Down Payments As Low As $0 877-432-5626 ## Mancow Makes His Debut on Fox News By Being Belligerent With Kevin Smith Regarding 9/11 Skepticism Powerful 9/11 Info Hits Prime-Time TV for First Time - jonesreport.com Low-Brow FOX Hit-Piece Fails to Counter Evidence of an Inside Job FOX News national TV special ' Planet Mancow' featured a slew of pop-culture junkets, a celebrity interview with William Shatner and an attempt to slander 9/11 Truth by putting one of its spokesmen, Infowars' Kevin Smith, face-to-face with dying fireman Brian Harvey, who rescued victims after the attacks. The host of the program, Chicago-based radio personality Erich "Mancow" Muller, tried to portray his guest Kevin Smith--producer for the Alex Jones radio show-- as a backwoods conspiracy nut living in a shed; however, neither Mancow nor Harvey could refute any of Smith's information-- they could only restate their disbelief. Looks like Mancow proved himself worthy of the Fox News channel last night in his debut. Be sure to check out the link above for a detailed report on the show from jonesreport.com. ## He's dying? Then maybe this will interest him. ___________________________________ "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this." ## Kevin gave fireman Brian Harvey DVDs and info... ...after the show....I think he's in for a paradigm shift...I hope someone keeps up with him and finds out if his awareness is raised.... Show "Kevin - what a laugh" by Anonymous (not verified) ## AWESOME! Idea.I can respect this fireman.I think we need to show him all the information,and then get him back on on the show. Just a question Why are all the ones interviewed not aware of the facts? I would have asked the fireman if he knew who owns the Federal Reserve.Then told him having the global elite loan money out of thin air to our puppet on a string goverment,and then charge us taxpayers intrest on a 9 trillion dollar debt.At least this would have made FOX say holy sh*t ## I would have directed all speech to Keven,and ignored the bonehead.Starting with i respect you,but you need to look at all the information we have. Then you decide. Then let's get together again on the show. ## viewing video wondering why one can't click the google video button and go to google video of the mancow 9/11, instead of watching in the little window of 911blogger. Most sites do that. Then, Using javimoya, one can then download whatever is on the google video site. In a search, The only one I get is 6 min excerpts (on google video) anyone have a link for the entire show? or IS it only 6 mins...? c ## nevermind ## anyone know how to get in anyone know how to get in touch with Peter Dale Scott... i want to ask him some questions for my Mineta Paper. http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/minetadraft2.doc ## Peter Dale Scott Check out his website: www.PeterDaleScott.net ## Who in the world in this Who in the world in this bizzare mancow? I don't watch much tv anymore and certainly not FOX. Is this guy for real. Mancow was having a fit and blatantly trying to associate Kevin Smith with every nut scenario in history. Mr. Smith handled himself professionally and managed to get information out on the airwaves - way to go Kevinn Smith. I would love to know how this brave fireman will respond after viewing some of the information Kevin Smith handed him. Though it is highly likely that many in the NYC Fire Department are detterred from speaking freely about 911, especially anyone involved in cash settlements for the lung damage; part of the deal is that they sign confidentiality agreements. ## Mancow..or Madcow? Obnoxious little spastic weasel, innit he? Had a hard time watching the clip to the end because of him. I'd guess he gets alot of  for that act. Does he believe his own shite? Probably not--just another shallow poser making a buck. Oh, and I had no idea being part of the truth movement was supposed to get me rich. Did I miss the boat! Where's my bloody paycheck? ## BREAKING NEWS! TOTAL 911 INFO Sunday, November 19, 2006 Towards a unified demolition theory: Drs. Wood & Fetzer on directed energy Dr. Judy Wood appeared last Saturday on \"Non-Random Thoughts,\" a radio hosted by Dr. James Fetzer, Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Dr. Wood, a mechanical engineering PhD, discussed her latest research which seems to confirm the notion that a space-based weapons platform was used to destroy much of the World Trade Center with directed energy beams. Certainly the vertical hole punched out through the middle of WTC6 (pictured right) is best explained by this hypothesis, Dr. Wood also hangs her hat on the notion that such weaponry was necessary because had the full weight of the towers crashed into the concrete \"bathtub\" foundation of the complex, it would have irreparably ruptured. She may be mistaken however in assuming that would have flooded all lower Manhattan -- however, that certainly would have flooded underground gold vaults which were being burgled at the time. Taking into account the latest paper by Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds (linked here) along with research by others, including Dr. Ed Ward and Rick Siegel, we can construct a unified theory of how the controlled demolition was pulled off: The towers were built to come down, with a truss system that could set off a \"pancake collapse\" given the right stresses to the system. A Bush-connected security firm left the building virtually wide open to everyone from Swedish art students to agents planting further explosives in the months preceding the event. On 9/11 itself, small fifth-generation micro-mininukes in the towers\' subbasements (a notion discounted by Wood & Reynolds) went off coincident with the alleged \"plane crashes,\" acting as high-tech cutting charges, significantly weakening the core columns for the destruction to come. Radio signals went out to set off the planted conventional explosives, and then during the 10-second demolition and collapses -- and in the clouds thereafter -- directed energy weapons were used to pulverize as much of the buildings as possible. Full Fetzer/Wood interview: \"Sat., November 11, 2006: Playlists: M3U | RAM (Individual MP3s: Hr1 Hr2 ) http://www.total911.info/2006/11/towards-unified-demolition-theorydrs.html Show "I'm afraid to say that the" by Ezra Taft Benson Fan (not verified) ## Oh go away you disgusting shill! ! Show "Somebody has to stand for" by Ezra Taft Benson Fan (not verified) ## debris Technically, he did "lie" about no debris hitting WTC7. But this is nitpicking. It is not even possible for a "fire-induced" building collapse to throw debris into WTC7. At least not any that could do serious damage to the building. So what does it matter if some debris hit the building? There was "debris" scattered all over manhattan. Should the whole damn city have collapsed? ## Modern, massive, overbuilt, steel-framed buildings don't just erupt, explode, or implode the way the 3 WTC building did due to "damage & fire." Just ask Larry Silverstein. He said they made the decision to pull WTC-7, and they watched the building collapse. Show "I actually discussed the WTC" by Ezra Taft Benson Fan (not verified) ## Silverstein Yea... Mr. Silverstein... This is the Fire Cheif.... What sould we do with all the rescue workers that are in building #7... you know... since you are in charge of us and always have been.... you know.... um... What should we do? Silverstein: "Pull it!" Fire Chief: Yes sir. Then what should we do next?" Silverstein: "Start removing all that evidence....errrr.... debris and get that steel shipped over to China ASAP!" Fire Chief: "I don't know what we would do sir if you weren't in charge of us." Silverstein: "Remeber that!" I hope you see the rediculous sarcasm in the fact that Silverstein had anything to say on this subject in regards to what the firemen and rescue personnel were to be doing that day. Ask your engineering friend if he knew that building #7 was built to an even higher standard that WTC 1&2... It was a bunker built to service NYC in a time of emergency.... a bunker built to withstand whatever emergency might arise. There was one casualty in building 7.... it was a FBI agent.... who in my opinion was in the wrong place at the wrong time... He was probably reacting to the situation and stopped by building #7 to see if he could do anything to help out...... and what he saw was probably much more than he expected.... and he was quickly off'd. ## Silverstein backtracked Silverstein backtracked about his "pull it" comment which is the Demolition Industry term for pulling a building, demolition. He said what he actually meant by using the demolition term, "pull it," was that he meant to pull firefighter out of WTC 7. Regardless that is not how anyone speaks english, i.e. we had firefighters in WTC 7 and we decided to "pull it," it would be pull them; regardless of this bogus claim, the fact that there were no firefighters in the building at the time makes Silverstein's backtracking sound like utter nonsense. ## Backtrack A backtrack that took 4 years and a publicist to reveal.... any time you need a publicist to create lies for you.... you best crawl under a rock and die already. Hey Silverstein..... bring your publicist and your team of lawyers.... and give us ten minutes in front of a camera. and we'll see this entire story crumble into 3 neat little piles ## Builing 7 Questions *** Plus, why on Earth would the fire fighters be calling the owner of a building to verify if they can "pull" their fire fighting team? *** Also, why would the 9/11 Commission report state that there was no firefighting in building 7 at any time. *** Next , why would Silverstein's next sentence after saying "pull it" be: "And then we watched the building collapse." This alludes to the fact that the building collapsed shortly after giving his order. How would he know the building was going to fall? Why would firefighters be fighting fires in a building that even a businessman can tell was dangerously close to collapsing? *** Why would a fire fighting team EVER be fighting "blazing" fires in an empty building during the day of September 1th 2001, when two 110-floor buildings collapsed hours before and a full scale rescue effort was in place. *** Why would Silverstein refer to the fire team as "IT". Building 7 is what does it for me. I believe in the towers being demolished but building 7 is so blatantly obvious to me it's a wonder anyone is still believing the official story. Not ONE person can answer any of the above questions reasonably. ## LOL so true my friend. Show "1.) The firefighters weren't" by Ezra Taft Benson Fan (not verified) ## WOW!! YOu really put some WOW!! YOu really put some effort into that line of excuses.... you will sleep well tonight. Examination of the sgtructural steel in building #7 revealed steel beams that had been almost completely eaten away... not melted but vaporized. you think that the failing structure.... being eaten away by thermite... could have caused the building to moan and groan? ## WOW, you guys have a tough WOW, you guys have a tough job ahead of you. There are so many anomolies, contradictions, coincidences, and supposed misquotes surrounding the Official Conspiracy Theory that you are going to need a small army of individuals in order to aid and abet murderers. ## Speaking of "small armies".... ....it is said that Blackwater now has enough private contractor mercenaries on the payroll to field a "brigade", however many that is....now corporations can just hire their own private armies to secure and preserve their markets instead of, in the great Smedley Butler's words, using the US army as "high-priced muscle".... Blackwater assembled that brigade using American taxpayer dollars doled out by Bush, Inc., of course..... As Alex Jones says, patriotic American servicemen quickly figure out that they are being used in in the service of corporate profitmaking and then refuse to fight (Pat Tillman, anyone?) in these wars....so now they need these mercenaries to step up.... ## They don't refuse to They don't refuse to fight.... they refuse to fight for the US military.... why? when they can go to fight for the corporate interests and make ten times more$$Don't worry... when we get enough numbers.... we can all simply go to the bank and make major wtihdrawls. I emplore you all to try and keep the spending to a minimum this holiday season.... buy precious metals as gifts. Buy American made products. If we are going to win this war being waged against us we have to support our own! We have to bring businesses back to the US..... they are destroying America for corporate interest... don't buy in. Next year will be very telling for the American Economy... be good squirrels and hide your nuts and if they want to play the stock market game.... I know how we can beat them at that one too. ## 1) Actually, Silverstein 1) Actually, Silverstein states he got a call from the fire department. So why would they be calling him about removing a fire team? Why would he be contacted at all by the fire fighters on that day? 2) So you're saying firefighters were just waiting around the building to be given orders to go fight the fires inside of a building that is already going to collapse? You say: "The collapse of all three buildings were predicted by STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. You know, the people who are experts in what makes buildings fall down that you twoofers never talk to? Also, firefighters on the scene report seeing WTC7 visibly leaning over and hearing loud creaking and groaning from inside. If you say it was visibly "leaning over" then why did it fall onto its own footprint in 10-15 seconds? If it was so visibly damaged and so obviously going to fall over, why would they make a decision so late in the day to "pull" fire fighters from it? This should be common knowledge not to fight those fires. You say we never talk to STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS....Yet I know of at least 10 veteran structural engineers who are neutral to 9/11 truth who say Building 7 was a demolition 100%. So you are wrong right there. I suppose they all have an agenda and are all liars but Silverstein and company don't. Point is, from all the STRUCTURAL engineers I have spoken too, MORE say its a controlled demolition then don't. And lastly, of course you resort to name-calling. Don't you guys realize this is all the coincidence theorists have left? They get so upset that their world is out of whack so they resort to calling names like a preschooler. Every time! And THEN they bring in the anti-semitic remarks. Its so textbook...but I don't blame them, it's really all they can do now! We're winning good job guys! ## Hey Erza, certainly if you Hey Erza, certainly if you believe the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory then you should be more than will, like nearly all of us here, to move forward with an independent investigation. Let's just see which conspiracy hold up: You Conspiracy Theory: 19 angry guys armed with boxcutters manage to defeat the most dominant military presence the world has every seen. I say defeat, because, according to the boy in the White House, these terrarists hated us for our freedoms and were determined to end them. Well, since the Patriot Act I & II and the signing of the Military Commissions Act, are freedoms have ended. or The other leading conspiracy suggests that a well financed and thoroughly trained rogue group of intelligence officials and agents working with patsies and moles within the government and foriegn nationals managed to orchestrate a false flag operation (a specialty of this group) on 911. A mass of evidence clearly points out that the Official 911 Commission Report is mostly hogwash, according to the former director of the FBI Louis Freeh. Uuuhhmm, which could it be. ## Your use of the word Your use of the word "theory" in reference to the Al-Queada operatives is inappropriate. In science, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has not yet been proven. Like "String theory" or "unified field theory" for example. When a theory has been proven, it becomes a law. Like, for example, the LAW of Gravity or the LAW of conservation. The issue has been settled and is not up for debate. 19 Al-Queada operatives stole four airplanes and used them to @#$% up alot of high end real estate. Deal with it.

As for another investigation? Forget it, not gonna happen. There's already been an
investigation. The responsible culprits have been identified, tried, convicted and thier
sentences have been handed over to the Air Force and Marine Corps to be carried out.

## You\'re 5 years behind, greenback.

You won\'t be able to refute this:

Terrorism of September 11, 2001

September 16, 2001
© 2001, 2002, Richard A. Muller

Last Tuesday, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. In the spirit of this course, I\'m going to describe what happened with emphasis on understanding the relevant physics. This should give you a somewhat deeper appreciation of the problems involved in countering terrorism, and in finding the solutions.

Choice of flight

The terrorists chose to use the fuel of the airplane as their weapon. They chose transcontinental flights since these flights would have full fuel tanks. The airplanes probably contained 60 tons of fuel each, maybe more. Airplane fuel contains 10x the energy, gram per gram, as TNT. Thus the energy was equivalent to about 600 tons of TNT, more than half a kiloton. However, fuel doesn\'t explode unless it is well mixed with air. We\'ll describe what happened in the impact in a later paragraph.

The terrorists chose early-morning flights. This was possibly because, in the U.S., such flights have the best on-time records. The terrorists wanted to have several attacks take place almost simultaneously. Their scheme would work only if the flights left on time.

Terrorists board the airplanes

The planned attack took advantage of basic knowledge of airport security. But this was not a deep knowledge; it was known to almost any technically-competent person.

When you board an airplane, your carry-on luggage is passed through an x-ray machine. It can spot many objects from their shapes, although they don\'t have good enough resolution to see an object which is camouflaged. I suspect no camouflage was used, because if caught, that would suggest that a terrorist attack was underway, and might alert the security people. Rather than use camouflage, the terrorists probably took advantage of the fact that security regulations allowed the passenger to carry on knives if the blade was less than 4 inches in length. A passenger reported on an airline telephone (or possibly on a cell phone) that a terrorist was using a package knife. This is a knife with a short blade that can be retracted. It is almost as sharp as a razor blade.

In the United States, passengers are not x-rayed. They walk through a metal detector that responds to large metal objects and other conductors. Since humans are somewhat conductive, the detector can\'t be too sensitive. There are some weapons available that are not conductive and would pass through such a detector. The most obvious is a knife made out of ceramic material. There are also guns available that contain very little metal; they are mostly ceramic.

If there is some suspicion (e.g. the x-ray operator sees something unfamiliar in the x-ray picture of the computer) then they may send you to the sniffer. They take a cotton-tipped swab and rub it on our computer or your luggage. It is placed in a box that has a chemical system for recognizing the most common explosives. If you have built a bomb, then the vapors from explosive will probably be found on your luggage.

The terrorists, knowing all this, planned an attack that would not require using explosives, or a detectable weapon.

The terrorists take over the airplane

After the flights took off, the terrorists took control of the airplanes. We don\'t have the information to know exactly how they did this, so we can only guess. The terrorists undoubtedly planned to take advantage of the U.S. policy that the airline pilots are expected to cooperate with hijackers. This policy was based on the past success of such cooperation. The best way to maximize the safety of the passengers, in the past, was to cooperate. Do what the terrorists say, and let the experts on the ground negotiate with them. The result is that the terrorists could count on cooperation.

It is not clear that they got such cooperation. Some terrorist reports suggested that some of the crew had been attacked with knives. It could be that the terrorists did not want the pilots to send the \"secret code\" (the code is not so secret) that alerts the ground that they are being hijacked. If that is the case, then the terrorists would go into the cockpit and kill the pilots with their knives.

In most airplanes they could do this by walking in. If you have flown recently, you know that the door to the cockpit is usually left open. Why not? If terrorists take over the airplane, the pilots are supposed to cooperate anyway.

In the airplane, the terrorists had sufficient training to fly the planes. It does not take much training to do this. Most airplane training consists of learning how to land the plane, how to take off, how to make sure nothing goes wrong, and what to do if something does go wrong. Navigation and flying a plane level is relatively simple. (You already knew this if you watched any of the airplane disaster movies. Keeping an airplane in relatively level flight, even aiming it at an airport runway, is not difficult. Landing is.)

Navigation is likewise relatively easy, at least for the World Trade Center. Even to fly a small airplane, you must learn how to use the navigation equipment. It is also possible that the terrorists used simple GPS systems in the cockpit. These can be purchased for less than $200. They will tell you where you are, how fast you are going, what direction you are traveling, and the distance to your goal (the WTC towers, keyed in ahead of time). Finally, the terrorists could rely on visual flying. I suspect that they did this, after discovering that they were confused by the navigation systems. Even GPS sounds simpler than it is. As you approach the target, switching back and forth between the modes of the GPS can become confusing. I would guess that the terrorists switched to visual navigation. Flight 11 may have followed the Hudson River. If you have flown over Washington DC, you may have noticed how difficult it is to pick out landmarks. Even the Washington monument is difficult to spot; from the air, it is very small. The White House is tiny and very tricky to spot. It is possible that the target for American Airlines flight 77 was the White House, but the terrorists couldn\'t spot it. In contrast, the Pentagon is huge and an easy target. They may have gone to this as a backup -- because they could spot it visually. The airplane that hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center was steeply banked as it hit; this is evident from the movie taken from Battery Park. Some people have stated that this shows the pilots were highly trained. That is ridiculous. It shows that the pilot had aimed the airplane badly, and was trying a last-minute desperation maneuver to hit the building. Unfortunately, the maneuver succeeded. Impact As the airplane entered the World Trade Center building, it was torn apart, and the 60 tons of fuel, stored mostly in the wings, was released. Such fuel is highly explosive when mixed with air, but the mixing is not easy to accomplish. Only part of the fuel exploded. (Technically, it was not an explosion, but a conflagration. That\'s why the sound was muffled.) Most of the force of the explosion blew out several floors of the World Trade Center. The explosion passed around most of the columns, leaving them in place. (The only columns taken out immediately were probably those hit by the plane directly.) Much of the airplane passed through the building and emerged on the other side. This may be why debris from the airplane (including the passport of one terrorist) was found; it was not trapped in the building itself. The buildings survived the impact. As you look at the films, note how little the upper parts of the buildings move. The antenna on the North Tower hardly shook. The upper part of the building remained vertical. Even the windows didn\'t break. Neither the impact, nor the subsequent explosion, destroyed the building. The Fire and the collapse The steel columns were covered with insulation, and were designed to maintain their strength for 2 to 3 hours of burning. However, the material that burned was not office furniture and paper documents. The wings, with their fuel load, probably remained in the building, where they provided fuel for the subsequent burning. The fierce burning that took place over the next hour was slowly fed by the fuel leaking out of the remains of the tanks. At high temperatures, steel will melt. At much lower temperatures, it weakens. The jet fuel created a holocaust far hotter than planned for in the building. When the columns weakened, they became vulnerable to buckling. When buckling takes place, it takes place quickly. When one column buckles, it puts more weight on the others, and they buckle too. The columns for an entire floor (maybe for several floors) buckled at one time. The upper floors then slammed into the lower floors. The impact multiplied the force on these lower floors, and they buckled. The process continued as each lower floor continued to buckle in turn. In a few seconds, the entire building had collapsed. Did the terrorists know this would happen. No. This was a new mode for the collapse of a tall building that was completely unanticipated. I can\'t rule out that some engineer, sometime, didn\'t write a memo pointing out this failure mode, but it was not well known. If it were, the building would not have had 300 firemen in the building at the time of collapse. It is the fire that eventually caused the buildings to collapse. It was not the impact of the plane; it was not the explosion. Will this happen again? No. A commercial airplane will probably not be used as a weapon in the United States in the foreseeable future. The reason is simple: without the cooperation of the pilot, the attack is very difficult to accomplish. If the pilot keeps the cockpit door locked, the hijacking suddenly becomes much more difficult. Remember, the only weapon the hijacker had was a knife. In the past, this was sufficient: threaten a passenger, and the pilot will do whatever you ask. In the future, no airline pilot will let a hijacker take control of the plane. Strengthening the cockpit doors can help. Arming the pilots can help (if they get training). Putting an armed guard on the plane can help, or it could hurt. Unless the armed guard is very experienced, he can be defeated, and that gives the terrorists a gun. It is worthwhile noting that the terrorists probably did not even try to bring a gun or explosives on the plane. That is undoubtedly because they weren\'t sure they could accomplish that. They used only weapons that could reliably be smuggled on board. What will happen next? Whoever is responsible for the attack may well be planning another. \"Let me show the United States that it is not over!\" What will come next? All other terrorist attacks that I am able to imagine require much more sophistication than the recent attack showed. Perhaps the most frightening attack would involve biological agents, perhaps anthrax. Such an attack could cause many deaths, but they would not yield the kinds of photos that we have been seeing. A great worry in the U.S. has been a nuclear attack. News stories today surfaced claiming that Osama bin Laden\'s organization attempted to buy the components needed for a nuclear weapon. This is not surprising. Such a weapon can be small, and it could yield the kind of devastation that the terrorist might find appealing. The weapon would likely be smuggled into the United States on a small boat, and set off in the harbor. The organization and planning required would be much greater than for the hijacking, but it can not be ruled out. The main argument against this attack is that it is very difficult to accomplish without something going wrong. The terrorist will not have the opportunity to test the nuclear device, and so it may not work. The United States response to the terrorist threat may include action to minimize the nuclear danger. This could involve US attacks on plants that we feel are designed for nuclear weapon purposes. The United Nations has been prevented from inspecting suspected facilities for this purpose in Iraq, so I imagine that Iraq is expecting an imminent attack of many of its facilities. North Korea is suspected of similar activity. Both Pakistan and India have produced nuclear explosions. The nuclear weapons inherited by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, have supposedly all been removed to Russia. For information, see the Federation of American Scientists website at www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq7.html. As I mentioned above, it probably will not be another hijacked US airplane. It could be a much smaller attack, such as the destruction of one or more airplanes. The easiest way to do this is to ship an explosive in a commercial package that will be detonated when a sensor indicates it is at high altitude. To anticipate this, the US is now prohibiting the shipping of commercial packages on passenger aircraft. A plane may explode, but it will not contain passengers. Most of the measures being taken by the US government are in anticipation of these alternative attacks. So when the actions being taken don\'t seem to make sense, consider whether you are thinking about the kind of attack that the government is considering. Suppose they had hit a nuclear power plant? Most nuclear power plants are designed to take a hit from a fully-loaded airplane. The outer concrete vessel would have absorbed the blow and the inner reactor would not have been affected. No radiation would have leaked. The sophistication and coordination required This was a remarkably simple attack. It required virtually no infrastructure in the United States. It required very little in the way of timing and logistics. The terrorists did not have to obtain explosives. There were not large numbers of people to coordinate. All they had to do was get their people to the airports on time. There was almost no way that it could fail. The attack was characterized by its simplicity and its understanding of the vulnerability of the United States. http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20(old)/chapters2003/Appendix-Sept.11.htm ## You're right! "There was almost no way that it could fail.".... IF 'they' had the complicity of a zillion dollar defense machine. Then to 'get away with it' by destroying evidence, obstructing a genuine investigation, and diverting attention away from the actual perpeTrators through the subterfuge of a Jingoistically hyper Mass Media screaming day and night about boogymen under every bed and lurking through every crevice of society. You there\\... you're a fucked\in\the\head jack\ass.... and your neck will not remain safe from grappling paws indefinitely. e "The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap. ## Not To Mention the molten steel below the WTC 7 .Also...your mind cant comprehend complex situation. You think that something is impossible if it is complex, because you think that people are as dumb as you are, and since you cant imagine yourself doing something like this you in turn think that others are not capable of this. First of the Towers were OLD. They were falling apart. FEMA didnt ewant to spend the money to upgrade these buildings. They were full of toxins. So out of the blue 6 weeks before the attacks some investor desides to BUY these old building...WHY!!!???? he is in investor....he would LOOSE MONEY by doing this. He then takes out a HUGE insurance policy on them, specifically agains TERRORIST attacks...puts down a down payment.....and then BAM!!! the buildings are attacked. he collects BILLIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! from insurance No your ignorant mind probably goes..why what a lucky guy...what a chance occurance. Now somebody with 1 or 2 more brain cells than you is going...holy shit that guy knew something.... Now who has a motive......the guy that made billions....or some sucker in a cave that brought down the might of the most technically advanced army in the world.... WHO BENEFITS!!!???????????????!!!!!!!!!! god people are stupid....oh god why???!!!!!!! WHY!!!???? Show "The truth hurts" by Anonymous (not verified) ## seriously/ man, what is//// seriously/ man, what is//// your deal?/ do you have a reason for coming /here/ other than to fee/l like you have some sort of purpose/? what do you get/ out/./ of this/? ## Poor, 'Ernie'--doesn't have Poor, 'Ernie'--doesn't have a life. And thanks, Chris, for pointing out his 'signature'--I've been skipping compressed comments. This new comments system has some bugs-- it can be abused as a popularity contest--but over all it's working well at de-trolling one's reading time. Show "My anonymous friend and I" by Ezra Taft Benson Fan (not verified) ## Wow, you know 'Ernie'? Is Wow, you know 'Ernie'? Is he a he or a she? Tell us his/her REAL name; come on, you want to. 'Ernie's a celebritiy around here--in the Britney Spears/ Paris Hilton sense of the word. Careful--that infamy might rub off. ## Wow... "infamy". Well you Wow... "infamy". Well you got me there. You know I totally stay awake at night worrying what those who murder my countrys soldiers with thier lies think of me. :p ## "You know I totally stay "You know I totally stay awake at night worrying what...(you) think of me." Poor dear. Suppose that's why you stopped posting anonymously. And by the by, cheers for that. Chin up, love; it'll get better. Now, come on, tell us--who is 'Ernie'? Since you're chums and all. Show "Isn\'t it too bad" by Anonymous (not verified) ## You have GOT to be bloody You have GOT to be bloody joking!!! "Ernie" and Ezzie might be the same person-- or they really DO know each other. What's the likely hood after claiming to be 'friends' they post within a minute of each other? ( "Ernie"s signature does argue for them being separtate people-I'm open to theories) The trolls--they are not known for impulse control. As to your opening salvo, if you want a real debate, try writing something that won't get compressed out of sight. Show "To remind you" by Anonymous (not verified) ## thanks/ for the/// tip thanks/ for the/// tip buddy. now find a real life, your constant harrassing of us shows how empty your life must// be/. ## You\'re the harasser, Chris The very existence on your anti-truth movement, the hypocritically-named \"9/11 Truth Movement\", and it\'s constant lies is the ultimate harassment of the American people. You are being exposed for what you are and do. What goes around, comes around. Stop your lies and absurd conspiracy theories - all refuted - about 9/11and there will no longer be the need to expose you. ## Nobody can refute this How the WTC towers were demolished Give up anonymous. 911 Truthers win! Show "So because he didn't leap to" by Ezra Taft Benson Fan (not verified) ## LOL Quote: "I actually discussed the WTC collpases with a real live engineer and he informed me that the impact damage and fire were the only scientifically valid explanations for the collapses." Oh yes. That's a totally scientific explaination for a COMPLETELY SYMETRICAL COLLAPSE. Funny how on the one day that the air defense system for the worlds most powerful military establishment (pentagon) failed, buildings had a sudden tendancy to collapse symetrically at rates that show no resistance. And all of this while the moneyman (ISI) for the lead hijacker is in DC meeting with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and simluation exercises of very similar events are taking place. Wake up, you're a coincidence theorist. Show "Even funnier" by Anonymous (not verified) ## Wow. You're really working hard to spin this. Wow. You're really working hard to spin this. We're talking about a TOTALYL SYMETRIC COLLAPSE here. Without a controlled demolition, a building would not easily collapse on its foorprint so neatly AND in such a linear manner AND with no resistance. Look at Building 7's collapse on video. If that is not a controlled collapse then the world can dispense with engineered demolitions. For a collapse to occur with such symetry, failiures have to occur at key points of the building's infrastructure simultaneously. An asymetric collapse would not look the same. You would either see an edge, side or face of the building fall, the building topple, sheer, or collapse in stages. ## I'm not here to attack you.... I would like to know if you think that building 7 at least "looked like" a controlled demo? I'm not asking you to say you think it was, but can you admit it appeared like one? You said we don't have a stitch of evidence. The characteristics of the collapse is, at the very least, a stitch. The eyewitness testimony is a stitch also: "We heard what sounded like a CLAP of THUNDER, turned around and we were shocked to see what looked like a SHOCKWAVE RIPPING THROUGH the building. Then about a second later the bottom floor caved out and we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground." Eyewitness interview on W.I.N.S. in New York. Then there is this guy who is an expert on the subject: http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231 It is dishonest to say we don't have ANY evidence. This is only a small snippet of our evidence. If you do not consider any of this evidence, please tell us what you would accept. Peace. ---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11. Show "You still don\'t get it." by Anonymous (not verified) ## You don\'t get it anonymous 9/11 Truth is overwhelming your government lies. Now your goose is really cooked: How the WTC towers were demolished ## I should have known it was you... Now that I realize it is this Anon, I won't bother asking you anything, since you won't explain what is acceptable evidence. We show you something and you say its meaningless. We show you something else and you say that it's not evidence. I show you an experts opinion and you ignore it. I ask you to define your standard of evidence and you dance around the request. I ask you politely what your kind will accept as evidence and you insult and riducule with rediculous examples (sun around the earth). I hope you are having fun. ---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11. ## Backslash OCD issue = Ernie. ## What kills me is he doesn't What kills me is he doesn't fix it now everyone knows. A friend of mine who's a computer geek thinks it might be a programing error--something that might show up in spam--but it makes no sense in this context. Then again he could be a disabled shut-in with MS, which would be sad, but not an excuse to be obnoxious. "Bugger this; I want a better world." ## Trouble is, you have not shown any evidence. That is clear. Assertions and claims do not constitute evidence. Meaningless questions do not constitute evidence. My God, man, you know how often I have asked Jon Gold to back up his claim that \\\"9/11 was an inside jobe\\\" and he refuses to bring any evidence to the table. So get with it, T-Bone. You need to demonstrate that the preponderance of evidence supports your case and refutes all the known and solid evidence which does not support your case. You CANNOT avoid that responsibility so don\\\'t try to run away from that. ## Yet again... I'll just cut and paste this time. I said, "I ask you to define your standard of evidence and you dance around the request. I ask you politely what your kind will accept as evidence and you insult and riducule with rediculous examples (sun around the earth)." You say, "My God, man, you know how often I have asked Jon Gold to back up his claim that \\\"9/11 was an inside jobe\\\" and he refuses to bring any evidence to the table." I have seen Gold debate you and he has the same problem with you that I have. You say, "So get with it, T-Bone. You need to demonstrate that the preponderance of evidence supports your case and refutes all the known and solid evidence which does not support your case." We already went over this when I defined my standard of evidence in the court of public opinion. I am not a prosecutor. You have refused to define your standard and it's been awhile since then. Remember this? "Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are defining it as follows: "all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved ". This is a fair definition, since it is the legal definition of evidence. In a court of law, I have no problem with that standard of evidence. The only problem is, this is not a fair standard to hold us by since we are not prosecutors. In addition, there has yet to be a trial on this matter. I am defining evidence as this: " Information that tends to prove a fact. Not limited to the legal sense of the term." or "Demonstrates or suggests how things might have been in the past. In manuscript research, evidence does not mean proof or testimony (although there is public testimony in this matter). Rather, evidence means drawing inferences from the messages implied in the documents." or "Information offered to support a conclusion or judgment." This is, what I would consider, fair evidence in the court of public opinion. That is what this movement is about. Until there is a trial, where we can get the legal definition of evidence, that I am assuming you mean, then there is no means for average Joe's like us to acquire this. I think this is fair." Again, HOW DO YOU DEIFNE EVIDENCE? WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? ---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11. ## 1) "Its funny that you think 1) "Its funny that you think buildings don't fall straight down like everything else does. It's called gravity" - You need to expand on this: buildings that fall straight down into their own footprint, with little impact around from adjacent buildings. - Most things that fall straight down don't have things below it to create resistance. Not the case with those 47 floors. - If I was to set up that game JENGA and take away a couple pieces, would the rest of the stack fall straight down, neatly upon the bottom pieces, or would it be strewn about all over the table I was playing the game on? 2) Maybe you think buildings should fly horizontally, turn upside down, then launch into space. 3) Its amazing the lack of education ALL 9/11 deniers like you have -Lets see here. Me: BS in Management Information Systems with a Masters in Computer Science. Therefore, that lack of education shtick just doesn't work for me. BTW, where is your education? Your grammatical skills and ability to have a reasonable debate clearly show you to be one of those ivy league students. Right? Nice name calling, buddy. Just shows how even more pathetic you are. Show "Too bad you can\'t get anything right" by Anonymous (not verified) ## Really..I wouldn't think that would be Silversteins call To pull the firefighting team...it would be his call to pull it..with the fire Marshall knowing that the 0ption was available. So when Silverstein says WE made the decision to pull it. That does not mean He had the same authority as the fire chief in regard to fighting the fire, that means there was a prior agreement to pull it, because He wasn't talking about so much loss of life from building 7. Milkcow is a radio's Bill O'Reilly, now put the both of them together and you pretty much have depleted uranium on the airwaves. ## Mancow was a retard. The Mancow was a retard. The whole interview favored the Truth movement thankfully because that douchebag isn't good at shouting down his guests. Let me point out the psychological technique that FOX used here to manipulate people, especially the remaining lemmings they have left. The pro-OT was represented by a fireman who was at ground zero. The Truth movement was represented by a reporter/executive from Alex Jones's program. At the most basic level the debate has been shifted so that people's emotions are automatically attached to the hero (anyone who states otherwise is blind), the firefighter. As most people are aware, FOX continually bashes "left-media" outlets, not that Alex Jones represents the left, but the media has been demonized. This pits viewers emotions against him(viewers that think based more heavily on emotion rather than logic-just a thought-maybe they lack certain frontal lobe development...they can't seem to keep their emotions in check to make reality based decisions...). An equal debate would have been one firefighter vs. another firefighter. But we're dealing with the MSM and FOX at that. They ALWAYS rely on manipulating emotions. I must say I applaud the firefighter for doing a good job. He did not attack Kevin Smith at all. All of the attacking was accomplished by the douchebag "mediator"(BTW wtf ever happened to nonbiased mediating??? and who else wanted to bitch slap the mediator when he started talking like he was on acid in his own little world ignoring the logical content of Kevin Smith's messages??). The firefighter was not certain in his convictions which could easily be seen by his body language and his assertiveness on issues. Thank god FOX got a firefighter who wasn't a complete lemming. Always look at the most basic elements when it comes to viewing debates people. Examine who the debaters are. Try to understand the purpose behind the mediator choosing said debaters. And obviously, see if the mediator favors one side(they shouldn't if they have any integrity on the matter nor should they interject their own opinions in the debate as was seen). F U FOX your day will come you god damned traitors. ## Go Away douchebag ## I thought Kevin Smith did a Great job last night! It was very low of "Mancow" to try & bait dying firefighter Brian Harvey & Kevin Smith to argue with each other. I'm very saddened that not only does Brian Harvey not believes 9/11 was an inside job, but he also said that the gov't (Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA, et al ) didn't know the environment around the WTC was toxic. Now that's really going way out on a limb, and I don't know why Harvey's doing that. ## Wow, what a pathetic, Wow, what a pathetic, mindless shill Mancow is. I agree that if Brian Harvey learns the truth about the dust, he might get the emotional impetus of anger to question 9/11 further. Kevin Smith did a great job. Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon. ## Mooooooooo They don't call him ManCow for nuthin' ## They must have looked long and hard to find of all people a NYC fireman braindead enough to not know that 9/11 was an inside job. If I were Kevin I would have brought a tape of the many other firemen & first responders that made speeches on 9/11/06 and played it in the background during the whole hatchet job interview. ## kevin smith did a great job, kevin smith did a great job, even after there editing they couldn't make him look bad, even when they left in Mr Smiths "cut" they still couldn't make him look bad. mancow used the pen and teller tecniuque of tryng to associate 9/11 tuth with hoex moon landings and bit foot etc, it tottaly back fired. It really was distastful of mancow to try and get a reaction out of the fireman by suggesting Smith was disrespecting him and making money out of the tradegy, i don't understand does mancow think it makes the firemen any less of hero just because it was an inside job ? is he really that thick? it doesn't matter who was behind the attacks those firemen are still heroes. mancows attacks were so weak it does make you wonder if he actually does believe 9/11 was an inside job and he's just trying to make the skeptics look bad ?. ## hadn't woken up yet, but will soon Kevin Smith concludes that the firefighter just hadn't woken up yet, but he soon will. Well, just before I heard that I was thinking the same thing. Kevin Smith did a masterful job! BRAVO. We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi ## Interesting what was cut from the program.... ....Kevin's accounting of the damning Mineta testimony, for one...remember, when Fetzer got that in on Fox, Mineta resigned the next day....that documented, filmed (but ignored in the Zelikow Omission Report) testimony scares them... http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/181106_mancow.html ## Good work. Kevin Smith did a good job. He didn't say everything he might have been able to and he said some things that weren't necessary. But that's how they wanted it. After speaking for a few hours this always happens. Fox News is in the business of shaping reality. This is their job. "Why isn't it being reported if all this information is true?" Is a difficult question because the truth is conspiratorial itself and hard to answer. I think Alex Jones' quote of Mark Twain on CNN in response to that question was ingenious. This was hardly Kevin Smith going up against a firefighter, this was Kevin Smith going up against Mancow with a firefighter in the room. If Alex Jones, or Kevin Smith, or Dylan Avery, or anybody whose handed a platform on national TV is reading this, I cannot stress how important it is to remember the lesson we all learned from Jeremy Glick when he faced Bill O'Reilly. If you get angry, you're in their domain. If you defend yourself against name calling, you're in their domain. If you let them dictate the discussion emotionally with strawmen and half-truths, you're in their domain. When facing these purposely aggravating pundits it is important to be professional and on the offensive. Mancow is just a jerk. He's trying to be one. If he asks you where bigfoot is, you say "I'm not sure but retired Col. Robert Bowman has expressed that..." If he can't find a hole big enough to squeeze you through, he'll look stupid and rude and even smugger than usual. It works every time. Once again, good job Kevin. Next time we'll get a first round KO. ## Mancow Mancow is a clown. Kevin was thoughtful. The Fireman wants more information. ## Gold, Oil and Drugs ## Just such complete BS as this is why I have been saying for years that FAUX news needs to be completely destroyed, taken out 100%, all buildings, all satellite dishes, all trucks, cameras everything that allows them to broadcast at all, they shouldn't even be able to make a cell phone call. Then tell the rest of the broadcast MSM media they have 24 hours to start singing or they are next. We are never going to win this fight unless we have our MSM back and stop this insane propaganda. ## Finally somebody who is Finally somebody who is willing to take real action. ok man, lets do it, I'm ready to roll.... ## Maybe Judy would could help Maybe Judy would could help us invent a beam weapon to do this LOL!! ## several Million very angry Americans with a few gallons of gas and matches is all that is needed. Show "Do You Eat DogShit? " by Fuck You (not verified) ## Re: Do you eat DogShit? I don't but 27 year CIA veteran Ray McGovern believes there is a 9/11 cover-up....... ;) ## This made me laugh out loud. Just so's you know. ## I thought that was funny too, casseia Don't forget the numbers of people who think it rather patriotic to question 911... http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ "The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap. ## Not difficult... "Why isn't it being reported if all this information is true?" Tell me Mr. Mancow, representatives of the family members recently called for an entirely new investigation at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Can you tell me when the great "Fox News" covered it? ___________________________________ "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this." ## Tell me Mr. Mancow... The very family members that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission declared the commission "derelict in its' duties", and questioned the "entire veracity" of the 9/11 report. When did the great "Fox News" cover that? It was released recently that it was Condoleezza Rice's office that authorized Christie Todd Whitman, then head of the EPA, to tell New Yorkers, and first responders that the air was safe to breathe, and the water was safe to drink. Now, 70,000 people are sick, and a few have already died. When did the great "Fox News" cover that? There are SO MANY examples of what the news HAS NOT covered. All you need to is reference those stories when asked, "Well, why isn't it on the front page?" ___________________________________ "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this." ## I love it how In today's media society something like factual 9/11 evidence and what it implies falls victim to social bias and political spin. The piece was presented in such a way as if there was something amusing about it and "Oh look at these nutty internet people and this disinformation meme that's been bouncing around the internet". They always love to make the stupid straw man argument that somehow we believe "Gorge Bush was planting bombs in those buildings" which is absurd. And of course all the spin before hand and then starting off by asking "What do you think of people making money off this tragedy?" That's how the game is played though... today at least - to dupe the masses into believing in the legitimacy and reward structures of status quo social relations. Today our society is about obfuscating power relations through new dynamics of media and consumerism and competition over social roles. We have given up like Ruppert says in his farewell paper "I never thought I would call the 60s and 70s “the good old days”. I would cry tears of joy today to see just one campus overrun by a modern equivalent of the Students for a Democratic Society." And instead something sinister and dishonest is found in the now everyday way our society is operating "It lurks invisibly behind every corporate news broadcast, every commercially-made television show, every infomercial, every new magazine ad, and almost every new popular song that leads Americans deeper into ever-less-satisfying consumption, self-indulgence and debt." What will history write about our era? Will history come to represent the truth someday or will it march on and bury the past with it embracing whatever social paradigm our current path lead us to? I don't know. The spin is strong. Fuck our social relations and consumerism. Fuck globalization. Fuck this president and political paradigm. Fuck TV shows like Lost, 24, American Idol and whatever more bullshit we come up with. I'm sick to hell of it. It's making me sick like a creeping disease I wake up to everyday to witness it's progression. I don't have time to play the activist role. I'm in college getting a degree so I can suck the rotting postmodern cock. Not in the mood today. Sorry if this offends. ## jeez man, smoke a joint- jeez man, smoke a joint- that's what it's there for.. don't worry, Babylon will fall. ## The more people smoke herb....... the more Babylon fall -Bob Marley ## i do my part,hahaha. i do my part,hahaha. ## Fireman Brian Harvey looked like a deer in the headlights... but you could see in his eyes that he was taking this in.... almost everything that Kevin had to say sunk in with this guy through all the head shaking and eye rolling. Kevin did get through to this guy and I'm sure he got through to many others. This was good.... I'm glad Alex wasn't there.... Alex is knowledgable and stern.... but Kevin really did a good job of bringing this to the people.... giving it a face of a sensible American... An educated and concerned American. Alex and Mancow would have turned into a shouting match and the fireman would have looked like the only normal one. ## I honestly think Kevin is a I honestly think Kevin is a much better speaker than Alex Jones. He did a great job. If I was a "newby" to the whole issue of 9/11 truth and watched that little spectacle, I'd think the host Mancow was obnoxious, immature, disorderly, and well, I would have thought Kevin provided the best presentation. Mancow gets an F all the way. If not for his puppydog eyes, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. ## I agree. Kevin did an I agree. Kevin did an outstanding job. He was a total pro and very relaxed. Not once did he engage in a personal attack. reallly oustanding job. It may have been a very shrewd planned move by Alex knowing Kevin was better suited to take on mancoward. ## I think Alex Jones would've wisely toned it down out of respect & concern for the terminally-ill fireman. Then he would've given Madcow the blasting he deserved. ## I agree Kevin did a great job and remained calm even as man-idiot did his best to make stupid comments to provoke him. Alex would have been screaming and yelling I think, although I don't think alex takes manblow too seriously. ## Kevin Smith gave an excellent performance. He was fair, balanced, and convincing. The seeds of doubt continue to grow alongside the seeds of truth regarding what really happened on 09/11/2001. Many thanks are in order to Kevin Smith! ## Great job, Kevin. Very well Great job, Kevin. Very well done indeed. You remained remarkably calm and lucid. Respect to you, sir. ## Fox News'ratings are Fox News'ratings are plummeting. Here are the 25 methods Of Truth Suppression Faux news and certain criminal elements of our government use: http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/ ## http://www.benfrank.net/disin http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/ 1. Hear no Evil 6. Hit & Run 11. Fake Confess. 16. Lose Evidence 21. Subvert 2. Incredulous 7. ? Motives 12. Too Complex 17. Change Subject 22. New Truth 3. Rumormonger 8. Authority 13. False Logic 18. Antagonize 23. O.J. 4. Straw Man 9. Play Dumb 14. Not Enough 19. Ignore Proof 24. Silence Opp. 5. Ridicule 10. Old News 15. Twist Facts 20. False Evidence 25. Vanish Spot the Freeper 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit. Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint." Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)? 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact. "You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that Flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a supportive statement by a Congressman who has not actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)? menu 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking Flight 800, a straw man is used. "If these exist, the public has not seen them." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)? menu 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is a well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)? menu 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters." Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again. Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)? menu 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. Example: "With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)? menu 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. "You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals have ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)? menu 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)? menu 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. Example: "Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)? menu 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. Example: "Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy feeling it makes us, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)? menu 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. Example: "I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)? menu 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact. Example: "The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up." Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has the media reported the CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony "confession" by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)? menu 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10. Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?" Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)? menu 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke authority)? menu 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue. Example: "You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?" True, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy. Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up or other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention based on highly suspicious matters which themselves tend to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)? menu 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. Example: "There were no CIA drugs and no drug money was laundered through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election because Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform." Response. "You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on..." One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one... Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane unless you can provide concrete facts to support your contentions of relevance. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)? menu 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism". Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a drawing an emotional response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help..." Proper response: "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)? menu 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Example: "All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from Flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!" Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Only YOUR are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)? menu 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy "confession", since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination. Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose "Solidarist confession" was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)? menu 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Example: According to one OK bombing Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested. Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. menu 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control. Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are well equipped to fight this tactic. menu 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (any day now) to talk about -- keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the whole gun control thing? Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the "news flap" or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents. menu 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats. Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to Flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them. Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing). menu 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown. Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play as part of a deliberate cover up. menu Spot the Freeper Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits: 1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility. 2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well. 3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason. 4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength. 5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do. 6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth. 7) There is also a tendacy to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it. ## How can this get a -1 How can this get a -1 rating? Makes no sense. Must be some Freepers on this forum. ## i didnt do it, but im i didnt do it, but im guessing its the length that got it the negative point. which is understandable. personally though, i favorited the link, thanks. ## Ah, makes sense to me. Have Ah, makes sense to me. Have you noticed the most sincere people in the 9/11 Truth Movement are very sincere and polite? It seems the more people know the truth the more relaxed they are. The fact is the post was too long. I got so excited at the fine job Kevin did that I felt I had to post the entire article. I will trim the length next time I have an article I want to post. ## Kevin hit a home run! He did Kevin hit a home run! He did the best job yet of keeping his cool and getting out the facts while mancow made himself look like a complete shill for Faux News and the NWO. It looked like the firefighter was beginning to realize he had been duped. He needs to see the Loosechange movie and read the 25 Methods Of Truth Suppression the power elite use. It will all make sense after that. ## Kevin did a good job. Alex Kevin did a good job. Alex is a good speaker when hes talking to the crowd but sometimes his passion and over the top concern can make him look crazy even though we all know hes not. This guy held it together and didnt yell or get mad. And all they could do was say, why would they do this. They didnt try to disprove him. Its really annoying. The truth is in front of peoples eyes. I dont get it. I wish he brought up the fact that jet fuel didnt make the steel weak. And that the buildings were desined for mutiple impacts of planes. A 707 none the less but Im sure they building could support one 757 or whatever it was. Unless he did say that and they edited it out. I just dont understand why people are believing this crap. I mean I was a kid when this happened. 14. But sitting there watching it, I amazed at what happened. And Im just naturally a "open minded" person and thought "whats wrong with this picture". I think anythings possible and those buildings falling the way they did just didnt look right. "A true patriot questions there government" ## Kevin kept to the high road Kevin did an excellent job. Even in spite of the 'shout-down' style of mancow, Kevin managed to summarize several key concepts: wtc7, false flag attacks in general, pointing out the Manhattan Project as a conspiracy kept secret for years by thousands, etc. And he wouldn't take the bait to attack the dying fireman. I'd call it a win. ## My guess is Kevin will never My guess is Kevin will never be invited on network television again. Mancoward looked like a mean-spirited bumbling fool so no wonder he has his own Faux news special. The more I watch the clip the more I see how calm, caring and factual Kevin is. Great job and a real keeper for the 911 Truth Movement. ## The United States Government Can't Keep A Secret... How many years did it take James Bamford to uncover "Operation Northwoods?" ___________________________________ "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this." ## 39 Years.... ....Two generations....according to Wikipedia...Operation Northwoods was presented to JFK in 1962, Bamford's "Body of Secrets" came out in 2001. It seems to me that these Government crimes are generally kept secret until everybody involved, or everyone who made money on it, is dead. That is why 9/11 Truth is different, thanks to the Internet, we have a chance to expose this (and prosecute the criminals involved) while it still matters.... ## 39 Years... Is an awfully long time to keep plans devised by the Joint Chiefs Of Staff to murder Americans, and blame it on Cubans. Granted, JFK decided against it. Is George W. Bush or anyone within his Administration known for making good decisions? I think not. ___________________________________ "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this." ## They're known for making decisions that... ....financially benefit Bush, Poppy Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their friends, no matter how many people they don't know die or suffer....the Military Industrial Complex (Halliburtan, Carlyle Group), Big Oil (think Houston), Private Bankers.... 9/11 was not only an Inside Job, it was a bank heist in the Trillions... So, "good decisions" doesn't enter into it (as in "good" in the "wise" sense)....it was how can we make money for my dad's friends?....at that, they've been wildly "successful"...the longer the war, i.e., Shrub's Vietnam, drags on, the more "successful" they've been.... Yes, it was an awfully long time to keep the Operation Northwoods secret....I totally agree... ## Wan't it first known as the... Military Intelligence Industrial Complex? ___________________________________ "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this." ## Is that what Ike said? I believe his '61 farewell speech coined the term....he might've said that...if so, it is more accurate... I watched Bill Moyers' 1987 short documentary "The Secret Government" on Google Video today, which is an amazing piece of journalism that relates to all of this...(the CIA as an instrument of business and banking interests to overthrow legitimate governments). Highly recommended. ## It's posted... Here. As far as Ike's speech, he referred to it as the Military Industrial Complex. However, John Judge, I think, told me it was originally referred to as the Military Intelligence Industrial Complex. ___________________________________ "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this." ## My bad... It was, "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex" ___________________________________ "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this." ## How about the FBI seizing How about the FBI seizing all the video and harassing 9/11 witnesses? How about the government trying to fire college professors in the 9/11 Truth Movement? The government can't keep a secret. They either pay off enough people in positions off power and trust or harass them until they either get their mark to have a heart attack or mysteriously die of mysterious causes. Faux News takes the route of paying shills like mancoward a bunch of dough to act as a mouthpiece for the power elite and in essence try to silence opponants by using one or more of truth suppression techniques outlined earlier. Just fallow the insurance pay offs and those that shorted stock after 9/11. That helps complete some of the puzzle. The Iraq war was planned many years ago and 9/11 was the perfect excuse. A few in the government simply fire andytrue patriot in the FBI or CIA who would stop the cover-up. The FBI is completely corrupt. Let's say an FBI agent makes$70,000 a year but had nothing to do with 9/11. He is asked to harass some truth movement people who are rising stars. He then is fired if he refuses so as to make an example to other agents.

Here is a 9/11 contractor story: I was house mates with a guy who was making \$80,000 a year as a computer programmer. His wife is an FBI agent. He owned several homes but never hit the lottery as far as stock options go. He was entirely against the Iraq war until the day the corporation he worked at got a huge contract in Iraq. He became a millionaire overnight and from that point on was 100% for the war. Any renter in any of his houses that questioned the war was kicked out. He also started to physically fight anyone that said the FBI was corrupt. Since his wife is an FBI agent he never gets charged for fighting or bullying. That is how the government keeps secrets. They also use selective enforcement. They will arrest a truth movement person for jaywalking while refusing to investigate murderers and treasonous people who make up the power elite.

All logical evidence points to 9/11 being an inside job. The bullying is just part of the elite's pathetic attempt to keep the sham going. No researcher or person with a reading comprehension level past the third grade believes the government's version of 9/11 unless they have been paid off or bullied into towing the government's lies.

The media keep it covered up mostly to protect Israeli elite in my opinion. Israeli security contractors made a ton of cash after 9/11 and have all sorts of airport contracts lined up for the future. We must also take into consideration that some of the officials that carried out 9/11 are confirmed sadists who gather at Bohemian Grove to worship an owl. They like to see people die and mutilated and is why we had the Iraqi prison scandal. The advice for the interrogation method's used in Iraq prisons came from Israel's Mossad.

## I recognize this guy's shill stylings...

...and I have to admit it's always a guilty pleasure....as trolls go, his satire is first-rate....give the man his due, creatively....

Too bad all that talent is in the service of criminals and sociopaths....

## The sociopaths are the

The sociopaths are the trolls that harass and stalk patriots in the 9/11 Truth Movement. The above story is real. The government can't keep a secret. All it can do is use trolls to harass people that get too close to the truth. You must be a fan of Faux News and a supporter of Israel's Mossad. .

## The power elite are

The power elite are sociopaths. Those that actually carried out 9/11 are sociopaths. Socipathy and sadism go hand in hand. Faux News likes to hire sociopaths. I present proof of how the FBI works to silence people who get too close to the truth. If you can't be bought off you will be harassed. That is how the FBI works. Same with Faux News.

## Characteristics of

Characteristics of sociopaths:

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

Now look at the way the power elite have conducted themselves regarding 9/11. Look at the personalities and the the fighting style of Faux News anchors trying to squash the truth. Then read the 25 Methods Of Truth Suppression again. Patriots will make the connection. The trolls and Faux News supporters will continue to harass and bully real patriots. Faux News lost all credibility with me many years ago. Faux News ratings continue to plummet.

Infowars and Loosechange have the highest increase in ratings ratings as far as Internet news go. Notice how Faux tries to say all Internet news is bogus. Faux says that because it can not spin the news on the Internet like it can on television. Because television is not interactive the NWO wants television to be the main source of mind control. Loosechange more than any other film has provided a logical, concise and researched explanation of why most reasonable people think 9/11 was an inside job.

The sociopaths will continue to harass the patiots in the truth movement but their game has been exposed.

Kevin handled his attack from mancoward superbly. Kevin is a real patroit.

## 9/11 Denial in action

Yours was a good demonstration of 9/11 denial in action, anonymous. Thanks for discrediting the 9/11 Truth [sic] Movement even more.

## I post facts and take a few

I post facts and take a few written jabs at the 9/11 delusional sociopaths who believe the power elite's official 9/11 fable.

What is your stake in posting a few sentences bashing all those that question the official government fairy tale of what happened on 9/11?

I am not an employee of Infowars, 9/11 blogger, Loosechange or Faux News. I have never received any government contracts after or before 9/11. I never shorted any stock after 9/11. I am not a paid or non-paid informant of the FBI. I never received nor asked for any insurance money from anything related to 9/11.

Faux News and certain government contractors have made billions of dollars off of 9/11 and they are the worst hypocrites and criminal sociopaths that bash patriots in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

So why do I post about 9/11 if I have no financial, religious or job related incentive to do so? I post because I am a protectionist and patriot of the USA and I will fight to keep the USA safe from all enemies foreign and domestic. As a patriot I will be tireless in exposing the methods criminal sociopaths use to hurt the USA. I can not be bought off. My payment comes from being secure in the knowledge that I am a USA patriot and good person with a deep seeded belief in God.

The facts point to 9/11 being an inside job. It's the "job" of patriots to demand the truth and bring those that actually carried out the 9/11 attacks and their conspirators to justice whether they be USA citizens or foreign nationals. Patiently the 9/11 Truth Movement will continue it's patriotic due diligence regarding what really happened on 9/11. Many like myself will refuse to accept even one single penny for our efforts.

## Amen...

nice post, anon.

e

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

## No they don\'t

\"The facts point to 9/11 being an inside job.\"

Trouble is, what you claim are \"facts\" turn out to be erroneous, without basis, and unsupported assertions. We Americans who are devoted to the truth see right through your desperate attempts to deny the truth.

You illustrate it every day and we help you expose yourselves for the complete and utter deniers your are.

Sorry, chap, you can\'t get away with it.

## This entire website is

This entire website is filled with facts. People like you don't read the facts because you believe in government fairy tales.

## "I recognize this guy's shill stylings."

Enlighten us.

Is it how he's on the level until the end where he seems to over-state the case or..something else?

Mind you, I'm reserving judgement, but you've made me curious.

## After re-reading this, I can't be positive....

....if it's shill satire, and maybe I misidentified the author's motives (if so, I profusely apologize)....but there were 2 similar posts on another topic earlier that rhymed with regard to style and were obviously mocking us with fake support...Like those posts,"Anonymous" takes a lot of common Truther beliefs and distills them down to simplistic statements of emphatic fact, one after another...just rang insincere to me.....but my "Spider-sense" is not infallible, however.... :)

## anonymous makes it easy...

to do hit and run posting...  The posts really don't add anything to the conversation as they don't come from anything identifiable as a singular person, which in my opinion, takes away from the clarity of the discussion.

If you can't pick a name, you shouldn't be able to post.

## Should be Called Planet Madcow

Mancow is a despicable media whore. He should do very well on Fox News.

Oh, well, I may as well plug my solution to the media mess, once again:

>> Putting the NY Times Out of Business <<
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media

I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.

Broadband access is now up to 42% in the US, so it is quite possible to target TELEVISION, which is how about 48% of Americans get 30+ minutes of news per day (as opposed to only about 9% over the internet). See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282

The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED

## A lone nut on the grassy knoll?!?!

Did anyone else catch Mancow's sign-off line? Please, no one tell him that it makes him look like one of the biggest idiots of all time -- I want him to say it again and again.

(FYI for anyone who needs it: Oswald, the "lone nut," was in the Book Depository. The whole "conspiracy theory" is based on the idea that shots were also fired from the grassy knoll, meaning there was more than one gunman and hence a nut who was not lone. Saying "lone nut on the grassy knoll" can be paraphrased roughly as "I don't know what the f*ck I am talking about.")

## mancow is a double agant

yes! i caught that the first time i saw it! "lone nut on the grassy knoll"! maybe it is a code. maybe mancow is letting us know he is on our side. he does the shill thing just enough to get on fox but he let's truth slip through. even his "rebuttals" were completely absurd. he really refutes nothing just makes himself look ridiculous. maybe he is satirizing the fox crowd. he is a double agent.....

## Kevin Smith did a great

Kevin Smith did a great job.
He was very calm and collected in the thick of battle.
Aaron Russo is like this also.
It is a very good quality in such debates.
His calmness and civility ruled the conversation and had to be noticed by those watching.
Mancow seemed pretty tame to me. Kind of like a little kid trying to act like the bully.
And it was amazing that Mancow allowed Kevin to speak.
Allowing the 911 truther to speak has been missing with other 911 interviewers on these types of stations.

## Yeah, because he let KS speak....

...I'll bet he didn't, in John Winston Lennon's words, "pass the audition" for Faux...

.....they can't let that happen on a consistent basis....O'Reilly/Fetzer is their ideal "exchange".....

## The 9/11 Conspiracy of

The 9/11 Conspiracy of Incompetence

http://www.alternet.org/story/44351

## Hey, kevin did great, this

Hey, kevin did great, this is big exposure. The only thing that threw me was that machine gun and congress thing. I wasn't familiar with what he was talking about. Can anyone explain what he meant? It probably appeared to the people new to the information that he had a crazy brain fart for a second. What was he talking about?

First off, Kevin Smith did a really great job. Very respectful, very confident, hit some of the most important points in the short time he had--bravo!

The firefighter Mr. Harvey(?) is also to be commended for the way he kept his cool, explained honestly and without any bombast what his issues were, and took the high road when Mancow tried to goad him into becoming upset.

Were batting 1000 so far. But this Mancow... You know, if he were on our side, he'd certainly be catching flak for hurting the movement. He's rude, disrespectful (comparing William Rodriguez to the Fox News janitor? Come on. People are going to read about Willie's undeniable heroism and want to take a crap on Mancow's face.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are winning. There was a shill who approached me a couple of times in the street who seems like he may have been testing some of the tactics Mancow was using--making a joke out of everything, injecting bigfoot and UFOs into the discussion with that same pretend seriousness that Mancow thinks is so funny... Nothing they try is going to work.

Finally what gets me the most is this whole idea of people making money off of 9/11. Forget for a moment about United 93, the fictional account of that day. Forget about WTC. Forget about the books written by people with no nobler intention than milking people's emotional connection to the events. WHO is using the 9/11 issue to sell advertising on Fox network? You guessed it--the Mancow himself.

You know what though? I think Mr. Harvey was starting to feel a bit icky being next to him. The story is as old as time--there's nothing like getting close to a media whore and smelling the slime oozing out of every pore to make an honest and upstanding person like Mr. Harvey seems to be wake up to the reality behind the glitz of the screen. He'll no doubt be checking out the facts for himself--as will many of Mancow's viewers--and yet another media turd will drop into the cesspool of eternal shame to be flushed away forever by the new consciousness that is now rising.

____

## OMG! Alex Jones makes like

OMG! Alex Jones makes like 50cents for each DVD sold on Amazon... 50 cents!

How many untold BILLIONS have these corporate robber barons made since 9/11.

Silverstein?

Halliburton?

Blackwater?

The entire Homeland Security Industry that came into existence specifically from 9/11?

CAI?

I mean come on?

## You never cease

You never cease to discredit the 9/11 Truth [sic] Movement with your irrationality, Real Truther. Are you sure you\'re not a gubmint disinfo agent? You\'re soing such a great job at it.

Now you guys are posting this and getting points of approval for it: How the three wtc towers were demolished by energy beams

Gotta love it.

## Shows content comment

Not bad, They pretty much gave Kevin his chance to say his piece. And they were polite. I don't have any problem with his treatment.
Mancow is an enertainer. His topics have to be entertaining. Personally I find 9/11 research fascinating. There is huge entertainment value in this topic. It's a rabbit hole that just won't quit.
My point is maybe this subject could be made more pallatable and accessable by making it more entertaining to the general public. This is just and idea.

____

## How does a Tom Arnold

How does a Tom Arnold wannabe get a tv show in the first place? LOL

## sleep with Roseanne?

i mean, that WAS what tom arnold did no?

____

## GO MANCOW!

He has to be a closet truther. That show was so terrible for him if he isn't a truther. He could have edited, smeared, and censored Kevin to death. He could have pulled an O'Hannibaugh and not let him say a thing. Why didn't he?

It's just like that south park show. Lot's of fluff, but lot's of information as well. Too much... Why else would Mancow let Kevin say so much unless he's a closet truther? I listened to him on the AJ show, and I couldn't stand him. He was being a total pos, using every pathetic trick in the book to avoid focusing on any issue of substance. But on that prime time tv clip, he wasn't like that at all. Bigfoot? The grassy knoll? He was too obvious with the straw men. Mancow is gonna get himself canned if he doesn't do a better job shilling! lol.

## Mancow does not himself believe the official story

Mancow does not himself believe the official story. That's what I think.

Why? Because on the Alex Jones show last week he used every trick in the book to avoid answering any of the issues or questions about 9/11. He simply diverted attention, made jokes, and did everything to avoid addressing the issues. He at one point almost pleaded with Alex to not be too hard on him because he wanted to make his career grow. So Mancow is at minimum afraid of the truth, and quite possibly believes that the official story is a lie but will not say so because of his career.

## Folks, Ever wonder why the

Folks,

Ever wonder why the roofs of federal govn't buildings (or buildings nearby) tend to collapse?

Pentagon
WTC 1
WTC 2
The Murrah Federal Building*

Hint: How much of our tax dollars went (or still goes) to the Star Wars program?

*Fertilizer exploded so the story goes.

## I am starting to get the

I am starting to get the feeling that this Mancow guy is pulling a fast one on Fox News. I think there is a very good possibility that he is faking his stated disbelief in the so-called conspiracy theories. Like a virus that fools it's host, he has infiltrated Fox News, and is replicating little 911 factoids, while all the while claiming to vehemently oppose such such beliefs. His schtick is so obviously shallow as to be almost intentional. Who knows?

## Probably true

But he won't be able to do much for 9/11 truth for long if he gets picked up again by Fox, or else they'll catch on. They might have already figured he's no good for Fox.

## exactly. i agree. mancow's

exactly. i agree. mancow's sarcasm didn't seem at all authentic. it was too much of a caricature of the real fox zealots. but shit, i guess if he is a conscientious mole for the truth movement we shouldn't be blowing his cover, huh?

## Kevin's the King!

OK, it was entertaining, but don't ever make me watch another Fox production again, -deal?

## Mancow

mancow is no slouch. he's a pretty clever guy. i get the very strong feeling watching this that he actually has some sympathy for the truth movement. he never really tries to throw a spanner in the works. in fact, on a couple of occasions he gives smith a real hand up. at one point he asks the fireman "have you ever seen a building come down like that?" which allows smith to table the crucial fact that nothing similar has ever happened before or since. now, where did that question come from? its pointedness and crucial relevance are diametrically opposed to mancow's empty neo-con posturing in the majority of the segment. it seems highly unlikely to me that such a question just popped into his head by chance. i suspect he's done some research, that he understands the inflammtory nature of some of the questions, and perhaps is willing to play the o'rielly apprentice buffoon in order to get some of this stuff on fox. at another point he framed another of the main problems of the official view in precisely the way that truthers frame it when he said a friend of his asked him in incredulous tones: "so you think some guy in a cave in afghanistan had the wherewithal to pull this off?" can you imagine o'rielly admitting he has friends who ask him questions like that? if mancow's friends are asking him questions like that, then it seems to me he must have a deeper grasp of the key problems than his buffoonery on this segment would lead us to believe. but even if that's so, it could still be the case that he's simply exploiting the divisive nature of the questions to get some good early ratings for his show. it might be naive of me to think this guy has some scruples. but something about that segment seemed out of whack to me...

Show "Mancow knows how to let someone speak" by Anonymous (not verified)

## Second-take

Maybe you are giving too much credit where credit is due. Sometimes, the pressure of going live causes us to reveal our subliminal programming...

Perhaps it went more like this: "Whatever you do, Mancow, don't ask the fireman if he ever saw a building collapse at free-fall speed. -Got it?" ...errrr!!

Recently, I tried to read the official biography on Ruppert Madman. Actually I was just looking for that specific comment he had made in the 1994, "We Can Achieve World Domination!" - Global Board Meeting. Of course, the ABC (AustralianBroadcastingCorp.) -televised event was ommitted entirely, (vis-a-vie, Building #7.) The book does present all sorts of duplicitous and original Murdoch political scams, some of which may be pertinent to discuss in light of the post 9/11 Faux-News- NWO environment we confront today.

But, more importantly, we can all see that it does little good for any of us to become veritable 'scholars' of 9/11 Truth, as the real problems we face go unanswered. Like "United for Peace & Justice," the last thing America needs is another helpless 'feel good' -group!

..."If you're ready to go the next level" ( tounge in AC outlet,) check out this primer in the nefarious underpinnings of the CFR, Skull & Bones, Trilateral Commission, etc. After you've finished, I truly doubt you will come back here 'whining' about the need for yet another 'real' investigation.

-Suffice it to say, we do know the truth about 9/11, and we don't want to witness Chapter II.

Show "Education for 9/11 Truthers" by Anonymous (not verified)

## Oh my god! That was so

Oh my god! That was so enlightening! I think my brain is about to explode from having my eyes opened to the truth behind 9/11 Truth! Thank you, kind sir!

Give me a break, man. A lot of us here are at least 140 IQ. I know a lot of you brainwashed Nazis like to pretend that we're all mentally unstable individuals trying to help terrorists. It's cool, though. I understand it's a survival mechanism for your farce of a reality, and you're just doing what any mindless robot would do to defend that reality.

Honestly, I feel sorry for people like you. You're all going to be totally unprepared mentally, physically, and financially when times get even worse. If you're a Christian, I'm sure you know that pride is one of the seven deadly sins. I think a lot of us swallowed our pride to get to this point. I know I did. As long as people like you continue to put selfish pride for yourselves and your country ahead of mankind's progression, you will be putting yourselves at great risk.

Show "You just gave yourself away" by Anonymous (not verified)

## Umm as it stands there is

Umm as it stands there is not a coherant collapse theory provided by NIST.
As it stands there is no theory other than a CD that exhibits the 10 characteristics of a CD.
This is unprecedented and the mainstream explanation is to say Al-Qauedia did it.
CTers have a pretty simple case here.
And look at the effect of the event. This was no accident. These towers didnt just happen to come down. They came down as part of a script. If these towers had just stood there, you would have had a fraction of the effect.

Show "As it stands...." by Anonymous (not verified)

## so what happened to those

so what happened to those towers and what the hell happened on 9/11?

Amazing.

## Actually I don't. For the

Actually I don't. For the record explain it to everyone since we are so misguided.

## I don't know....the guy with

I don't know....the guy with the crazed look in his eyes was the guy in the middle. Take a fuckin' pill, dude.

## Uh...

You are correct about the intelligence of the 9/11 Truthers.

When someone comes in to attack and uses the "only dumb people can believe conspiracies" then you know they are reaching. From what this shill has been saying he obviously has not looked at the facts or understands science.

Only people who can see the big picture get it.

This shill(s), intellectually, is bring a spoon to a gun fight.

9/11 was not the main deal - it was only a symptom of the NWO.

The fight has just begun...

## Too bad you have to do the work

Plenty of smart people believe in 9/11 conspiracies too. They are the ones who who con the gullible into believing nonsense. They are the leaders of the \"9/11 Truth [sic] Movement\" and you are part of the sheep.

It still comes down to the basic fact that you have to provide a preponderance evidence that completely refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus of what happened on 9/11. As we\'ve seen over and over, none of you can or do. Just look at how Jon Gold has REFUSED to provide any evidence here to back up his assertion that \"9/11 was an inside job.\"

## Hmm, I've Seen This Faux Tactic Before.

"FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128...

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/11/15/live_desk_follows_script_of_fox_news...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750535/

And the Shills say WE'RE the 'kooks', LOL. Look who's feeding you your opinions...

## Banned

I posted a link to this thread on www.mancow.org in thee "Lounge" on their message boards and they banned me!

somone stop by and drop some truth on them.... keep it short and sweet.... I'm sure they all have ADD

## haha Mancows arguments and

haha Mancows arguments and counter claims are that bad it's got people wondering if he himself actually thinks it's an inside job and is just posing as a skeptic, thats how bad his rebutals were, all he could do was throw insults and lame slogans "conspiricy nutjobs" .....the skeptics really do need to adopt a different approach because everyones seen through your Bll O' Reilly type attack dog methods, something radical like actually answering the questions would be nice, instead of insinuating we believe in bigfoot and alians kidknapping Elvis.

back to the drawing board skeptics.

## Referring to brainwashed true-believer types as skeptics

is a misuse of language.

looks like the video was pulled from Google Video and YouTube as reported on the Alex Jones radio show at 2:46pm EST.

## Ha! Look at the the

Ha! Look at the the mancowards run! They were defeated on Faux News. This just proves Kevin was that much better than the mancoward shills.

## HA!

New Bond Film Highlights 9/11 Insider Trading

In a twenty first century update, the new James Bond Movie, Casino Royale, directly references 9/11 and highlights the fact that massive manipulation of airline stocks prior to the attacks account for a leading motive behind the event. The movie, based on the original 1953 novel, has been updated with a terrorism plotline.
The movie contains a significant reference to 9/11 when M, the fictional head of MI6, tells Bond the following:

"When they analyzed the stock market after 9/11 the CIA discovered there had been massive shorting of airline stocks. When the stocks hit bottom on 9/12, somebody made a fortune."
http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/201106Bond.htm

## "...The CIA discovered there

"...The CIA discovered there had been massive shorting of airline stocks..." What took them so long to discover this? Doesn't the CIA moniter the stock market in real time? How could such an obvious anomaly such as the massive increase of put option purchases for two major airlines go unnoticed? Who was responsible for these put option purchases? Why are their identities being withheld? Question upon question remains unanswered.

## BREAKING at RawStory-

Court orders FBI to disclose post-9/11 Bin Laden,
Saudi royal flights out of the US... Developing...

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=76634

To: National Desk

Contact: Jill Farrell of Judicial Watch, 202-646-5188

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to submit "proper disclosures" to the Court and Judicial Watch by December 15, 2006 concerning the U.S. government's evacuation of Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family from the United States immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In an analysis of the FBI documents produced to date, Roberts criticizes the adequacy of redaction descriptions, the accuracy of the sworn statement submitted with the documents, the validity of exemption claims, and other errors in the FBI's disclosures. Roberts' order also denied the U.S. government's request for summary judgment in Judicial Watch's lawsuit filed under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security & Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 04-1643 (RWR)) Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on Oct. 7, 2003.

"The FBI's 220-page annotated production and accompanying...Declaration together do not, as they must, provide sufficient detail or precision about the withheld information...the FBI's motion for summary judgment will be denied and the FBI will be directed to file disclosures that fairly meet the requirements of (court precedent)," wrote Judge Roberts, noting that one particular FBI exemption argument "strains credulity."

Judicial Watch previously released a declassified "Secret" FBI report, dated September 24, 2003, entitled: "Response to October 2003 Vanity Fair Article (Re: (Redacted) Family Departures After 9/11/2001)." The report contains many redactions that the Justice Department claims were made in the privacy interests of the Saudi subjects identified in the report. New information detailing flights of Saudis out of the U.S. from Las Vegas, and Providence, RI are also in the report, as well as FBI procedures in processing the Saudi flights. It is apparent from the report that Bin Laden family members and Saudi royals were subject to only cursory, pro forma questioning by the FBI prior to their evacuation from the United States.

"We're pleased the court refuses to allow the FBI to cover its tracks by playing games with the open records process," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The American people have a right to know why Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family received special treatment in the days after 9/11."

To read the court order, and all other documents concerning the Saudi flights, visit Judicial Watch's Internet site, http://www.judicialwatch.org.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

## Here's the Deal

Mancow is a WANNABE that knows where his paycheck is.
He has zero personality of his own so he takes on roles and does things that he knows will make him money. For all we know he probably doubts the official story himself, but he can make a helluva lot more money on Fox just doing what he's told than to come out as a truther on some campaign.

Mancow is a media whore that will not step out of line. He lives in fear.

We all need to step up and be the opposite of Mancow. Let this video be an example of the kind of robots we are up against. There isn't anyone on this board that isn't more intelligent and more honest with themselves.

We've got them running. Keep up the pressure!

## Bravo

Bravo Kevin.
Mancow is completely transparent.
Count how many times he says that 9/11 conspiracies are "Big Business".
Yeah Mancow, huge business. DVDs, T-Shirts and bumper stickers.
The best part about it is Mancow knows he got owned and his bosses at Fox are going to be pissed.
He was on AJ's show last week triying to ridicule Kevin. All he wanted to talk about was how much of a dipshit Kevin was.
Kevin was poised and classy and didn't respond to MCs childish attacks.
After seeing the footage, it's apparent why Manfag was so angry.
Kevin ruined his shot at the big time and he knows it.
Stick to the titty bars Mancow. You proved you can't hang.

## HAAAAAA Mancow!

MC "This government can't keep anything secrert"
Kevin (immediately) "They kept the Manhattan Project secret"
MC (realizing he just got shut down and watching his career vanish before his eyes) "let's talk about 9/11, they kept 9/11 secret..."

Classic

## Hey

hahah so true...i honestly don't think he's ever responded sensibly to anything that has been said to him about 9/11.
Then again, i haven't heard much of this guy (thank god).

## "They call it Programming for a Reason"

Another classic/perfect Kevin response that is a favorite of mine from this bit...surprised that made the cut...

And, as was pointed out by someone else, Mancow did us one big, big favor: asking the Fireman Harvey if he "had ever seen buildings come down like that before?" Mr. Harvey, of course, said "No".

## DESPERATION...

Does anyone else sense this from the FOX broadcast?

This was a cheap shot at Kevin. He was spoken to like a lone nut who read a conspiracy theory off the Internet. But Kevin is right, and to me, only came across as a knowledgeable and informed reporter. Madcow, on the otherhand, sounded like a a highschool linebacker with nothing else to contribute but crying and desperate cheap shots.

I happened to like this coverage. Kevin got in a lot of good points and FAUX, once again, sounded like a bunch of sore loser fools who have lost the battle and have nothing else to do but cry in their soup! The MSM is either incredibly naive, or must truly feel threatened.

This is a huge win. A big F...f'ing...U to FAUX!

And why hasn't 9/11 been the healine story in the MSM? Shucks, even my pet rock can answer that one!

## Madcow's Just Playing it Safe...

He know's who's putting his food on the floor...and he's well trained not to bite their hand.

## We need a nickname for

We need a nickname for Mancow that more fits his personality. Which do you guys like better: Madcow or Mancoward?

I think I prefer the minimalism of just switching that one letter.

manchow?

## I agree on calling him Madcow...

Its catchy and it fits if he seriously believes the the lies after drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid.

I don't think he does though.

I think he is purposefully helping our movement get the truth out by acting like a Fox shill but doing so in such a way it let Kevin get out a ton of points uninterrupted and when Madcow did talk he was so obnoxious and over the top and unreasonable any honest viewer watching would come away with thinking Kevin won which may of been Madcow's intent all along.

Madcow lost the entire patriot crowd and there is more of us than the NWO can imagine.

---------------------

Fox News Ratings Plummet...

Eat The Press | Rachel Sklar | Posted August 29, 2006 09:20 PM
READ MORE: Bill O'Reilly, Fox News

Somewhere, Keith Olbermann is sticking pins in a Bill O'Reilly voodoo doll: Fox News' ratings, TVNewser reports, are down since August of last year. Like, way down. Like down 28 percent in primetime among all viewers, down 20 percent in primetime in the "money demo" (viewers aged 25-54) and down 7 percent in daytime viewership overall. In fact, the only place Fox is up is during the day, when they managed a ratings increase of just 2 percent, and even then only in the money demo.

And lest you think this is an industry-wide trend, consider this: over the same time period, CNN and MSNBC are up. CNN's up 35 percent during the day -- 46 percent in the money demo -- and up 21 percent in primetime overall, 25 percent in the money demo. MSNBC's ratings increases aren't quite as impressive -- up 6 percent in primetime overall, 8 percent in the money demo, and up 36 percent in the money demo during the day, 26 percent overall.

## I am not feeling that. I

I am not feeling that. I think madcow just wants the cash he is getting from Faux News. He would be the first to laugh at Alex if he ever is arrested on false charges. Madcow should be fed to the madcows!

## It must be a conspiracy, eh?

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.