New YouTube Video - 'The True Lies of 9/11'

Part 1

(Part 2 after the jump..)

These were created by Aidan Monaghan, a member of and the creator of:

pretty good

It's good, but instead of jumping right in to accounts of explosions you should say "no steel structure has ever collpased due to fire" sometime early like in 9/11 mytseries. Most people think buildings colllapse like that all the time. Also you need to expose the fake confessions by "fatty bin laden" bc people say he admitted it, thats good enough evidence for many, he actually denied responsibility. you should also include a few quotes from stephen jones paper and david ray griffin. good work though

Show "Sonia Morales Puopolo" by Amanda Reconwith

Great post amanda. You need

Great post amanda. You need to post this on a blog for easier reference. This is great stuff illustrating stooges are being used everywhere.

There's more to the Puopolos than that

Dominic J Puopolo Senior is in a consulting group called Epic Partners
He started a company called Provant in about 1998, then sold it recently, siting debt, despite the fact that it had a number of lucrative contracts
Among Provant's corporate clients are such household names as 3M, America Online, Jaguar, and
The New York Times Co. ...The company's government contracts include a $13 million deal with the US Air Force, announced last month.
One of his partners , JohnTyson,used to work for Raytheon, but also:
JOHN E. TYSON , age 58 , has been Chairman of the Board of PROVANT INC since May 2001. From November 2000 to May 2001 , Mr. Tyson served as a director of the Company. ...From 1984 to 1999 , Mr. Tyson served as Chairman , Chief Executive Officer and President of Compression Labs , Inc. ( CLI ). CLI pioneered the development of compressed digital video , interactive video conferencing and digital broadcast television. In addition to his experience with CLI , Mr. Tyson has held executive management positions at AT&T , General Electric and General
Telephone & Electronics. (General Electric as in CBS)

The partner from Epic:
Joseph Alibrandi is still a board of directors of Provant, AND:
AeroVironment, a private company engaged in the design and manufacture of high technology products
including high altitude aircrafts.

part of Provant was "Star Mountain",:
Star Mountain provides government agencies with businesses training, human resources management and information technology services.

This guy Fran Pugliese quit his job at the Federal Supply Services to run "Star Mountain"
Federal Supply Service commissioner Frank P. Pugliese Jr., who will retire this month after 28 years
with the General Services Administration, will take over Sept. 5 as president and chief executive
officer of Star Mountain of Alexandria, Va., a unit of Provant Inc. of Boston.
what did Federal Syupply Services do?
FSS employs 3,400 people in the business of supplying more than $20 billion annually in goods and
services to Federal departments and agencies worldwide. In addition to directing extensive procurement
and distribution operations, he manages a worldwide fleet of 170,000 vehicles, travel and
transportation services and the reutilization and sale of surplus personal property for military and
civilian agencies.

Pugliese quit his job to work at Star mountain just before 9-11, then quit to go into another job after ward and all of those businesses "disappeared" when sold to a japanese company

Show "Stop lying" by StopLyingKooks


you're not even an American for crying out loud. Please SHUT THE F UP!

Now, chum, as iritating as

Now, chum, as iritating as he is, 9/11 and 7/7 have affected the whole world, not just Yanks and Brits.

If the citizens of the world have a right to push for 911 Truth, they have an equal right to being deluded, debunking gits.


Course one does wonder why he registered if he's going to be a deluded git...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Hey enemy of the USA

Hey enemy of the USA enabler, of course incompleted steel structures have collapsed during shoddy construction jobs, even steel bridges have been busted up by the wind. In all cases mangled and twisted piles remain But never have three buildings, which proved their reliability for decades, collapsed all on the same day in the same location and all from fires which were under control and incapable of reaching the neccasary tempature to melt steel. Also, these unprecedented collapses on 911 managed to defy the laws of physics by collapsing at free-fall speed, a feat only matched in controlled demolition. And also, instead of twisted and mangled remains standing 40-50 stories tall or even taller and a disaster region far reaching the area of downtown Manhatten, which is the logical conclusion of of the pancake collapse because the inner columns should still be there and the building should have tipped over and we should have found piles of floor slabs all over the area, but instead we have collasal steel towers built with hundreds of tons of fortified steel and concrete being turned to dust within 10 seconds. Do you have any shame?

Watch $20 bucks on google video:

The gig is up. It's best that you seperate from your employer at this point before you get further entangled in the cover-up of the mass murder of 3000 people on US soil. There will be an independent investigation and individuals will be prosecuted.

Show "So you admit he was lying" by StopLyingKooks

Either way, you're extremely

Either way, you're extremely naive or you simply have sold your soul. Soon, the awakening will be brutal. Good luck.

Show "rrriiiggghhhht How's that" by Anonymous (not verified)

allow me to repeat

this for the lyingIdiot.

No Steel frame high rise building has EVER collapsed DUE TO FIRE.

of course buildings have failed due to shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, crappy design etc.
There is no comparison.

BUT the twin towers were given several engineering awards for excellence in building design & construction.
No corners were cut, they were the most well designed buildings in history when they were built, they were 16X stronger and more stable than ANY other high rise structures ever built at that date, they had over 600% redundancy in support strength.
They stood for almost 30 years.

They were over built, over designed and easily withstood a fire on the 11th floor in 1975 that burned twice as hot for 3X longer than the low heat short duration fires on 9/11.
and in 1975 there were 99 floors on top of the burning floors not just 20 and the steel withstood that fire with flying colors as NONE of it needed to be replaced, no beams, columns or trusses are damaged enough to require replacement.

You Rethuglican Neofascist sycophants are pathetic.


In 1975 there were no fire suppression sysyems in the WTC Towers..... they were only installed after the fire.

Fires consumed several floors and burned much longer.... the affected floors also carried well over 100% more weight in the floors above the fire when compared to the affected area on 9/11

1975.... 90+ floors above
9/11..... 40 to 50 floors above

1975.... no fire sprinklers
9/11.... fire sprinklers functioning

1975..... building OK
9/11..... they all fall down


Didn't they also upgrade the asbestos fire protection after the fire in 1975?

they had been replacing the

they had been replacing the the asbestos in the towers just prior to 911. This is a double dagger for the 911 Murder minions, because either the asbestos prevented fire from spreading or it provided ample time to get in at the core columns in order to place detonations.


I've seen nothing about asbestos being removed before 9/11. In fact, the asbestos is supposed to have been only in the first 40 floors or so of the North Tower, because at that point in the construction it was deemed illegal to use it. The asbestos didn't really play a role in the events of that day, except that its presence was a problem that made it extremely convenient to have the towers demolished in a fake terror attack, since otherwise doing so would have been illegal. The cost of removing it would have been prohibitive. Anyone who has ever seen asbestos being removed, complete with the "negative air pressure" setup needed even in the smallest office space, knows this intuitively. I find it highly unlikely, moreover, that the explosive and/or incendiary charges were placed during the morning of 9/11. They had ample time in the six weeks between Lucky Larry Silverstein's takeover and the day of infamy to place those charges undetected. See Scott Forbes' testimony about the suspicious "workmen" the weekend prior, for example.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Hey JJ....they're waiting

Hey JJ....they're waiting for you over at JREF for the debate. Where are you?

Bring some friends to help you out.

You are going to debate them, aren't you?

howzabout you post a link to Apathoid's paper?

I'll make it my next blog post here...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "So you're not going to" by Mr. X
Show ""...incapable of reaching" by annoyee (not verified)

the steel melted, period.

This is a confirmed fact--there is video of it coming out of the south tower, plenty of people saw it in the rubble piles, and not even the anti-truth bible from Popular Methaddicts denies it. In fact, they bend over backwards to explain it. Also, Appendix C of FEMA's report refers to melted steel in WTC7, saying it was inexplicable to them and merited further study (which has apparently not happened-why?)

It has long been a tactic of the coveruppers to say that the steel didn't have to melt for the towers to collapse, as if the towers collapsing was what we were basing our knowledge of molten steel on. Let's repeat--the steel melted. We know this, we are not simply inferring from the collapse that it must have. Stop pretending that this is not an established fact, shill.

And to those who wonder what the best evidence is, note the effort that goes into lying about things like melted steel. Shoddy attempts at "debunking" are like bells and whistles indicating where the real evidence is.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Do you even read?

I have no clue as to what you are replying to, but this kind of reply is exactly the thing that is driving away a lot of people with serious interest and intentions - including me. The only thing I'm pointing out is that the argument of the fires having to be hot enough to melt steel is a non-argument. I'm not stating that no steel melted, or that the weakened steel (whether the temperatures were hot enough to melt it or not) in WTC1 and 2 explain the collapse of both buildings, I'm just saying that steel loses strength as it weakens from heat - far before it melts. And for this, my message gets collapsed, and the 'Real Truther' calls me a shill.

I have been convinced from day one that the attacks of 9/11 have been an inside job, and have since been informing people about it and debating the arguments with stubborn non-believers and truthers alike. Unlike many others I have been willing to look at both sides of the argument, and constantly try to keep myself informed about any news that reaches the surface. In my efforts I've been reminding people of popular and impopular beliefs of what took place that day, but it seems that quite a lot of people on both sides are not interested in a proper debate or factual argumentation.

This is why it annoys the crap out of me when people say "no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire alone" referring to WTC1 and 2, conveniently ignoring the planes that crashed into these buildings. Again, with this I'm NOT saying that the collapse of both buildings are properly explained by official reports like NIST's, I'm just saying it's a shallow bullshit argument that will not win your case should it ever enter a courtroom.

If you are really so keen on slapping people in the face, why not tend to the thousands that look upon 9/11 conspiracy theories as something exciting, something sensational, like a new X-Files season, in stead of insulting people who see 9/11 for what it is - a global disaster from which millions of people suffer daily, and a seriously complicated problem that deserves a far more mature approach than merely repeating what the next guy says.

The only thing you've shown me with your reply is that there's also plenty of sheeple among 9/11 truthers.
Grow the fuck up and try to focus for a change.

Do *you* read?

Or more to the point, have you read enough on this site to understand the significance of "molten steel"? If you haven't, then fine, but that's the context into which you need to put RT's post. The whole "molten steel made the buildings collapse -- fires not hot enough to melt steel -- fires didn't have to melt it just weaken it for collapse -- blah blah blah" sequence of arguments has really given way to a central question: how was it possible that there was molten steel or another non-aluminum metal at the site? There is eyewitness and video evidence that there was. How is that possible? (Use of thermite/thermate would be one possible explanation.)

"Conveniently ignoring the planes" -- here's a word of friendly advice: that is shillspeak. I don't know what you mean. Are you suggesting the impacts caused collapse? (Partial collapse at the tops of the Towers, maybe. Global collapse, no.) Nobody's ignoring the planes, annoyeur. Except the one that hit Building 7, because it didn't exist. (I think that typically the "no steel framed buildings...from fire alone" comment is made in reference to 7 most of the time at this point.)

Do you hang out with people who think the events of 9/11 pack the same entertainment-value punch as the X-Files? Why? I don't think you're going to find too many of them here. I'd like Erin S. Myers to take a crack at that one, actually. If you see him posting, why don't you run that assertion by him?

And annoyeur, you're one tiny step up from being an anonymous, which makes this kind of shrill shrieking criticism pretty much read as shillery from the get-go.

And I would add there is no

And I would add there is no such thing as a "global collapse", outside of environemental/ economic situations. This is a nit of mine, as it appears to be a bit of newspeak invented just for the occasion of explaining the unexplainable in the NIST report.

That is, I've never seen it before 911 used in a structural sense. Come to think of it, I've forgotten whether "annoying" brought this up, or you're just using it as an example.

Perhaps I should just go to bed before I get more confused or confusing...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


I have read quite a bit on this site, casseia. In fact I've been reading from shortly after its inception, and used to read everything, comments included. Actually, I'm glad that I'm not spending most of my free time on reading blogs and news sources like this one anymore, because it didn't do me and my temper any good - it can be quite depressing you know. And I'm also glad you're pointing out the real issue about the molten steel: that is was there, regardless of the relevance to the collapse. The thing is, I only replied to greenback's post because he talks about molten steel within the context of the collapse of the WTC buildings. So yes, I do read, although I always must admit I might have interpreted things incorrectly as English is not my native language.

Even so, I still don't understand the negative replies, and why I must be a shill merely for pointing out that remarks like greenbacks are easily used as an example of how incredibly wrong we are. But again, words, interpretations and entire argumentations are put in my mouth and you're suggesting crap I totally disagree with. I understand the "no steel framed buildings ever collapsed from fire alone" remark should only be used in reference to WTC7, although even here I'm pretty sure you could still debate that, and technically you could come to different conclusions. But if you would wipe whatever's blocking your view out of your eyes you would see that I actually mentioned that it is just immensely stupid to say that referring to WTC1 and 2. And I'm well aware that "conveniently ignoring" sounds like shillspeak but that is the exact point I'm trying to make. Incorrect argumentation and a sloppy choice of words are fueling the flames of whoever want to take this movement down, and I feel that everyone, you and me included, should be very cautious of that. (By the way, the word conveniently only refers to the trouble one has to go through to accurately formulate what one wants to say, but that might be my English grammar acting up. I probably should have used "lazily", a word I cannot easily find a prettier synonym for, or maybe I thought I did.)

And yes, I have to admit that I've come across quite a number of people, both on the net and in real life, that react to 9/11 truth with wide grins saying something like "that's mad shit innit" and throwing in a bunch of alledgedly related issues noone has ever provided any evidence for. I usually tell them that this is a far more serious issue than just another headline on Conspiracy Planet and that if they're in it for the thrills they should stick to cropcircles, chemtrails and chupacabras. It's the same kind of people who claim that a Boeing could never fit in such a small hole, referring to the picture of the hole in the C-ring of the Pentagon. It's people that catch on to the hype without having the faintest clue as to how deep this dirty rabbithole goes, people who probably already abondened the subject altogether. I'm very happy for you that you are exclusively surrounded by truly intelligent and concerned people and don't have to put up with this kind of crap, but my reality is quite different sometimes, regardless of whatever the hell Erin S Meyers has to say about this.

And as far as my anonymity is concerned, if you feel I need to register first before being taken seriously I don't understand why you're reading unregistered or unverified postings in the first place. If you must know, I've posted before under the name zuco, and incidently under another name, one that fits my mood like the current one. And if you insist, I'm willing to share my email address and other personalia, but not without reason, not on a public blog, and certainly not to defend myself against a paranoid shill hunter who failed to read my posts properly twice.

I hope you do a hell of a lot better the third time.


Totally objective. No narration. No spin of any kind. Just straight forward facts and reality based questions.

Stripped raw of agenda. Hard, cold and succinct.

My favorite part: Aprox 2:35 into Part II when Bush is asked point blank about Dean's assertion that he had foreknowledge of 9/11.

He seemed stunned. Like a five year old with his hand caught in the cooki jar, stammering... fidgeting... looking around pathetically... for help.

But Bush has stolen much more than mere cookies. Bush has stolen America's reputation. Our innocence. Our soul as a nation.

It's up to us to get it back... if it's not too late.

i can never get his comments

i can never get his comments at the U.N out of my head. talk about laying the groundwork for the official story. he basically warned the world not to question what happened on 9/11. its so obvious to me now what the point of those comments were, but at the time i thought nothing of it.

Not only the worst President...

he's the worst poker player in history too.

For those who have not yet seen his reaction to Dean's assertion that he had direct foreknowledge of 9/11, first imagine how you would respond if you were the President and the head of the opposing party directly implicates you in being responsible for the worst terrorist attack on the United States of America. The worst attack in history, BLAMED ON YOU. How would you respond?

Now go to 2:35 of part 2 and watch Bush's response.

Now tell me that man is not guilty! I dare you!!

Life Support

Everything they have done since 9/11 has in many ways been geared toward supporting their story.... and protecting their asses

We immediately went to war.... which was expected... but that was used as an excuse not to investigate the attacks.

Initiated the Patriot Act legislation.... I say initiated because it was written long before 9/11 ..... but it also has the purpose of protecting their asses.... allowing them to take out all threats to their cover... intimidating people not to act.

Capturing many innocent Muslims and holding them indefinitely..... thus proving that there are terrorists and that they are doing something to stop them..... then torturing them for information which most likely isn't accurate..... creating a new system of law in order to prosecute these people because they wouldn't be convicted under our normal system of law.

Trying to shut down the internet by whatever means possiblle to stop the spread of knowledge and truth.... exposure of their wrong doing and lies.

Where would we be without 9/11?

Where would they be without 9/11?

I believe

Yes, if look at him, cheney, kristol, rice. They always use as their defense words like absurd, ridiculous, and preposterous. They use these as hyperbole against the truth.

To the gallows I say! Hang the bastards!

I liked the...

...Bush segment, too. I couldn't believe my eyes, actually. (I have never seen it before.) He can't utter a word? Can't just dismiss it: "Oh, what a bs!" Just stands there and mumbles... A good insight into our "great leader" (as Juliani has described him) and the administration he embodies.


What the F is up with all the F'n dead birds?

It seems very possible that a missile was shot into the Pentagon

as indicated by the small initial impact hole. Perhaps a missile was also shot into the gound, or into the "abandoned mine" at Shanksville.

Another new 9/11 documentary

Check out my documentary "The Process of Transformation" part 1


Good work.

way cool.

the drum-machine will irk older viewer, but otherwise its FINE.

I'll make a blog entry!!

this needs to be broadcast in prime time ..

the 21st century has begun.

A kid makes a hard-hitting documentary and thereby exposes the TV broadcasters as being CONTROLLED DISINFORMATION. Simply amazing, this fact.

It doesn't matter if the facts in "The Process of Transformation" are not 100% accurate.. tell me which recent TV programme has that many facts...

New "24" Season Showcases Mass Terror, Concentration Camps:

The new season of "24", that is to air this coming weekend, is to prepare the American people for the idea of concentration camps, detention centers and the rounding up of people in times of crisis!

Watson got it wrong. see my

Watson got it wrong. see my comments on that page for why. anyone who saw last season of 24 knows that its not "pro-nwo". the president was found to be involved with terrorists and was sent to jail because of it. doesnt sound like "pro-nwo" propaganda to me.


as those before me have commented, 24 isn't as pro-the-new-world-order as you might suggest. previous seasons depicted a corrupt president funding and staging terror attacks on american soil as a pretext for a war aimed at maintaining oil interests. it also portrays non-middle-easterners as terrorists, depending on the season. so, while it might show excessive instances of terror and mention detainment camps, your staff shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. now, agreed: fox is propaganda, and you guys make some really good points on a daily basis. but don't discredit yourselves with what comes off as over the top and makes you guys look like what the neo-cons would call a "left wing nut."
jack spade | 01.09.07 - 5:26 pm | #


definately agree with John and the others. Alex Jones and crew are usually right on target, but I like the post below talking about "scraping the bottom of the barrell". For those of you who haven't seen the episodes yet, they are the opposite of what is described in the article. But I will want to see the author's view on what happens after the events of episode 4.
Marcus | 01.09.07 - 5:18 pm | #


I have to disagree with the article as well as others have already. Every season that I've seen of 24 has highlighted the factions and cadres that work for different aims and different special interests within the gov't, which are the real perpetrators of terrorism. If 24 was so pro-tyranny and everything, why would Jack always get in so much trouble for pursuing the baddies?

Last season the President is the bad guy, and a character modelled greatly on Bush... the season before that it was a guy who was fucked by the gov't in the past taking his revenge, and the one before that it completely outed the lies that led us to war in Iraq.
john | 01.09.07 - 4:37 pm | #

I agree with most people here. with the past few seasons, 24 has definitely showcased a story where the U.S. government either planned the attacks, or supplied terrorists with the means to carry them out. examples of this i can remember are:

Season 2-Big oil contractors supply terrorists
Season 4-Defense contractors aid terrorists
Season 5-The president, his advisor, a former CTU agent, and an unidentified group conspire to assassinate an ex-president and supply terrorists with nerve gas in order to create a pretext to control the oil supply coming out of Asia.

And just like in real life, the villains claimed, "It's all in the name of security and the country's best interest." If you ask me, it's quite possible that someone on the 24 writing staff has woken up and is trying to convey the message through the show. Especially now that they are introducing the subject of concentration camps. Notice how all the likeable characters are saying, "This is wrong. This violates the Constitution." But the unlikeable character is saying, "Deal with it."

As Jack Bauer said last season, "This government has no integrity!"
Joe | 01.09.07 - 6:03 pm | #

Last season, 24 showed the public how terror could be created from within the oval office. This season, it sounds like they're alerting the public to the concentration camps standing ready across the country. You guys do great work, seriously, but you typically see everything through glasses that paint the most horrible picture from any given information, understandable given your mission. I see the new season of 24 as a great positive -- alerting millions of viewers to the dangers from within our government. Sounds like the producers are being mighty artful in sounding the alarm to a head-in-the-sand apathetic public. Let's both hope I'm right!
John | 01.10.07 - 6:35 am | #

has Watson even watched the show? or is he just assuming its propaganda because its on Fox?

I disagree. These shows are

I disagree. These shows are there to provide context for people to say - "I've seen this before". Also, the fact that the president if found out is being used to show us that "if there was a real conspiracy they would get caught", thereby supporting the Official Story because no one has been caught.

This is the same thing they did with the X-Files spin off "The Lone Gunman". This show details almost EXACTLY what happened on 9/11 and why. This instills in people that "oh that can't happen in real life, I saw that on TV before 9/11".

The fact that these shows exist on FOX, a newtork that we know is directly tied to the interests of the NeoCons is telling enough.

(oh...and I love "24", It's my favorite show and its appearently has educational information too!!)

and just like on 24, on Lone

and just like on 24, on Lone Gunmen the terrorists were the government itself. did that part happen in real life too? i think you just made my point stronger. Fox television doesnt have nearly the oversight that Fox News has in managing propaganda. Family Guy and American Dad make fun of Bush and the neocons all the time right? they dont care. Fox News is micromanaged. Fox television not as much. ask Seth Mcfarlane or any other Fox show producer if they get memos from Roger Ailes. Fox television is not Fox News is my point. owned by the same cretins, no doubt, but the producers of these shows have some freedom that people on Fox News just dont. im thouroughly convinced that the producers of 24 "get it" for lack of a better term. last season made it very clear.

FOX cancelled "Firefly"!

  FOX cancelled "Firefly"! That makes them EVIL!

Mostly joking--just had to shout that out... Wink

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

no, what REALLY makes them

no, what REALLY makes them evil is that they cancelled "Arrested Development". i will never forgive Murdoch for that one, nevermind the fact that he has almost single handedly ruined the media on multiple continents,haha.

Proof Bush Lies

That's a great one.

That's a great one.

Show "He lies no more than" by Anonymous (not verified)


I certainly hope you don't get paid to suck like you do.

We do not lie.... we have no reason to..... What exactly do you believe we would be trying to accomplish by lying?

Are we lying in order to get a new investigation?...... we are getting pretty good at it then because we seem to be gaining more and more attention.

We are very good liars...... so good in fact.... we don't need lawyers..... or publicists..... or a police state.....or the mass media to support our stories.


we lie so well we've convinced 84% of Americans that the Government are the real liars — good job keep it up

A very good video.

I liked the minimalistic music score. Very good presentation of the facts.

Would love to see an expanded version, like an hour long. Made exactly like this.

Very nice

You've covered a great deal of information in a short amount of time. And the facts don't lie.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

American Patriot

Video 1 - It seems that the point of this video is to discuss the pre-explosions on WTC 1 & 2. What I find particularly interesting is the video from New Jersey that shows the base level explosions on WTC1. I have searched for some closer video evidence that there was smoke emminating from the base of the towers. Have a look at the video 1 - point time 1:30 where the camera pans away from the firefighter during the interview. It is blurry but there is clear evidence of smoke/dust or something coming from the base of WTC 1. Where could this have come from? Certainly it could not have been dust from the upper levels traveling down the elevators shafts or stair wells. Look carefully and see for yourself. This is the clearest evidence I have seen of the pre-explosive devices going off prior to the collapse.

That particular clip is very interesting...

I see what you mean about the white smoke/dust at the bottom of the south tower...

Would love to get hold of a HIGH quality version of this piece (I only have a 5MB mpeg - any documentaries it is in ? or links to high qual DivX would be great)

Also you can see the grey/brown dust coming through the lower skylobby, while the demo wave is still 20 floors above.

Great short vid... Thanks Aidan Monaghan

Show "Sorry, there is no demo wave." by Anonymous (not verified)

The only liar in this thread is...

    YOU !!!

...and that includes lying to yourself (shame on ya, bet you can't even look yourself in the eyes in a mirror)

I suppose the pic below is someone having a pee out of the 80th floor of the south tower too... shame on ya you phoney

Sleep well FREAK !!!

Show "You just got caught lying again." by Anonymous (not verified)

2006 — the year the neocon rats started fleeing the sinking

ship of state en mass

Oi, you should register and

Oi, you should register and make this your signature!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.