O'Reilly Hit Piece

Its great when these "journalists" start their segment by stating "I have trouble believing this..." when they bring up the topic of 9/11 Truth. Whats the matter??? Nobody is believing your lies and propaganda anymore?

Check it out on Google Video here:

Thanks to TT for sending this in.

Did Google take the video

Did Google take the video down?

Why doesn't he just admit

Why doesn't he just admit what he really thinks!

and the ever popular

and the ever popular descriptor, "widely discredited theories".

to believe otherwise is to be "out of the mainstream".

its the goldylocks and the three bears political theory.

"once again this is based on

"once again this is based on what we think a plane crash should look like"

I posted a few comments and

I posted a few comments and rated the s..hit piece.

To discredit theory, the

To discredit theory, the theory must be objectively weighed against all the competing theories and the least likely ones may then be 'discredited'. Too bad NIST won't debate so that we can truly discredit one of these competing theories.

"so the idea that it was

"so the idea that it was going to tip over like a big tree...was based on a hunch as opposed to science"

WOW...I see why they dont want to debate. If you try that shit on J.Hoffman he will eat his ass alive. wow..not "based on science" LOL that is hilarious...

concrete pulverazition from a gravity driven collapse is not based on science

"...the real surprise is that the buildings stood up as long as they did"

Philadelphia, Carcas, Windsor




Here's my email to

Here's my email to O'reilly:
Bill,you should be ashamed of yourself for allowing that interview to see the light of day.It was a totally biased interview without one shred of proven fact.Where is all the scientific proof?Show us some.You would never allow somebody with the opposite views to make statements and present them as fact.There are a littany of facts to prove that all three of those buildings came down by controlled demolition.Especially building wtc 7,which by the way,wasn't hit by any airplane.But obviously you never discussed that because there's no refuting the proof,is there now?How come the wings could penetrate the steel columns of the trade center buildings and leave "cartoon imprints",but for the pentagon,which is only reinforced concrete,it couldn't?There's a little contradiction there.After seeing this interview,I'm as angry as I've ever been regarding this blatant and complete cover-up.I'm now more determined then ever to see that this truth isn't denied.Just as millions of others are.I can only hope,that when the dominoes fall,you and everyone else who tried to keep the truth hiden,fall with them.

Way to go, informed

Way to go, informed believer. Good letter.


The "official story" believers are becoming more desperate than ever to play like they are the ones who are truthful. Shame will come upon them very soon.

Mr. O'Reilly, you scripted

Mr. O'Reilly, you scripted piece interviewing Mr. Meigs of Popular Mechanics resorted very quickly to name calling, labeling alternatives to the official theories as "nonsense" and "nutty conspiracy garbage."

Mr. O'Reilly asks: did the towers fall too quickly?
Meigs says "It didn't"
Do you really think that this is precise scientific thinking?

You add: "no one saw a 100 plus story building collapse to the ground before."
True, but are we supposed to believe that that the laws of physics are suspended because we haven't see a phenomena before?
Well, let's see YOUR "scienfitic evidence" that "this is the most closely studied collapse of any kind in history" and that "the engineering community is unanimous."

Please don't refer us to the NIST study.
In fact, it studied the crashes in great detail and greatly elaborated it's theories UP TO the point of "inevitability of collapse."
Then NIST stops its analysis!
And... they even refuse to publish their computer model of the initiation of collapse.
And you have the nerve to call this "This is the most closely studied collapse of any kind in history"?
And the "the engineering community is unanimous"
Only if we ignore the engineers at Scholars for 911 truth.
Lets not forget that much of the critical evidence of controlled demolition requires an clear understanding of physics and chemistry, including the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the chemical characteristics of thermate and super thermate.
Many engineers simply have nothing to debunk most of what Steven Jones has to say!
If Meigs is so confident, let him debate!

Oh and Mr. Meigs and Mr. O'Reilly, I see you didn't try to explain Building 7.....
I thought you said "this is the most closely studied collapse of any kind in history."

On the Pentagon, you said that the hole was 90 feet wide.
Can you show that 90' hole to us?

While you are at it, can you explain how the multi ton engines made (certainly not "thin aluminum") made little impact to the building or the lawn?

You said "what was left of the airplane after it hit flowed into the building more like a liquid than a solid."
Could you please explain that in English?

Mr. Meigs doesn't like what Kevin Barrett says just because he says that cells phones don't work in planes.
Mr. Meigs correctly says that they do work in planes...
Sure... I agree with that....
When they are parked at the gate and at low altitude!
Try using YOUR cell phone at 25,000 feet and let us know how it works!

You say that facts are facts, they don't have any politics.
I couldn't agree more!

But I sure haven't seen any facts from you!

Hello all.... Here is what I

Hello all....

Here is what I have written to orliely.

Dear Sir,

I just watched a clip from your show about 9/11 and the interview you had with the Editor of PM.

I am very sorry to say that you and the PM editor really did not provide any evidence to support your stance one bit! You mention about using "science" to determine the "facts", but you have done neither. The concrete from the buildings could not be pulverized to the particle level they were by a simple gravity driven collapse!

The building would have not collapsed completely to begin with. Even if it could, there would have been many stories of the WTC core still standing. After all, if you say the building pancaked then that would require an effect similar to records on a spindle. The records collapse, but the spindle still remains standing!

In regards to your tree analogy! Physics cannot be denied! The top 30 floors of the south tower were falling at a 30 degree angle at the time of the collapse, and Newton's laws says that it is not possible to change it's direction and land like it did. Here is what Newton's 3 Laws says: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Law number one is the one of importance for the moment! With the top of the building at a 30 degree angle, the top would have kept falling over and would have fell into the street and other buildings. It did not! It nicely straightened it's self out and fell down almost completely onto it's own footprint.

Now we get to WTC7, which was not hit by an airplane but collapsed in perfect form a little after 5PM the same day. The debris from the collapse from WTC1 and WTC2 could have been catastrophic to WTC7, but the collapse WOULD NOT have fallen like a perfect demolition. It would have toppled toward the debris fields of WTC1 and WTC2, where the damage was from and not fallen straight down onto its self.

Now finally, for the Pentagon. The idea that 2 eight plus feet engines made of the strongest steel known to man, titanium, would just melt into nothing and "flowed" into the building is absurd. There would have not only been a hole of the body of the plane, but also 2 holes made by each of the engines on either side of the 18 foot hole. Also, a commercial aircraft would not have increased the radiation level in the area of the Pentagon by 10 times, which required the rescue workers to put on radiation suits. Here is an article regarding the high level of radiation at the site. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html

I hope that you will one day review what happened on 9/11 with an OPEN mind, and really look at the evidence that exists which is inconsistent with the official version. Ask yourself why NIST will not supply the computer simulation models showing how the towers fell? Why won't NIST debate what happened, with the available evidence, with scholars regarding the events? Why won't NIST complete the report for WTC7 so that answers can be made of this collapse? Why did they contract it out and stipulate in the contract that the investigation should: "Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven."

Defining the outcome or narrowing the investigation is not proper investigative methods, and is used only to reduce the results possible to the outcome desired. I hope that you will re-think your stance on this matter and do some true investigative reporting on 9/11.


re: cell phones... yeah cell

re: cell phones... yeah cell phones can work NOW as of 2004... at some altitudes

I wasn't too diplomatic.

I wasn't too diplomatic. Called him a few names and dared him to show the colapse of Building 7.

Will probably get a visit from Fox Security.

yes, inpsired by Bill

yes, inpsired by Bill O'reillies Hard hitting journalism tonight, I did some research on Benny and Mikey Chertoff:
Here's what i've found tonight, if you didn't already know this:

Benjamin Chertoff was the lead writer of that story, and the senior reporter for that special March issue. He managed the team of "investigators and reporters"
that authored the article.
He is 25.

He is Micheal Chertoff's cousin.

When asked if he's related by a reporter he allegedly said, "I don't know." and ended the conversation.
His mother has confirmed the relation.

It saps all my motivation to give it any credit now. First they choose O-Reilly as the forum to plug their book (it's the only show they've plugged it on so far), and now I find out about the connection to Michael Chertoff.

Michael Chertoff is the secretary of homeland security, he co-authored the Patriot Act, he delayed the Katrina response (Evidently, the head of FEMA actually does not have much power without the go ahead from the secretary of homeland security, SO...Brownie actually could have acted sooner if he had recieved authorization from Chertoff who has not explained why he waited 36 hours to give the go-ahead, and also dismissed reports from the dome as "rumors." ) and he's also actively suppressed and delayed torture allegations for the Bush administration. He is, of course, bush appointed. So, it's not hard to picture him being influential in this situation.


Heya truthsearching2006:

Good letter. I'd like to point out one thing though, and that is the common misconception regarding the wings penetrating the towers and the Pentagon.

At the high speed the planes were going and how structurally weak the wings of passenger jets are, the damage was actually consistent for the buildings. The Towers have steel "columns" and the wings would understandable separate and wrap themselves around the columns and straight through the glass into the structure leaving a (cartoon imprint of a sort). This is consistent with what one could expect.

Regarding the Pentagon, keep in mind we're not talking about reinforced concrete "columns". We're talking about reinforced concrete "walls" specifically designed to protect against bomb blast. If a Boeing passenjer jet hit the building at the speeds described, I'm fairly sure the wings would have simply been sheared right off with a bit of damage to the exterior facade. In the case of a military jet like the Skywarrior the wings are closer to the fuselage and would likely have folded up toward the center mass of the body of the jet as it punched its way through.

Incidentally do you all

Incidentally do you all really think letters to O'Reilly will even be read past the first sentence? He's a government shill and purposely ignores the evidence so that he can better support the OFFICIAL LIE to the public. Nothing will change this as long as he keeps getting a paycheck from these thugs.

sweet jesus i hate the man -

sweet jesus i hate the man - but don't waste your time writing him.

better idea - make a sign that says 911 = Inside Job and sit outdoors at a Starbucks and prop the sign up so that people walking by will see it.

we need to have guerilla do some marketing for us.

suntimes ran the associated press story today



REMEBER: Popular Mechanics


Popular Mechanics are the experts the State Deptartment uses too:

LOOK AT THIS RIDUCULOUS Dept. of State site:

So I am wathing this segment

So I am wathing this segment at my moms house. She is right there, and the only question she had was..

"So who is this guy?(Refering to Meigs from PM) and what credentials does he have to debunk a college professor?"

I just looked at her and smiled.

As they say, the apple doesnt fall far from the tree.

E-mailing the spin master is

E-mailing the spin master is a complete waste of time I am sorry to say. Mister phone sex is a total a-hole and a NWO shill. Don't worry he will get his when the house of 9/11 lies falls as it most certainly will. Use your energy in a more positive way. Me and a 9/11 truth friend are going to a Pete Starks town hall meeting this weekend. We are going to hit him hard with some 9/11 truth. Starks is the represenative from our district. Doing stuff like this is far more effective than e-mailing shills like O'Reilly.

this interview did

this interview did damage....i wish they had someone to counter what hes saying.

IMO I think interviews like

IMO I think interviews like this actually help 9/11 truth. This weak ass s...hit piece "reporting" does nothing but make our case stronger to the public about how corrupt our institutions actually are.

Don't fall for this

Don't fall for this propaganda method...

I encourage e-mailing

I encourage e-mailing O'Reilly anyways. He may ignore us, or he may comment on it furthur due to the high volume of responses.

No mention of Building 7.

No mention of Building 7.

If engineers are

If engineers are uninanimous, then where can we find the official engineering reports... ones with all the technical details? We'll see if this engineer agrees.

o'lieley's audience average

o'lieley's audience average age is 70 years old. its a great demographic, old people who buy lots of drugs and vote.

its asking alot of someone

its asking alot of someone at the end of their earth journey to reevaluate the matrix.

Is anybody like Hoffman

Is anybody like Hoffman going to critically review PM's book ?