiting for you to answer "YES" if you have the guts to debate us.

Matthew Naus
Co-founder of: Veterans for 911 Truth

Hahah priceless! Of course

Hahah priceless! Of course they will never allow for a debate, and thus their POS magazine loses even more credibility. How much more can they take? Witness 9/11 Truth on the march!!

Here is the little message

Here is the little message email I've just sent to PM:


I'm a bit sceptical about 9/11 conspiracy theories and I've appreciated your articles that try to debunk it. Now, you have to take the Veterans for 9/11 Truth Debate Challenge in order to convince me that you are right about what you've said. Your credibility is on the line here. I'm looking forward for that debate.


someone have a look at this

someone have a look at this and send me some feedback... short argument on impact times vs. seismic spikes. havn't really heard much about this argument.

thanks guys

Sent them an email, thanks

Sent them an email, thanks for letting us know what's going on so we can all do this together ;-).


I just sent them one and

I just sent them one and told them I was looking forward to the debate...

If you get Diane Rheme on

If you get Diane Rheme on NPR, she is going to talk about the WaPo NORAD story today at 10ma eastern.(in 20 minutes) This is a national NPR program.
Call or send e-mail.

Iam sure their going to cut

Iam sure their going to cut & run.Just like NIST did when challenged by team liberty.Which is fine.
I think Hannity should have Fox cover this,and encourage all other major media as well.That is if he is so determined to prove us wrong.
Time to put up,or shut up.

I just emailed popular

I just emailed popular mechanics begging them to debate these nut jobs to shut them up. I went with the reverse psy-op approach. 8)

Let's take it one step

Let's take it one step further.Email Hannity,O'Reilly,ABC,CBS,NBC,and propose a four hour prime time dedicated slot.They win we'll stop

I wrote PM and asked them if

I wrote PM and asked them if they were
"ready to rumble"? :-)


Is it just me or will any

Is it just me or will any debate on this issue resemble a debate between Lisa Simpson and Mayor Quimby?


Is Fetzer "formally" in

Is Fetzer "formally" in V911T? If not you should get him to join just for the debate AT LEAST.

This is from & The

This is from & The Muckraker
This is the reply Ed Haas recieved.


Hello all,


Folks, we've had several well attended planning sessions to create incredible series of events for the 5th anniversary of 9/11. We'll be meeting every Wed. night at 7:30 PM at St. Marks Church for those who want to get in on the action. Also, we need your financial support to pay for venues, literature, speakers, etc. We have to go all out to make this weekend as huge as possible to convey to the world that we have the evidence implicating gov't complicity in the attacks of 9/11. We have to assume this may be our last and best opportunity to create huge visibility for the need to expose the monumental crimes of 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up. Also, with the recent C-SPAN coverage of the Alex Jones event

We need to finance 3 days of events and need your help. We're asking everyone to donate at least $15, either by using our Paypal donate button at, or by contacting me at if you'd like to send a check. The time is now and the need is urgent. By the way, I just learned that 50 people will be coming from the Boston area!


(from John Leonard, Webster's publisher)

Please continue if you can with the Talk Radio Mobilization as we did for CSpan, and call in to talk radio shows.
See the tool kit with pointers on how to get past the screener and lists of 800 numbers of the major syndicated shows at

[This success grew out of Webster Tarpley's Talk Radio Mobilization for the CSpan panel over the last few days.
(A. Jones, S. Jones, B. Bowman, J. Fetzer and W. Tarpley). I was able to call in to Mike Malloy Monday night and say my spiel
about Cspan, war in Lebanon, and that I'm Webster's publisher and he's been after me to get him on Mike Malloy!
This morning Mike's producer Kathy Malloy called, and tomorrow night we're on the air.]

9/11 INFO RESOURCE SERIES - St. Marks Church, 6:30 PM, 2nd Ave. & 10th Street

(Folks - This topic is very timely given the news this week about NORAD lies to the 9/11 Commission. In case you haven't heard this news, see for the articles.)

Sunday AUG. 6th - 9/11 Flights of Fancy: The 9/11 commission's Incredible Tales About Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93

The film "Flights of Fancy", by author/lecturer David Ray Griffin, details the three versions of the story of what happened with our national air defenses on 9/11. The current version, as presented in the "9/11 Commission Report", differs significantly from the two versions that were given right after the events. None explain why our fighter jets remained on the ground for so long when it was known we were under attack. David explains why the third version is the least believable of all, and why the slow fighter response shows that a 'stand down' order of some sort had to have been given that day.

This lecture is based on the second half of Dr. Griffin's in-depth analysis of the official investigation, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions". We clearly learn from his findings that the investigation was nothing more than political theater intended to give the illusion of a serious attempt to expose how the attacks of 9/11 happened and why. This information is timely, since July 22nd was the second anniversary of the release of the report. It only stands to reason that where there's a cover-up, there's a crime. In politics it seems that cover-ups are how justice gets served to the guilty parties. The information in this film enables us to clearly see the grand deception.

Donation: $5


Word is Kevin was on Sean Hannity again the other night and ripped him apart a second time. Also, the NY Times actually printed a decent article about the issue of educational freedom and gives an even handed perspective of the controversy created over Kevin challenging the official lie.


There will be a film crew from Finland at GZ this weekend. Also, at 4 PM we'll be going to Times Sq. to join in the protest action on the Middle East conflict.

Truth will prevail,


[For all new members, please be advised that this list serve is an announcement tool I use to send out event info and occasionally news items. To correspond, please do not hit Reply. Email me directly at Thanks!]

these guys--->veterans for

these guys--->veterans for 911truth

they have the most potential power out of most of the 911truth movement

grandma and grandpa will listen to VETERANS

salute---veterans for 911truth

Here is an excellent sign of

Here is an excellent sign of your desperation: you bought into the classic desperate propaganda ploy of the "challenge to debate."

Part of the history of denial is the attempt to obtain "legitimacy" by a challenge to debate by those who are ignored. In an attempt of false bravado, the challenge takes the form of "if you're so confident of the facts, you will have no problem debating me."

Yes, you read it correctly. Desperate people often resort to desperate means. There are countless examples throughout history.

Flat-Earthers are a classic example. At the 1964 Worlds Fair on Long Island, I once was entertained by a small group of "FEs" accosting attendees admiring the world's globe asking in an arrogant tone if those observers "actually" believed the world was round. Startled, the people I overheard said invariably, "Why yes, of course."

That response, expected by the FEs, was an introduction to the inevitable harrangue by FEs "proving" the earth was flat. People subjected to this walked away, of course.

Now, imagine yourself in this very situation but, instead, a FEer challenges you to a debate about whether the earth were round or flat. Would you accept the challenge? Why or why not?

Now imagine yourself in a more substantive situation: a challenge to a "debate" with a holocaust denier. Would you entertain the notion in your own mind that there are valid arguments that the the holocaust did not happen? Would you entertain the notion that a holocaust denier deserved your attention, your moral sanction that debating him or her was a recognition of the "validity" of that denier's argument?

While debating flat-earthers is strictly a question of scientific evidence - it's more entertaining and without consequent, debating holocaust deniers contains additional elements: historical fact, evidence, ethics, and political motivation. There are ethical and political consequences if one were to legitimize holocaust denial by "debating" those who deny the overwhelming factual evidence of the holocaust as Neo-Nazis do to this very day.

Now, in your own minds, where do you think "debating" 9/11 falls? Do you think having factual evidence requires an actual debate? Why?

Or do you think the evidence is so overwhelming that the facts stand on their own, refuting the "other side" easily?

If, as these people claim, "We are so sure of our research into the events surrounding 9/11 that we're challenging you to a debate without even reading your paperback book "Debunking 9/11 Myths", why is it that any "debate" is needed? Is the earth round or flat? Did the holocaust happen? Do we need to debate what is so overwhelmingly factual?

History has shown over and over that such calls for "debate" are done only from a position of weakness and the only intent as a means to try to achieve legitimacy in the public's eye. It is a classic propaganda technique to overcome the lack of evidence to support one's claim or political position.

By so doing, the 9/11 "Truth" movement has exposed its underbelly, admitting it is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of all Americans for lack of factual evidence to support its claims.

why would they not read the

why would they not read the book?