Response to Mikey Metz' Blog

Mikey Metz has become disillusioned and flipped over to the "other side." I am looking at his reasons, posted on his blog. Apparently he was a co-founder of a 9/11 Truth group in Albany NY.


I feel your pain. There is a lot of bad info going around - a lot. Many people are not trustworthy sources. Finding the truth -- when the gov't is intent on hiding it -- is no easy task.


"Why is it so hard to believe that 19 hijackers with box cutters did this?"

There are reasons to doubt the hijacker story. I remain agnostic on this question of whether they did it, but I can see both sides.

1) The identities are in doubt, yet the government refused to correct them, or to admit they were unsure.

People whose photos appeared as the FBI's hijackers turned up alive. This is very strange.

2) The Pentagon plane maneuver could not have been performed by the pilot the government says was in control. Thus say numerous professional pilots. This is a discrepancy. The Pentagon plane is highly suspicous for many reason (which I don't see you acknowledging).

3) There has been no proof shown to the public that the men the government say did it actually got on the plane. Where are the airport videos, with time codes?

Several other suspicious facts concern the odd phone call texts, and conflicting stories about cell phones / air phones, and whether any of this was genuine.

4) This plot was known about by US intelligence before the fact, and that makes it even more suspicious. If it was indeed an "inside job" then Cheney/Rumsfeld et al. would probably not leave it up to suicide hijackers to determine the outcome.

5) There are other ways to hijack a plane, remotely using the plane's onboard flight control system.

"What proof did we ever have that says these people didn’t exist, besides long-debunked reports that they were turning up alive?

Most "truthers" agree they existed, at least some number of them anyway. The "turning up alive" reports aren't all "debunked." Some had their identities stolen. So they actually were alive, so who was it that was supposed to be on the plane?

The other difficult part about the "hijackers" is that NONE OF THEM WERE RELIGIOUS. Why kill yourself "for Islam" if you're not even religious, and you ignore all your religious customs and dictates?

And yet another difficult problem about the hijackers is the drug smuggling that Daniel Hopsicker reported on at Huffman Aviation. Hopsicker ties Huffman aircraft back to the CIA, and to other aircraft used smuggling narcotics that met up with truncated flight plans in Mexico.

"I don’t believe controlled demolitions are involved."

Well, I certainly believe all those eye witnesses talking about "explosions", "bombs in the buildings", "secondary devices" and other euphamisms. See this video:

Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11.

Why would all those people lie? Or, conversely, what exploded? (There was no natural gas in the towers.)

"I don’t believe a missile hit the Pentagon. (see pic below)"

Neither do I. This doesn't mean I've stopped trying to find out the truth of the attacks.

I do believe there was a plane in Shanksville.

So do I.

I don’t believe Larry Silverstein walked away with $4.6 billion for himself.

He got paid. It probably went into his company, for which he is a major shareholder. What's the point of that one?

" I don’t believe that the FDNY Commissioner told Silverstein that the FDNY was going to “pull” Building 7.

Neither do I. And I don't find it, or most of these weak claims, central to the purpose of our existence: THEY LIED,AND WE WANT THE TRUTH. THEY WERE DERELICT AND/OR TREASONOUS, AND WE WANT JUSTICE.

Have you investigated Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Ashcroft? It's a pack of lies. It's completely unbelievable, the things they claim. Why not put in the hard work of finding out what these people did in relation to 9/11, what they knew, and what they did with that knowledge.

"I don’t believe that CNN and the BBC had a script.

News readers usually have a script. As for CNN, I think it could have been a miscommunication from firemen on the scene to reporters.

As for BBC, they covered it up for five years, remember. Then they pretended they never knew about it (lie), which is impossible because as soon as their transmission mysteriously was cut over the satellite, the real building 7 went down in a blaze of glory. This was noticed immediately by BBC's reporter. They then -- when finally confronted over it -- said "We're not part of the conspiracy" in addition to claiming they lost the tapes (so they wouldn't have to apologize for it on the air). I do not trust the BBC. They doth protest too much.

I don’t believe the fact that 19 hijackers with boxcutters did this is so unbelievable.

It's not. It's highly plausible, IF they were genuinely interested in committing homicide/suicide. That much is not proven. There was a lot of planted evidence that seemed to implicate radical Muslims. FBI investigators complained about it. Planted evidence and hidden evidence are not very confidence building.

Then we have the other questions about how they got into the country! "Visa Express" is going to be the subject of an upcoming blog of mine. NONE of the alleged hijackers should have been approved for a Visa under the rules at that time.

"Are these not the main points of the 9/11 Truth Movement? Demolitions, Building 7, Silverstein, Pentagon Missile, media complicity?"

They haven't been my main areas of investigation. You can focus on whatever you like, of course.

" I know there’s more, but it’s a bit misleading to sink people in by throwing out these outrageous theories that ignore science, logic, and the blackboxes of the planes, and only then present the “solid” stuff."

I don't think I can agree with your blanket condemnation.

Dr. Steven Jones certainly has not ignored science or logic.

The black boxes of the planes at the WTC were recovered by fireman Nicholas Demassi. The FBI claims they were never found. We have no data, to date, from those black boxes.

The Pentagon black box seems to put the plane at too high of an altitude to actually strike the building.

What exactly is your point about the black boxes?

The FBI also recently REFUSED an FOIA request to confirm the identities of the four aircraft. What reason -- WHAT POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE REASON -- could they have for refusing to identify the four crashed jetliners of 9/11?

Jet aircraft have numerous parts with serial numbers that can identify the plane from service records. The government refuses to even confirm that these planes everybody assumes were involved actually were involved.

FBI also said it had no "hard evidence" connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11, and there is no mention of 9/11 on his Most Wanted Page , at all. Go see for yourself.

How many anomalies do I need to type (yet again) to make this clear?

"[Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries] are “duping” people. Both movies misquoted people not by accident, but by specifically clipping out things they said that didn’t match their theory.

You are probably correct. I do not recommend either film on my blog. The films I recommend are:

9/11 Press For Truth, the story of the Jersey Girls going head to head with the most corrupt people on earth.

And Improbable Collapse, the work of Professor Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan.

Dr. Jones' hard evidence of microscopic "steel spherules" in the dust of the WTC event is powerful stuff. Spheres like that could only have been formed in a molten state. They are corroborated by a US Geological Survey report.

As for demolition, there are strong grounds for suspecting it, including Griffin's "10 features" of controlled demolition. Couple that with the inverse, that these 10 features have NEVER been seen in any case other than a controlled demolition, never in history. That is at least enough to make it possible, if not proven.

You spend a lot of time attacking the filmmakers. Why not some equal time attacking the cover up?

"If this were a real truth movement, why not shed light on the aspects of this theory that have been debunked?

We do argue about it constantly right on this site. This is a valid complaint that many "leaders" continue to push debunked claims, mucking it up for everyone. What do you suggest we can do about it?

"Why yell “9/11 was an inside job!” if you’re “just asking questions?”

For the record, I am NOT just asking questions. I am providing evidence and facts that show complicity.

That said, I don't like the "inside job" mantra. It's a bit childish and doesn't convey the essence of the operation.

I like the word "complicity" much more than "job." The regime was complicit. I cannot say if it was their agents involved, or Saudi agents, and/or Israeli agents, and/or Pakistani agents. All of these intelligence services have been implicated in one way or another. That's not quite "inside," either.

"Why not address the 4.6% MIHOPer statistic from the latest poll and try to work on bringing the number up?

What the hell do you think we do every day here?

"In my original rant, I stated that there were some inconsistencies in the official story that couldn’t be disproven (or haven’t been disproven yet). Unfortunately for the truthers, whom are mostly in the MIHOP camp, these inconsistencies lean more toward LIHOP."

This is a pointless distinction.

LIHOP is high treason.

LIHOP is also way easier to prove and to get people to accept.

"And the 9/11 Truth Movement has EVERYTHING to do with the controlled demolition theory. Especially in the case of Building 7, this is the “smoking gun” that truthers point to and the subject matter of the most popular truther movies. How many truthers do you know simply point out the warnings and other “solid stuff” when soliciting people with the “truth?” Maybe some food for thought on how you guys can be a more truthful movement."

I've been saying this type of thing for years (and doing it). These are all valid criticisms of the movement.

"Among my favorites are the Screw Loose Change Blog and 9/11 Myths Finally, someone was answered all these pertinent questions with something that was a bit foreign to me... facts agreed upon by the experts."

I think, like the pendulum, you have just swung to the extreme in the other direction.

SLCB and 911Myths are not quite the "experts" you present them to be. 911Myths has a misleading page on WTC7. It pretends that all that smoke in the photo is from bulding 7, even way down there near ground level. Do you see it all?

It's from buildings 5 and 6. Look it up with your new zest for researching personally. That smoke is from across the street.

Then ask yourself, what else have they gotten wrong in their ideologically driven rush to "debunk" us?

Griffin's response to the "debunkers" should be on your reading list. You're not accepting Popular Mechanics' lies now, are you?

"There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such.

Time to call BULLSHIT on you. You really are swinging way over to the other side. I post facts. Deal with it.

"No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers."

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has 197 professional members, as of today.

That's another not so factual fact you've tried out.

The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it."

Another straw man. You should look up the actual usage of straw men if you're going to be serious about this new endeavor.

WHO is telling you "all the experts" are "in on it?"

We have experts on both sides. Deal with it. We know that some of them are on the payroll -- literally -- with government contracts. They are not independent voices.

Kevin Ryan is one of those engineers you said don't exist. He has this to say about the presumed independence of the government "investigators":

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts”

"Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people."

Danny Jowenko, who owns a controlled demolition company, looked at WTC7 and said, "This is controlled demolition." "It's been imploded." "A team of experts did this."

Does a guy who owns a demolition company count as an expert? You've been fed bad information on both sides, and now you're leaving reason behind to side with the debunkers. Bad choice.

"And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7."

I agree that the Silverstein comment was taken out of context and is a bogus claim. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved. It means he wasn't admitting anything on PBS, and the fire commander angle makes no sense.

I've also been making this critique for years.

Shouldn't our task be to strengthen the movement by challenging bad information? Rather than going over to rabid reactionaries who have no concept that the US government does these sorts of things?

You're throwing in the towel for pushing the truth? So, you're settling for their propaganda?

"Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach."

I think the ability to generate revenue keeps the movement alive. You aren't complaining when CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX charge $50,000 for half a minute in between hysterical war rants. They also have exploited 9/11, far more than this movement could ever hope to. So have the politicians. Even businesses cash in on 9/11 memorabilia, and they produce shmaltzy films, all with a profit motive. Where's your stomach on all that stuff?

If the people in the movement are sincere and actually believe in their cause, I don't see faulting them for paying the bills.

If they're not sincere, then it's not the profit motive that drives them. It's something far more sinister, which you haven't yet addressed. Deliberate disinformation has wrecked this movement from the start. We have been the target of numerous psyops whose main purpose is to discredit us and turn us into "Grassy Knollers."

Do you doubt that John F. Kennedy was killed from a rifle behind the Grassy Knoll? It's in vivid color in the Zapruder film. So how is "Grassy Knoller" turned into a derogatory term implying one isn't sane?

"Some may think that this is just a big personal attack, and that I'm not presenting enough facts. I honestly don't give a fuck because the information is out there."

You really do ramble around mentally.

This information is out there too: An FBI agent provocateur built the bomb that blew up the World Trade Center in 1993. He was an Egyptian Colonel in Intelligence, and working undercover for the NY FBI office. He asked them if he should build an "inert" non-exploding bomb. The FBI told him no. Build a real one. Six murders and hundreds of injuries followed.

We know this because it was part of the trial. It was in the New York Times. The FBI provocateur recorded all his telephone conversations, with the patsies, AND with his FBI handlers.

Facts are "out there" you say.

Who knows these facts today? Ask around. Go get the NY Times article.

"My problem, and your problem as well, is that we have been blatantly misled by people who are only interested in selling dvds and t-shirts."

You don't get it. We were misled by people who want to discredit us.

You talk about "research," without displaying much. Go research COINTELPRO for about a month, and get back to me.

"But you won't see me hand out one more 9/11 pamphlet, or ever utter the phrase "9/11 was an inside job" ever again. "

So make your own pamphlet. Why is this such a difficult solution for you to come up with? Make your own movie. You already made your own blog. It doesn't enlighten, however.

"every single theory spat out is immediately disproven with formal citations from the NIST report, scientific journals, and the experts themselves."

I don't care about 9/11 Mysteries, but demolition has NOT been "disproven", immediately or otherwise.

NIST has been unreliable. The steel evidence has been unrepresentative. They saved only a miniscule amount of it. Most of it was illegally disposed of without anyone "checking the evidence for anything." Fire Engineering Magazine called the initial investigation by FEMA a "half baked farce," and said that the desruction of evidence "must stop immediately." It didn't.

Destruction of evidence is a serious charge. Why would they do that? Why would they send all the steel to China as fast as they could load it onto barges, when the world, and especially the engineering world was waiting for a throrough investigation of the reason the buildings fell?

This implies guilt. They were hiding as much as they could. They broke the law destroying evidence from a crime scene. They defied common sense, and investigative procedure.

Think about that, before you blindly start following the debunker crowd. They are not your friends.

"By the end, the whole controlled demolition theory is a complete joke, as the film can't even keep their own story straight."

No. The film is an amateur effort, and probably not trustworthy. The demolition question is another matter altogether. Why does everything have to be in terms of films with you?

And as foryour continual harping on the profit motive. I have not paid one penny to see 9/11 Mysteries, or Loose Change. How much money do you make showing it on the internet? Oh yeah. Zero.

Somebody actually handed me 3 dvds of 9/11 Mysteries, for free at an event. I'm not bothering with them. But, your evil capitalist shtick isn't really the glove that fits here. They give it away, unlike most any other filmmakers in the world. Yet you fault them for having an option to buy a hard copy (which must be paid for, the printing of the copies, by someone).

Not fair on that criticism. Not fair at all.

Read some facts before you smear everyone and put your foot in your mouth again:

I'd go carefully about our Mikey..

One has to wonder if his changing sides wasn't planned from the begining. The way he describes his "conversion" sounds too rehearsed and wooden.

Be nice to get his co-founder's take on all this.


Yes I see what you mean.

He's become impervious. Once the dark side gets ahold of you...

I'll tell you what's really weird...

I tried to contact his ex-partner, the co-founder of the Albany group, just to get his side of the story, maybe make a blog of it here or at Truthaction. Yeh know, taking an interest and being supportive, like. And his response was to throw some Nico shite at me.

Very, very strange...

My response at

I've responded to this post on since its useless to post it here, anyway.

Mikey Metz

I thought we were going to have a conversation...

"The only link you do provide is for this Hopsicker guy, who has nothing to do with the topic at hand."

He wrote a book about it.

You're the one claiming a newfound mission to do your own research. You want a link? Here it is:


Additional rebuttal on Mikey's most egregious mis/disinformation

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory

The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.

The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.

Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.