NY Times tries to discredit Rosie's claims about WTC7

This story was published today in NY Times Select:

May 30, 2007
About New York
A Notion From 9/11 Is Kept Alive

The first day of the post-Rosie O’Donnell era on “The View” television show has come and gone, and by any fair accounting, an often useful provocateur has left the building.

In her final months on the air, she mostly dropped her public torment of an attention-starved, orange-haired real estate developer. Instead, she opened debates with others about terrorism, peace and citizenship.

She also recently took up — without quite spelling out — a theory that one of the buildings at the World Trade Center, No. 7, was brought down by bombs late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001. No. 7 was not one of the towers struck by the airplanes, she said, but a separate building “that got hit by nothing — 47 floors and dropped, 5:30, into itself.”

She also said: “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center Tower 7 — Building 7, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved.”

That conversation has been left dangling by her abrupt departure from the show, but her statements made their way to Queens and the home of Daniel Nigro, retired after a life in the Fire Department. He began the morning of Sept. 11 as second-in-command; by 10:30, he was in charge, when the chief of department, Peter J. Ganci Jr., was killed.

“I feel like I watch the show because it’s replayed so often on the news: ‘I never saw fire melt steel,’ and the studio audience clapping, like this was some great revelation,” Mr. Nigro said. “It’s true that there has never been a skyscraper collapse as a result of just a fire. It’s a natural progression to a conspiracy theory.”

THE world has paid little attention to 7 World Trade Center, which fell seven hours after the north and south towers. It was 47 stories tall, but less than half their height. No one was inside. Since 2,750 people had been mortally injured or died in the attack, hardly anyone cared about the collapse of an empty skyscraper, no matter how novel. Early reports billed it as the first steel skyscraper in the country to collapse solely from uncontrolled fire.

As time went on, the collapse of No. 7 became a focal point for people who suspected that the federal government had a malevolent hand in the Sept. 11 attack, particularly since the building’s tenants included the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense and the Secret Service, along with the city’s Office of Emergency Management.

By Ms. O’Donnell’s account, only explosives could have brought it down. About 90 minutes before it fell, however, Mr. Nigro said he and other chiefs decided to get out. “We believed from observations inside and out that there was structural damage,” he said. The building had been hit by debris from the collapse of the north tower, 300 feet away. Fires roared.

His account is backed up in two ways. First, in oral histories, firefighters and commanders described retreating from No. 7 because of the expected collapse. Second, photographs taken from a police helicopter show that a large chunk of the bottom of the building had been destroyed by debris from the north tower; a comprehensive study by Popular Mechanics magazine concluded that along the bottom 10 floors, a quarter of the south face was knocked away.

The pictures make clear that 7 World Trade Center was hit not, as Ms. O’Donnell said, “by nothing,” but by tons of falling debris. And although steel does not melt until it reaches 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, federal investigators say that it loses most of its strength at around 1,800 degrees — a temperature reached in ordinary building fires. A federal scientific investigation into the collapse of No. 7 is scheduled to be released this fall.

Few civic virtues are as useful as skepticism, though it is rarely honored until too late. The citizens who questioned the validity of the case for war in Iraq were widely scorned or ignored in 2002 and 2003 by the government and the news media.

Ms. O’Donnell wasn’t talking yesterday. Mr. Nigro was. “It’s not just silly people who believe in the conspiracy theory,” he said. “Outside this country, I think it might be the predominant view. It’s a lot more of an interesting and juicy story than what I think did happen.”

E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com

These people disagree

Architects (Degreed & Licensed) Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer
Berkeley, CA
Don Gibbons, Architect
Pleasant Hill, CA Jeffrey Tam, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA
Jeff Arnold, Architect
Orinda, CA Oscar Cisnero, Architectural Professional
Antioch, CA
John Cole, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA Elwin Wong, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA
David Crawford, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA Henri Tso, Architectural Professional
Walnut Creek, CA
Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA Arthur Stopes, Planner
Berkeley, CA
John Eisenhart, Architect
San Diego, CA Ken Huthcinson, Architectural Professional
Eugene, OR
Joe Bellows, Architect
Martinez, CA Jan Leits, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
John Howland, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA Michael Reuter, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Eric Douglas, Architect
Howard Beach, NY Chris Jung, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Peter Hendrickson, Architect
Santa Rosa, CA Tim Clark, Architectural Professional
Albany, CA
Osvaldo Valdes, Architect
New York, NY Jason Wilkinson, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Lily Livingston, Architect
Oakland, CA Wendy Sitler, Designer
Berkeley, CA
Chris Swigert, Architect
Oakland, CA Dominique Roddier, phD, Naval Architect
Berkeley, CA
Jim Bedinghaus, Architect
St. Petersburg, Florida Karlene Gullone, Architectural Professional
San Francisco, CA
C. Bryan Phelps - AIA, Architect
Boulder, CO Dave Heller, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Christian Mungenast AIA, Architect
Arlington, MA Kurt Worthington, Urban Planner
San Francisco, CA
Norman Foster, Architect
London, London Gordon Freeman, Architectural Consultant
Tampa, FL
Jannes Beunhaas, Engineering Consultant
Hoofddorp, Noord-Holland
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed) Engineering Professionals (Degreed)
Ken Kious, Electrical Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA Gregg Brazel, BSCNE, Constr. Engr'g
Evanston, IL
J. Marx Ayres, PE, Mechanical Engineer
Santa Monica, CA Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer
San Diego, CA
Robert Nielson, PLS, Land Surveyor
Walnut Creek, CA Kevin Ryan, BS Chem., Certified Quality Engineer
Bloomington, IN
John F. Shanahan, PE, Electrical Engineer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA Ken Jenkins, BS Carnegie Melon, Electrical Engineer
San Rafael, CA
Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer
Thousand Oaks, CA John Shinn, phD., Chemical Engineer
Pleasant Hill, CA
John L Bursill, Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Avionics
Sydney, NSW John Rexroat, Mfr. Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA
Nazareth "Blue" Lansing, Engineer
Houston, TX Tony Szamboti, BS, Mechanical Engineering Professional
Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer
Miami, Florida Doug Plumb, EE, Elecrical Engineering Professional
Toronto, ON
Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer
Vancouver, BC Christopher Backus, BS, Mechanical Engineering
Redmond, WA
Jasper Tomlinson MA(Oxon) CEnv MCIWEM, Environmental and Water Resources Engineer
London Uk, London Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer
Washington Dc,
Werner Planck, Engineering Consultant
Crystal Lake, ILL Jay Easwaran, Ph.D. (Metallurgy & Materials Sci.), Metallurgical Engineer
Indianapolis, Indiana
Dr. P. S. Merkwurdiglieb, Chemical Engineer
Tampa, Florida John Sotelo, BSME, MD, Mechanical Engineer
Eureka, CA
Mark Iradian, Structural Engineer
Canada City, ONT S. Drake, Electrical Engineer
Bear, DE
Ms. Janet Garrison, Licensed Educational Engineer
Sp, Colorado Ron Wilson, Engineering Staff
Fort Worth, Texas
Nick "Cadet" Lechers, P.E, Engineer
Minneapolis, MN Crystal, Mechanical Engineer
Seattle, WA
Thomas Kuhn, Plant Engineering Manager
Pittsburg, CA David Gregg Ph.D., Chemical Engineer
Moraga, California
Berevtov Szánitiy BSE, Engineer
San Francisco, CA James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant
Austin, TX
Joe Martin, Engineering Staff
Hartford, CT


I included the author's email address.... :-)

Jannes Beunhaas, Engineering

Jannes Beunhaas, Engineering Consultant
Hoofddorp, Noord-Holland

A 'beunhaas' is the dutch word for someone that does sloppy work. It's a made up name.

AE911truth should check that list.

Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11

Nice catch, arie

Mr. Gage mentioned on another thread here today that he's taking steps to correct the problem of people spamming the list with false names...

Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Berevtov Szánitiy BSE, Engineer

Bereft of Sanity?

What's up with this--how careless is this group in allowing people to sign up?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

NEW---> the real truther repoRT!


I expect it would help AE911truth.org...

If you and others listed suspect members on the blog started today by Richard Gage...

Link to blog : AE911Truth.org Will Verify All Architecture and Engineering Members

I'm sure this will help them vet their list...

Many thanks and best wishes

Thorough Science?

So. Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 were also badly damaged by falling debris from 1 & 2, yet they didn't collapse. They were much closer than 7 to 1 & 2.
Neither buildings on either side of 7 collapsed and they were hit by debris too.

Mr. Nigro doesn't sound too confident in the official line

“It’s not just silly people who believe in the conspiracy theory,” he said. “Outside this country, I think it might be the predominant view. It’s a lot more of an interesting and juicy story than what I think did happen.”

He's Being Obtuse

"Few civic virtues are as useful as skepticism, though it is rarely honored until too late. The citizens who questioned the validity of the case for war in Iraq were widely scorned or ignored in 2002 and 2003 by the government and the news media."

Cindy Sheehan is possibly out of the closet.


Yeah and this falling debris severed every single support column of the building at exactly the same time to allow it to collapse straight down at almost free fall speed........

They can keep printing this crap but it doesnt change the truth.....

"Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past"
George Orwell 1984

Daniel Nigro=very suspicious

I notice that this article uses, as its main source, Daniel Nigro, who became chief of the fire department on 9/11 after Peter Ganci was killed in one of the collapses.

Wouldn't this mean that Nigro was the person that Larry Silverstein spoke to on 9/11 about 'pulling' Building 7? Remember what Silverstein said: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

No wonder he's so unnerved by Rosie's comments.

good, let's get him on record...

Note he admits that the non-official account of the 9/11 conspiracy is more intersting than what he "thinks happened." Hedge much? There's going to be a lot of people playing dumb pretending to be "unaware", "not remembering", etc. We can't let that slide. Barry Jennings? Michael Hess? You guys witnessed the huge explosion in building 7--why weren't you interviewed for or quoted in this story? New York Times MUST be prosecuted as part of the 9/11 crimes if this kind of coverage keeps up. No "Iraq WMD" apology or mea culpa is going to cut it this time. They have a pattern of colluding with criminals and in war crimes. As does Hearst. They will be held to account if the victims of 9/11 are to know true justice.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

NEW---> the real truther repoRT!


Hear, Hear!

'New York Times MUST be prosecuted as part of the 9/11 crimes if this kind of coverage keeps up.'

Hear, Hear!

I spoke...

To Daniel Nigro on 4/9/2007.

Well, I just talked to Daniel Nigro. He was put in charge of the fire department that morning after Peter Ganci was killed. He was at WTC7 at the time of collapse, and does not believe it was Controlled Demolition. However, he says he did not talk to Larry Silverstein that day, and doesn't know who did. He is now retired.

If the "debunkers" are putting him forward as the fire commander Larry Silverstein was referring to, tell them they have been "debunked".

So who did Larry speak to?

Donate To 9/11 First Responders


Who indeed? Would it be possible to ask around?

He said...

He didn't know which other fire commander he was referring to since he was the one in charge. I don't know who to ask other than Larry. I've tried that, and have never gotten a return phone call, nor have I been put through. I'm not in that area, so it's not easy for me to do it. I will say, however, that talking to someone gives you a better insight than reading about them. (duh)

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Do you know...

If Larry Silverstein was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever



Well isn't that special.

Thanks Jon

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

was there only 1 FDC?

There are many fire department locations in NYC. Is there more than 1 "fire department commander"? (I don't know the org structure of the FDNY at all.)

edit: looks like I was asking the right question ;-)

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Not surprising

that firefighters would worry about collapse, having seen two buildings "collapse" earlier that day. It's also not surprising that the word would come down to withdraw because the building might collapse. In fact, it's a little strange they stayed in the building as long as they did. Their perceptions, based on unprecedented events they still did not understand, has nothing to do with whether any of these buildings actually "collapsed."

Show "question" by John Albanese




Interesting inferences to be drawn there. It's true that we all should be aware of the very high probability of infiltration and disruption. I would imagine it's even more subtle now than it was back in the day.

Now, as for John's mention of the Holocaust, that seems to me to flame-baiting, pure and simple. And inexcusable.

I didn't say...

It wasn't. I was pointing out what John was pointing out in "his way." A way I have tried hard to avoid because I'm just plain tired of arguing. However, two flames don't make a right. As I'm sure you're well aware.

The only inference I was making is that this list of questions:

  • do you believe planes were used in the attacks?
  • and do you believe 'exotic weapons' (space beams) were used to collapse the towers?
  • what's your position on holograms?
  • do you think the holocaust happened?

Refers to topics being promoted that are the disinformation William Pepper is referring to, and warning us about.

That is also inexcusable.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

I'm only seeing one attempt to flame-bait here.

Albanese is going from blog to blog asking Ningen off-topic questions.

Show "everyone is entitled to their opinion" by John Albanese

My question

is why you attacked me with a bunch of irrelevancies in response to my suggestion that the fire department might have expected WTC7 to collapse based on the "collapses" of WTC 1 and 2.

What's wrong - does that hurt one of your "smoking gun" quotes in a movie you're making? Better to know now if you're shooting blanks.

And if you read my comment carefully, the question might better be why they stayed so long, when prudence after WTC 1 and 2 would have said evacuate and wait. This might suggest that the timing of the demolition was known to some in the department.

Thanks, Cassiea.

John, you should apologize for calling her a "typical biddy." Do you have issues with assertive women?

Hey, all! Long time no see! Been resting a bit after our DRG..

..lecture in Portland on May 21st. Dr. Griffin's okay. We---myself, casseia, and a couple of other bodies from the 911PDX David Ray Griffin work group- took him out to lunch on the day of the lecture. Apart from some git (who will remain nameless )who wanted to drag "chem-trails" into the conversation--Griffin politely avoided the bait--we had a blast. At one point we were thinking of inviting him to hang out after the lecture and unwind, but we weren't sure; maybe he just wanted to go back to his room and rest. To which he said, "I've never turned down an invitation to a party."

Well, the event was great--seemed to be a full or nearly full house--which was a great relief considering only 27 advance tix sold. They were lined up out the door and all the way to the elevators. Afterwards I was right knackered--not just because of the usual shite(security, counting/watching funds) but because the aforementioned git kept trying to bollocks up the works at the last minute. Then for an encore he keeps mum for a week on tix sales he should have reported on at the latest, May 22nd or 23rd, while at the same time claiming some who helped put on the event are trying to scarper with the cash. He's a right peice of work. Fortunately all the bills have been paid, as has Dr. Griffin, so the tosser is reduced to foaming emails that are getting progressively more and more irrational.

I mention all this just by way of putting anyone interested in the picture: the reason I've been away from 911Blogger is I've had my hands full kicking LIVE trolls, face to face, in an exhuasting yet successful job of guarenteeing THERE WILL BE NO DRAMA, GOD DAMN IT.

Sorry--I'm rambling. Now, did someone say--on this public blog that anyone can respond to publically--something about how casseia should be organizing 911 events in Portland? Bit behind the curve, mates--casseia was the MC at the David Ray Griffin lecture on May 21st.

Be seeing you...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

And I...

Remember last week when John posted a blog about Tora Bora and you and Wolfowitz decided you didn't like it, and flamed the blog. I remember this because after John deleted it because of the flames, I reposted the story because I thought it was important. Wolfowitz gave the blog I posted a 1 for being a, "racist piece of yellow journalism", and you gave it a 1 with no reason given, but you made sure to state that you "sure hope Obama does a better job of finding Osama!" You are far from innocent in the "flame department". Please don't act like you are. It insults the intelligence of the people posting on this site. What John did was wrong. What you do here is equally wrong with your "tag-team" attacks. I have done my best to stay away from arguments because I know this site is important, and I know that fights push people away. I would hope everyone else would make the same effort.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

I don't think vigorous disagreement

and even condemnation of an entire blog is flaming. Inflammatory, off-topic, ad hominem insults do qualify, IMO.

(I voted your blog a "1" for the same reason I voted John's a "1" -- because you guys can't see that, at best, the way you frame all this information bolsters the Osama myth. My sarcastic remark about Obama reflects my very depressing conclusion about where 9/11 Truth is headed. We need to confront this myth head on and take it apart instead of pretending that the elaborately constructed backstory about Patsystan is the Holy Grail.)

Another flame...

"the elaborately constructed backstory about Patsystan is the Holy Grail."

How many times do I have to post this quote from Paul Thompson in 9/11: Press For Truth before you'll read it/comprehend what he's saying?

I'm not suggesting from this that Pakistan is the quote unquote "solution" to 9/11 because it's not. Pakistan is one part in a very complicated story. The question to me is who else was involved with Al-Qaeda? Was Al-Qaeda used as a tool just as in the 1980's the Mujahadeen were basically used by the U.S. Government?

Do you have proof that Pakistan's role in the 9/11 attacks is an "elaborately constructed backstory?" No, you don't. Nor does the information posted in that blog bolster the "Osama Myth." Last time I checked, the "Osama Myth" was that he, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers murdered 2,973+ people on 9/11, and our President said he wanted him "dead or alive." It certainly DOES NOT bolster the "Osama Myth" by pointing out that they ALLOWED HIM TO ESCAPE.

"Condemnation of an entire blog" followed by flames WITHIN that blog constitute flaming. I'm done playing. I am taking my ball, and I am going home.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Of course it bolsters the Osama myth

and good luck proving they "allowed him to escape."

Sure, it contradicts the official story in the sense that if bin Ladin had done it, one would expect an honest government to capture him if they knew where he was and it was feasible.

But that is just icing on the cake, and should be proceeded by explanation of how there is no evidence he did it in the first place. (The real reason he is not captured is because he either does not exist or he cannot be captured because he's an agent with leverage.)

Otherwise, you're just pushing the official story and its very limited hangout.

List of questions

I didn't see that Ningen was promoting any of these views.


you should look harder

Back it up, John

Yes, I've "promoted" the view that no planes hit the World Trade Center towers, most recently in a long discussion with Greg Jenkins about the physics of the crashes. That's no secret, and I will not apologize to anyone, and especially you, Mr. Cultural Phenomenon, for saying it.

Now, John, show me where I said that space beams were used. (Or exotic weapons, DEW, etc. - I'm not playing semantics here.)

Show me where I suggested holograms were used.

Show me where I questioned the holocaust.

Come on, John. Back it up.

William Pepper makes good points

Make sure claims are well founded so that the movement is not discredited. That's a valid point, though the reality is that activists now basically speculate and discuss in full view of the public and the government on the Internet.

I would also add that Pepper's experience are instructive but the same techniques are not necessarily used today and deciding who the infiltrators are is sort of in the eye of the beholder.

Pepper did not say that "no planes" is disinformation. If he did, he needs to show he knows what he's talking about.

This all started when I made a simple point about an alternative explanation for firefighters thinking WTC 7 might collapse.

Jon, are you saying that's its OK for John to accuse me of holocaust denial?

Show "Casseia" by John Albanese


deserves an email warning, don't you think, dz? shouldn't we all have to follow simple rules and not be overly aggressive and full of ad hominems?

I agree with you, John

yes - i think the holocaust denial bullshit was inserted into this movement intentionally to discredit it.

So why are inserting it here?

Again, show me where I denied the holocaust. I'll make it easy - here's where I discuss the issue with Real Truther.


John, are you a shill? I mean that, seriously. Why are you promoting this idea of 9/11 truther = holocaust denier? If it's because you think I'm not a 9/11 truther because I question the planes, and therefore it is OK to use this tactic against me, then you are not only acting dishonestly, you are using very poor judgment.

If it's just because I hurt your feelings talking about your failed appearance on Fox, grow up. You dish out it, so learn to take it.

yes, good point

For all the talk from some people about the movement being associated with critiques of the popular (and problematic) holocaust narrative, it always seems that they are the ones to bring it up every single time.

Here's what people need to know about that--Eric Williams is a disinfo shill who has several books for sale. They run the gamut from bizarre to controversial to plagiarized--The Puzzle of.... everything from 9/11 to Auschwitz. Williams was created and given this set of books in order to make people think that the 9/11 truth movement is overrun with "holocaust deniers" which it is not. William's book on Auschwitz plagiarizes from legitimate holocaust scholar David Cole, a Jewish Canadian who produced a video documentary of the Auschwitz camp. Williams' participation in the recent "Accountability Conference" in Arizona was seized on by the loose Change boys who decided to boycott the conference because of the participation of this evil holocaust denier (who isn't even a real holocaust "denier" but an actor remember.)

The allegations of anti-semitism in the mainstream media are supported by protestations of innonece and "holocaust denier" witch hunts by some people in the truth movement in order to create the impression that anyone in the 9/11 truth movement who talks too much about Israeli complicity with Silverstein and the Neocons must in fact be one of those "Jew-hating holocaust deniers". This, of course, because that is precisely where the perps don't want you to look--instead they want the entire council on foreign relations to share the blame (the CFR may be up to no good globalization schemes but there is scant evidence if any linking it to the events of 9/11.)

I have observed this phenomenon for some time and can see no other possible explanation.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

NEW---> the real truther repoRT!


That makes sense

But it could also just be a general smear to discredit all questioners of the 9/11 official lies, rather than to divert from looking at Israel and Silverstein specifically. But it would certainly operate even more effectively to inhibit the latter. All I have been saying to you is that we can look at them without talking about the holocaust.

Face it - you can call David Cole a legitimate scholar all you want and he may well be. I don't care. The reality is that he will be and is called a "holocaust denier" of the "self-hating Jew" type. You can lament this all you want, but I don't think you should do it here. I know you do this on principle, but I think doing this might actually increase resistance to the case you are trying to make for Israeli involvement.

Silverstein has to be involved in some way - he owned the buildings, for God's sake. The problem with his "pull it" comment is that it is a weak and easily refuted "smoking gun."

Ironic, huh?

This is exactly why I thought that previous post was flame-bait directed at you -- some people can't be bothered to even notice that you're a "Holocaust denial denier." ;)

Doesn't bother me

John has shown himself to be a liar, which means I have one less "witness" to the planes to consider.

Thanks for sticking up for me. It gets lonely here sometimes. :-)

Public blog/public comments/ public responses

Grow up--get over it.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Tinfoil hat?

I'll do ya one better! LOL!

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine


do you believe planes were used in the attacks?

Yes, but not to hit the buildings. I've made that clear, so why do you ask?

You're an "eyewitness," right? You might be interested in this:


and do you believe 'exotic weapons' (space beams) were used to collapse the towers?

I don't know. It's not what I concentrate on. Energy was added, and think that is more important at this point than arguing about whether the energy was thermite/explosives versus other weapons.

Speculation about what was used should of course continue. The problem is not the speculation or what the presstitutes will say about it. The problem is all the division over this issue among people that agree that the buildings were obliterated from the top down and did not "collapse" from jet fuel fires.

I don't worry about Judy Wood not being able to back up her arguments, and Faux News making fun of it. I worry about the consequences of Steven Jones not being able to back up his - eggs in one basket, and all that.

By the way, John, the towers did not "collapse."

what's your position on holograms?

They are really cool. If you're asking whether I think they were used, the answer is no. If they were technologically feasible, of course they might be used. I've never said they were used, and really don't know. So what if I did think they were used? If I thought they were used, I would say it.

do you think the holocaust happened?

I have made my views on the holocaust clear in discussions with Real Truther here and will not respond to you. My only response to you would be an expletive. How odd that you would ask this question -- I thought only shills did this. You remind me of Mia Dolan at Daily Kos.

what's your position on tin foil hats? Trendy fashion or gateway to the stars?

Funny. Why don't you take this over to Daily Kos? Post a picture of your cat with a tin foil hat on, and talk about the odd cultural phenomenon of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

the point is that "collapse" is inaccurate

None of those buildings SIMPLY collapsed. Each of them was deliberately demolished by use of explosives. The word collapse is aused because it implies spontaneity. The buildings (subject) collapsed (on their own, under their own weight, etc). In fact the buildings (object) were demolished (by someone, a subject, an actor, someone with agency). Using the word collapse is crucial for the OCT apologists. Let's not help them. Let's not say the buildings collapsed anymore. Let's they they were evidently demolished with explosives. And not sure what the holocaust has to do with anything, John.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

NEW---> the real truther repoRT!


Exactly, RT

I never use the word "collapse" in regard to the WTC buildings without the quotation marks, as it only reinforces that aspect of the government myth.

Language does matter, and we need to make much better, and more careful, use of it.

From now until September 11, 2007 we need to keep our focus and take our game to the next level, as we are now in a very critical period.

I hope that we can all set aside whatever personal battles we've had in the past and all work together to reach critical mass and make 9/11 truth the number one issue in the present election cycle.

Go Truth Squads!

Go Eleventh Day Actions!

We are all brothers and sisters on this big, beautiful, blue ball and I love you all very much.

Love is a verb, let's get BUSY!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

WTC Language

What's a good term to use to describe the pulverization of 2 towers?

The WTC Destruction?
The WTC Demolition?

That's all I can think of right now as it's early and I'm barely sipping coffee. I think the term 'collapse' is not a good way to explain it but I'm so damn used to it. Anyone have another quick and effective phrase to demonstrate the pulverization of the WTC 1 & 2.
Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

I prefer "destruction"

It is semantically neutral, while "collapse" isn't.

I think you're right.

"Destruction" is the neutral choice -- "demolition" obviously isn't (but there are times when semantic neutrality isn't what you're after) and I personally think that despite its fairly neutral denotation, "collapse" has some connotative baggage that does imply gravity is the agent.


That's actually the best word, now that I think of it. I've been using obliteration, annihilation, and disintegration (probably bad b/c intransitive).

"Pulverization" is both accurate and effective.

Don't be afraid to say it just because of the "space beams" argument - we all agree that the concrete was converted to small particles. I assume Judy Wood came up with the word "dustify" to emphasize the fineness of the particles, but pulverize fits for particles larger than what might be called dust.

"Pulverize" is quick and effective -- thanks for making me realize that. Ya'll can use whatever word you want, but I'm going with "pulverize."

pulverization IS "dustification"

And what you need to remember about Judy Wood is that she is a disinfo shill whose role it was supposed to be to develop a following and then go off the deep end. Pulverization has as its root the latin word for dust. Using a made up term like "dustification" is more than likely designed to make it easy to mock Judy Wood and anyone who cites her work.

The truth movement was not just infiltrated, mind you, much of it has been the creation oif not of the perps themselves then of the PR firm hired to manage the big lie for them.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

NEW---> the real truther repoRT!


I can see that

You may be right about Judy Wood. I'm reserving judgment until I read what Holmgren has to say.

I didn't say use the word "dustification," and maybe I'm wrong about Wood's intent in coining the word.

I knew about the Latin root being "dust," but hesitated to mention it because I anticipated resistance to the word "dust." It seems to me that the pulverization of the towers is no longer being discussed as much, because of the debate over "space beams" and the fineness of the particles.

But AE-911-Truth is using "pulverization" and talking about dust, so maybe this situation is not as bad as I thought:


"5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds "

I'm still not convinced explosives could do what we saw, but the fact of pulverization, and fast destruction down to the ground, shows that energy was added, by explosives or whatever, and that is the most important point we all agree on.

Perhaps you should review

Perhaps you should review the controlled demolition videos to see the effects that a traditional CD can produce, pyroclastic clouds and pulverization among them. As these were the tallest buildings to ever be demolished, and there would only be a single opportunity to get it "right," one could assume a need for redundancy in the explosives. That, plus the necessary top-down sequence, can explain most anomolies with respect to traditional CD.

Judy Jetson's inarticulate theorizing is unprovable, unfalsifiable, and is not backed up by actual research into existing exotic weaponry. That information can either be gleaned or it can't, and if it's the former, the "researchers" promoting this line of inquiry haven't done their work; if it's the latter, there is no excuse for continuing to recycle "But, but, but maaaaybe..."

I'm still reserving judgment as well. I believe it is possible that elves brought down the towers; they can be nasty little buggers, they're in tons of literature, they have magical abilities, and until someone can prove to me that they didn't, I'm sticking to my story. And if anyone tries to restrict my right to pursue this on 911Blogger, he/she will be accused of parochial thinking. Because "maaaaybe" = "worthy of continued insert."

We know elves are supernatural

I don't know what exists in nature, so I'm reserving judgment. The fact that Judy Wood has not proved it does not mean that some unknown exotic weapon that could do what we saw does not exist. But I hear what you are saying, and appreciate your comment, except the last paragraph, which is gratuitous.

I was not promoting Judy Wood's theory, and perhaps I could have made my point differently. My point in mentioning Judy Wood was I thought that people were not talking about dust because fine dust is premise of Wood's theory. I saw that Steven Jones' latest paper talked about dust mainly in the context of chemicals found in the dust, and had almost no discussion of pulverization, unlike his article in 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. I was concerned that the idea of pulverization as an energy sink was being neglected.

I continue to believe that the best argument is the basic physics showing that the "progressive collapse" is a fraud. I have doubts about whether emphasis should be placed on thermite or molten metal, because of the destruction of the evidence. This doubt also applies to the DEW argument. I know the response will be that there is much better evidence for thermate/explosives, but I still believe that the basic physics are the most powerful argument regardless.

Actually, that last bit

Actually, that last bit wasn't aimed at you directly. but rather to illustrate the tactics used by the many people who promote the most off-putting theories: "You can't prove it wasn't part of the scenario, therefore it is possible -- and if it's possible, you're acting as some sort of a gatekeeper by dissuading rigorous discussion of it on all REAL 9/11 truth sites."

I don't think I need to parse that illogic to show its bankruptcy. And it bugs me that it keeps resurfacing when thousands of quiet people are reading these threads to see (via MSM prompting) whether the "conspiracy theorists" are indeed out to lunch. If you do believe in putting forth the best evidence, you should be aware that these discussions are a form of public outreach, and therefore, some of the other theories you enjoy discussing (in the pursuit of truth, of course) are unnecessary and counterproductive.

A reasonable position. However . . .

"Off-putting" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. For many, the very idea of an inside job is off-putting.

The arguments of David Hawkins, and the pilot's lawsuit incorporating those ideas, are very off-putting to me. I see very little criticism of how that would be perceived.

And some of the arguments of David Ray Griffin are off-putting to many, as they imply that there was no Flight 77, that phone calls were faked, and that NORAD tapes were faked by voice morphology. It is not clear to me why these arguments are any less controversial or off-putting than the idea that videotapes of the WTC were faked.

Thanks for clarifying - I was a bit prickly about the elves.

What's with the negative rating here?

People need to grow up and think about other ways things can be explained. My comment was reasonable - at the time of WTC 7, there was new information -- WTC 1 and 2 had "collapsed." It was false information, but the fire department might have reacted by assuming collapse where they would not have before.

Talk about a collapse before the South Tower "collapsed" is far more significant - there was no such experience and no reason for the fire department to believe that would happen.

ha ha ha

report scheduled for this fall.... add that to the list of pushed back deadlines. They had said early 2007 way back when. What will they say this fall? And remember, you don't release a new product in the summer (Karl Rove said that, no?) Watch out! Before whatever they have planned for distraction this fall we need to push the limits of our truthing to new heights!!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

NEW---> the real truther repoRT!


Whenever the subject of

Whenever the subject of molten steel gets brought up they start talking about the temperature required to weaken steel!!Uh?What?Weakened steel isn't what they claimed to have seen "flowing like lava","Dripping" Etc.....Even Rosie let 'what's her face' get away with that diversion,why?Let's not let them get away with it! It certainly isn't weakened steel pouring out of the hole in WTC2 30sec or so before the 'collapse'.
They will ,of course,when backed into that corner claim the molten material was aluminum from the aircraft.Fine maybe it was,But if a thorough investigation has been done,like they claim,why are will still debating it's composition?We should know exactly (x% this x% that) that alone proves there ought to a new investigation.Also,the site has been cleaned up & the cooled hardened slag of whatever that molten material was has been removed from the site,where is it?You see these conspiracy theories have been around since day one & if that material had been anything as benign as aluminum they would have held an "see I told you so" press conference in front of a big piece of hardened slag...but they didn't....sometimes silence sayes more than words.

email i sent to this fiend

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States.".......osama bin Laden

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page (30), [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” (31)........

the only people arrested on that day SIR where ex mossad!
the only spy ring broken and deported after the attackes is mossad!
the trucks thay where in when sniffed by bomb sniffing dogs came up positive when tested!
the moving company thay worked for was full of ex mossad!
there building was found to be full of :
(1) bomb making material!
(2) had traces of anthrax!
(3) the owner fled the country!
(4) the f.b.i confirmed it was a mossad front and not a true business!
(5) there workers where dressing in arab clothing and trying to implicate arabs
(6) the mossad motto is ( WAR BY DECEPTION)

here are quotes by press that will help u know why we know u know this already and are payed to tell the people otherwise!

David Rockefeller, At the Bilderbergers meeting 1991:
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

Richard Salant, Former President of CBS news said:
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." "If newsmen do not tell the truth as they see it because it might make waves, or if their bosses decide something should or should not be broadcast because of Washington or Main Street consequences, we have dishonored ourselves and we have lost the First Amendment by default."

John Swinton, Chief of Staff, New York Times, New York Press Club in 1953
"There is no such thing at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you that dares to write his honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalists is to destroy truth; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Dr. Carroll Quigley, Professor of International Relations, Georgetown University, and Bill Clinton mentor -
"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national directives should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records...".

James Paul Warburg, Chairman of the CFR, 1921 - 1932, before the U.S. Senate, February 17, 1950 -
"We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent".

Brock Chisolm, former Director of the World Health Organization -
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas".

Rowan Gaither, former president of the Ford Foundation, in a 1954 statement in Congressional investigations - "We operate here under directives from the White House.. [to] use our grant making power to alter life in the US. so that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union".

Senator George Malone of Nevada, speaking before Congress in 1957 -
"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over past forty-nine years, they would move on Washington. It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States".

John Danforth, Republican Senator from Missouri, on April 22, 1992 -
"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs ... we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country... we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."

u have been found wanting! we see u! u can not hide anymore!

John Swinton quotation is false...

Is the quotation false, or just the time and job title?

The article you link to says that he said it, but that he was not chief of staff of the NY Times when he said it. The article says he made the comments in 1880, after years working in the labor press, but that he had led the editorial staff of the NY Times and Sun and was New York's preeminent journalist at the time he said it.

It's a powerful quote by an insider, and according to your article, a true quote.


“It’s true that there has never been a skyscraper collapse as a result of just a fire."

Thanks for the corroboration Mr. Nigro. We'll remember that when would-be debunkers try to claim that we're wrong on this point.

But then of course, Dwyer goes on to assure us that, 'federal investigators say that it [steel] loses most of its strength at around 1,800 degrees — a temperature reached in ordinary building fires.'

But wouldn't it then follow that collapses of steel structures as the result of 'ordinary building fires' would be a fairly common occurrence? How could they be expected NOT to collapse if their core structure was 'los[ing] most of its strength'?

He's obfuscating here. The

He's obfuscating here. The temperature of the fire does not translate to the temperature of the affected steel. Since steel is an excellent conducter of heat, the temperature of the steel at any point would be significantly lower than the temperature of the fire.

The debunkers spout this fallacy all the time.


The IRS uses the same kind of deceptive implication to avoid admitting their fraud, too. I'd already spent years sifting through that stuff when 9/11 happened; it's a familiar pattern to me now. Some people are truly perverted in their desire to control others via deception.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

The 'malevolent hand'

'As time went on, the collapse of No. 7 became a focal point for people who suspected that the federal government had a malevolent hand in the Sept. 11 attack, particularly since the building’s tenants included the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense and the Secret Service, along with the city’s Office of Emergency Management.'

The 'malevolent hand'--I guess that's Times-ian for 'inside job'.

Even in the process of trying to squelch the truth movement with pieces like this, the Times inevitably winds up informing more and more of their readers that such suspicions exist. And how many of those hitherto unsuspicious readers will then start to thinking and become suspicious themselves? The risk of having that very effect is why they stuck to the 'ignore them' part of the strategy for as long as they possibly could.

A small and crappy article

It appears that The New York Times is finished as a serious news source. In the same way its fabricated stories on Iraqi WMD were eventually exposed, this junk will be too.

"A tale told by an idiot........signifying nothing". Except crass deception.

I cannot point to an exact date......

but the New York Times and other self-professed "papers of record" (e.g. Washington Post) have not been sources of "serious" news for at least the last 60 years. Paying serious attention to these sources for even a week is the absolute best way to learn what the owners of this country want you to think, and the absolute worst way to learn anything about what is really going on in the world around you.

I get a kick out of the self-described "Times Junkies" who think they are so wonderfully informed by this "great" newspaper. Please. It is the government (owner's) gazette pure and simple. "All the news that's fit to print", indeed. LOL.

how about...

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.

“These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

“This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.

“This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is 'patriotism.' They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.”

--Oscar Callaway, statement inserted into Congressional record, Feb. 9, 1917

I've never seen any exploration of this quote. I can't vouch for the accuracy of its claims. It certainly bears a striking resemblance to our present observations, though. I consider the Council on Foreign Relations to be very similar in nature to the cabal described by Callaway; it was created in 1921 after the US Senate, in one of its last bouts of sanity, rejected participation in the "League of Nations" (quite a story in itself).

A full documentary on the true purposes and practices of the CFR would be a most worthy addition to our online education trove.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Why doesn't the column even

Why doesn't the column even address Silverstein?
The collapse looked like a controlled demolition.
Silverstein said it was a controlled demolition.
Why would a fire induced collapse be so neat and instantaneous?

Jim's party line


The usual party line from O'Dwyer. But is he giving us something in the next to last paragraph?

"Few civic virtues are as useful as skepticism, though it is rarely honored until too late. The citizens who questioned the validity of the case for war in Iraq were widely scorned or ignored in 2002 and 2003 by the government and the news media."

Is he saying that we may be proven right, but it will be too late by then?

"new" Interesting argument supporting CD of WTC 1 and 2

Found this blog post on the response to the RAW Story 9/11 article. It's a very interesting, and obvious, line of inquiry for proving CD at the WTC 1 and 2.....

The people responsible for 9-11 are the ones who planted the explosives that turned the WTC intact concrete and glass into a 50 micron sized fine powder in less than 15 seconds.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...s/ streets1.html

NOBODY has ever discovered a way to turn INTACT concrete, glass, wheat, peanut or any other material in to a 50 micron sized fine powder without either EXPLODING or MILLING or ABRADING the material.

NO COMPRESSION FORCE, be it hammer, hydraulic press, or the dropping of the entire weight of a WTC tower, can turn an intact piece of material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut into an appreciable quantity of micron sized powders, because the FORCE has to be applied between two surfaces that are smoother than 50 microns across their faces, and besides most of the material will be ejected from the sides before the faces come within 50 microns of each other anyway!

Folks you can try this at home yourself with a hammer, tiny piece of concrete or glass, a concrete sidewalk, and 15 seconds of hammering, and then you will see that you CANNOT make 50 micron sized powder using COMPRESSION FORCE!

This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A COMPRESSION FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between two surfaces that were smooth to within a 50 micron tolerance, because the WTC tower's has no such surfaces yet alone two surfaces with enough area to create the appreciable amount of fine dust that rained down for blocks.!

This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A MILLING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between mortar and pestle like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!

This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED AN ABRADING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between grind stone like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!


If ANYBODY come up with a way to make an appreciable quantity of 50 micron sized powders of any material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut, in less than 15 seconds by using COMPRESSION FORCE, you will better hurry up and notify the patent office and the Nobel prize committee!
criticalthinker | Email | Homepage | 05.30.07 - 8:08 pm

That's Brilliant!

Thank you. Would be interesting to see how the JREF's respond to this. On second thought, I don't give a ___ what they think about anything.

Excellent argument!
On the 11th day, of every month.

I like it.....

Denying the presence of molten metal in the rubble is outrageous, of course, but it is something that they could plausibly get away with depending on the audience.

Denying the dust that covered lower Manhattan and parts of New Jersey? That dog won't hunt with ANY audience. Accordingly, they have to claim that this dust/pyroclasitc flow is entirely consistent with a gravity driven collapse. They cannot. Therefore this issue has been mostly ignored by proponents of the OCT.

To my mind the three smoking guns have always been:

1) The molten metal. The NIST has admitted that the WTC fires never reached anywhere close to the temperatures required to melt steel. So where the hell did it come from?;

2) The micronization of ALL materials in the destroyed buildings. Remember, not just the structures themselves, but virtually the entire contents of over 1 MILLION square feet of office space (including human bodies) were mostly reduced to micron sized particles. This requires an astonishing amount of energy far, far, far exceeding KE of collapse;

3) Collapse at essentially free fall speed. Given the utter destruction of the towers and their contents, this just cannot be reconciled with the official theory of collapse without violating the laws of physics (conservation of momentum).

These three points are irrefutable. That is why no proponent of the OCT ("debunker") has EVER (to my knowledge) directly addressed any of these issues. They either ignore them entirely, desperately try to change the subject or deny that they exist.

Keep focusing on these three things.


What about all the paper all over after the destruction of the towers? It wasn't pulverized. Does that suggest something about the nature of the pulverization agent? (I'm not a eckspurt on that sort of thing.)

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Prosecute NY Times

Mr. Dwyer and his editor at the NY Times must face prosecution as accessories after the fact to the mass murder committed on 9-11-01 by the oligarchs in and out of govt. against the American people. He joins a long list of corporate media swindlers who have been systematically lying -- mostly by omission -- about 9-11 ever since that day. The mass murderers in the shadow govt. could not have gotten away with these crimes against humanity without dedicated propagandists like Mr. Dwyer to do their bidding.

I would like to congratulate

I would like to congratulate the New York Times for reaching the deadline on WTC7 before the NIST did.

read this yesterday

Almost fell asleep, nothing of relevance more hogwash about Popular Mechanics LMAO

You Add My Name

Gary Allen, MS Computer Science
USC, Columbia SC

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

NY Times profitted from 9-11

The NY Times applied for 9-11 funds and recieved a handsom amount for 'damages' although they are located in midtown on West 43rd Street, miles from the WTC.

With those funds they built the huge new skyscraper that's going up on 41st St. and 8th Ave. across the way from the Port Authority bus terminal. That's quite a chunk of change. They don't ever mention it in their reporting.