Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Hate Mail


Hate Mail - (no subject)

Sender: William Whitten <>
Subject: (no subject)
Type: Corrections
Added: Jun 09, 2011
Sent to: Editing Committee

"Okay--how hard would it have been to simply fake those manifests, and
release ones that do include the hijackers'"


"The hijackers weren't victims, they were perpetrators; and
furthermore, if you do look at what are the real passenger manifests
(you can download the one from Flight 77 here) you will find the
hijackers on them."~Muertos

You have left yourself mid-air here Muertos.

And when I hear all this whiny shit about "tin hat conspiracy nuts", I
am compelled to remind of one of the greatest conspiracy theorists of
all, Thomas Jefferson, and his famous conspiracy charges against the
Crown of England in 1776.

Why is this forgotten? Because of the way in which history is framed
in the modern Public Relations Regime.



I assume you're talking about my "sacred list" blog.

Actually you have it backwards. If you assume that the real passenger manifests (which contain the names of the hijackers) are faked, then the conspiracy theorists can't point to the victims lists (which exclude the hijackers) as anything significant. Therefore, why even make the argument that the victim lists are some sort of "admission"?

Your point about Thomas Jefferson is not apposite. First of all, belief by colonial politicians that the crown and Parliament were engaged in a political "conspiracy" against the American colonies is not analogous to belief in unsupportable theories like "9/11 was an inside job." They're simply two different things. Second, to the extent Jefferson and other colonials had those beliefs, as a matter of fact they were incorrect. What colonists perceived as a "conspiracy" against them was a misperception of the political and economic motives of British politicians. So, your attempt to justify lunacy like "9/11 Truth" by appealing to Thomas Jefferson is ridiculous.

I have no idea what a "modern Public Relations Regime" is, so that argument is nonsensical.

>I have never pointed to the 'victims lists' as significant. And it doesn't matter in relation to the point I made to you as to the rhetorical possiblities of faking a manifest. It is indeed possible and quite probable.
>To assert that the 'theories' are "unsupportable" is absurd.

>It is hardly ridiculous to claim that the Declaration of Independence is a charge of conspiracy to reduce the colonies to slavery. That the founding scholars understood the systemic nature of this conspiracy, "the political and economic motives of British politicians", and also the Crown and its bank and the corporations that had grown up around it.
Whether the term used is "conspiracy theory" or "systemic analysis" is
a matter of the defamation of a perfectly reasonable term, a legal
term; "conspiracy."
>It is only "nonsensical," to those who are ignorant of social engineering and the use of Public Relations for 'perception manipulation' of the mass mind of the populace of this nation.

Public Relations is a term coined by Edward Bernays, the author of the
slim volume titled PROPAGANDA. Bernays is known in the corporat
advertizing world as "the Father of Spin."

"Conspiracy Theorists' Top 10 Misconceptions of Debunkers"

>Translation; Top 10 Strawmen for Debunkers



"In short, it has nothing to do with a supposed dearth of evidence.
It has everything to do with prosecutorial strategy regarding how, and
particularly where, a suspect is indicted."~Muertos

This directly contradicts what FBI public relations man Rex Tomb
explained in his phone interview. He explained that the Justice
Department did not think there was enough evidence against bin Laden
for an indictment for the attacks on 9/11. It is therefore only your
misinformed assumption pertaining to "prosecutorial strategy."



As to the subject of forged documents:

The agency has been linked to the assassination in 1963 of Ngo Dinh
Diem, the then president of South Vietnam, and of his brother Nhu. The
Diems were killed in October 1963. [The coup de grace came on November

During the summer of 1971 Charles Colson and E. Howard Hunt, among
others, were interested in seeing what could be done to forge and
alter official State Department messages to make it appear that
President John F. Kennedy was directly implicated in these
[ Colson admits this in his own book, THE ENDS OF POWER]

This is an important point. If the White House wanted so badly to tie
in a dead president to that plot, it must have known then that
President Kennedy was not involved and that records proved that he

The timing of this "dirty tricks" project is interesting.
In 1963 Hunt was an active CIA agent and was deeply involved with the
then former Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles, whom
Kennedy had fired.


Sheeple Argument.

The use of the word "sheeple" is derived from a take off on the title
of the 1961 book by William J. Lederer, A NATION OF SHEEP.

In this volume Lederer documents the staging of "wag the dog"
operations in South East Asia, particularly in Laos and the bordering
areas of Vietnam. He shows how 'reports' on these staged events are
manipulated by the intelligence services to eventually filter back
into the western press as a political propaganda tool.

Lerderer was the co-author of the best seller THE UGLY AMERICAN.

While I am not in the habit of using the term "sheeple", the benifits
and deficits of the concept can be discussed if you chose.

Well, here you are spending all afternoon explaining why I am wrong in asserting that the conspiracy theories that you believe in do not, in fact, have any basis in fact.

There is not a single piece of evidence indicating the existence of a government conspiracy to do the 9/11 attacks. Not a single one. Oh sure, there are plenty of made-up falsehoods (like the "4000 Jews stayed home" crap or "the hijackers are still alive"), misperceptions (like your "sacred lists" arguments, "so-and-so heard explosions" testimony, etc.), quotes taken out of context (like the violence that conspiracy theorists like to do to quotes of 9/11 Commission Report members), bad science ("iron microspheres," etc.), faulty arguments ("free-fall speed") and straw men ("jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough"). But not a single shred of actual evidence. Yet there are mountains of evidence that Al Qaida's 19 hijackers did it, and contrary to the belief of conspiracy theorists, very few of those pieces of evidence originated from the government--in fact, the vast majority of what happened on 9/11 is provable and verifiable from non-government sources, as I amply demonstrate in my article "9/11, What Do We Know?"

As for the prosecutorial strategy, I am a former attorney, so I'd like to think I know a little bit more about that than perhaps the normal lay person does. Are you an attorney by any chance? If so, what law school did you go to and how many years did you spend practicing law?

I don't even know what your assertions about what the CIA did or said in 1963 are supposed to mean regarding 9/11, or anything else for that matter.

So, what else am I supposedly wrong about? Aren't you going to accuse me of being a paid government disinformation agent, as many of your fellow conspiracy theorists have done? Or perhaps my brain has been addled by fluoridated water, or they put an RFID chip in me when they supposedly sent me to a FEMA camp to have a swine flu vaccination. Right?

The truth of the matter is that NIST refutes itself. The modeling of
the "collapse" is only to the point of what NIST refers to as
"initiation", that is the point at which the upper stories supposedly
collapse straight down onto the remaining intact building.
By it's own admission NIST did NOT model the collapse of the entire
structure. It was their mandate to discover how it was that the towers
and bldg 7 were destroyed. They failed to do so completely.
It is a misnomer to refer to their modeling to a point of "initiation"
if what is initiated is not proven.

But this assertion by NIST that the upper stories crashed straight
down like a giant piston is debunked by the visual evidence itself.
This evidence is legion and shows that the upper portion is turned to
dust and fractured beams being ejected laterally from the very
beginning of the event.
This view is backed up by the physical evidence shown in the FEMA
Debris Map which shows that no more than 10 percent of the heavy
debris ended up within the footprint of either tower., with the major
portions of it strewn across the entire 13 acre complex and beyond.
And the concrete was literally blown all over Manhattan.

That NIST was compromised by political pressures is impossible to
discount in view of this utter failure to provide a complete analysis
of the total destruction of those buildings.

This is just a simple preview of the problems of the NIST
investigation. There are more technical repudiations as well.


Somehow I lost the beginning of the last post which was a preamble to
the remarks about NIST. I will reconstruct as best I can here.
>I brought up the issue about the forging of documents by inside agents in the government {Halderman} for the simple reason of establishing that in is in no way novel for such tactics to be used. This relates to the possibility of forged manifests and I said so in my email.
>No, not at all, I do not want this conversation to be based in animus at all.
I am not accusing you of anything but being wrong.

"iron microspheres"

>No undetonated thermitic material.

"free-fall speed"

>As the event took place in the atmosphere and not a vacuum, this argument is misconstrued by both "Truthers" and "Debunkers"--but as a matter of physics the fact the the buildings 'collapsed' at all is impossible, let alone in less than a minute.
>Well this is simply a fact, and even NIST makes the point that the fires were never any hotter than a common office fire.
But this leaves the problem of melted steal in the basements which is
verifiable fact.

"As for the prosecutorial strategy, I am a former attorney.."

I only brought up "prosecutorial strategy" in relation to the
statements from the FBI concerning the reasons that bin Laden was not
charged with the attacks on 9/11.
That you are an attorney is neither here nor there to me. But for any
attempts at appeals to authority, of course.

I had also mentioned that I am independent--I have all the time in the
world to do whatever I wish. If you have time constraints, that is
fully appreciated.
You can answer or not anytime you wish to.

Yours, Willy Whitten

Willy, one of your problems is that you're focusing obsessively on small pieces of the story rather than comprehending 9/11 as a whole.

Your analysis regarding the NIST report is incorrect. However, even if it wasn't, the conclusion that 9/11 was done by Al Qaeda without help from the US government (or Israeli, depending on which faction of the conspiracy underground you follow) does not depend on the NIST report anyway.

I make this point strongly in my article here which sets out the proof regarding 9/11 without reference to government sources. Therefore, what we know about 9/11 does not depend on what NIST did or did not test, or how you construe those tests.

CIA wrongdoing -- this argument is fallacious. You assume that because the CIA supposedly did something bad in 1963, that makes it more likely that they were involved in 9/11. That argument is nonsensical because not all forms of government wrongdoing are equivalent. This is why I'm not impressed when conspiracy theorists throw crap at me like "Operation Northwoods" (not a conspiracy theory anyway, but whatever) or mention coups that the CIA was involved in during the 1950s or 1960s. It simply has no bearing on 9/11.

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough -- I lose brain cells whenever conspiracy nuts use this ridiculous argument. First of all, there was a lot more burning in the towers than just jet fuel. What about paper, carpet, wood, plastic, wallboard, insulation, and human bodies? Secondly, the structural instability of the WTC was not caused by melting steel. Conspiracy nuts consistently get this argument wrong. Steel becomes structurally unstable at a much lower temperature than its melting point. The steel did not melt, it became structurally unstable. There's a difference. Pointing to "molten steel underneath the WTC rubble" won't help you with this either because what they actually found there was remnants of molten aluminum, not steel (the assertion that it was steel comes entirely from conspiracy theorists in order to skew the issue). Therefore, the whole "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough" idea is simply laughable.

Bin Laden not charged -- I stand by my analysis 100%. Bin Laden was not indicted with 9/11 because it was legally more advantageous to charge him with other crimes for which it was thought to offer the maximum flexibility to prosecutors. This happens every single day with ordinary criminal defendants. Plus, you have not refuted the central portion of my argument regarding "sacred lists," which is that it is ludicrous to assume that stuff like this is in any way an "admission" by guilty parties. Until you can refute that argument, this assertion by you simply has no validity whatsoever.

There is not a single shred of evidence that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

Not a single shred.

I urge you again to look at my article where I lay out quite specifically the proof that 9/11 happened exactly the way most people understand it, which is that it was done by Al Qaeda's hijackers, coordinated by Osama bin Laden, with no help from the US or Israeli governments:

I would suggest, if you want to continue arguing the fantasy that 9/11 was an inside job, you refute the arguments I made in that article rather than rehashing tired talking points from conspiracy nutbars like Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin which were debunked 7 years ago.

>This is mere assertion. Is this really the way you wish to argue this, by empty pronouncement?

"..what we know about 9/11 does not depend on what NIST did or did not
>I am familiar with every aspect of the case. I have been an intelligence analyst for some 40 years. I knew that this was a systemic false flag operation on day one simply following the 'script' as it unfolded on the media.

"CIA wrongdoing -- this argument is fallacious..." [and the rest of this stanza]

>It has absolute bearing on 9/11, as the event is not substantially different than any other nefarious activities of the system in anything other than scale.
>No fire can burn or start a fire of materials that are of a flashpoint higher than the fire around it. None of the materials you mention can possibley affect steel without creating the conditions available in a blast furnace. Such conditions were simply not available in the towers.

>Lets can the condensending remarks at this point. Alright? I am well aware of the physics involved in this. You make one glaring error in these matters, and that is that the structural weaknesses you point to only apply to the stories that had the actual fires.
The entire structure beneath should have been in pristine
condition--no structural weakening at all can be postulated for the
lower stories of either tower.

And again, as the visual evidence clearly shows, the upper stories did
not fall straight down on them as a massive piston. Look at the
pictures yourself--if the plumes and heavy materials are not the mass
of the upper stories, what do you propose they are?

Now, if you want to get into al Qaeda, you cannot begin on 9/11, you
must go back to the late 70s when the Soviets were propping up a
puppet regime.

This history is not secret, the machinations of Brzezinski in the
creation of the Mujaheddin fighting force that became al Qaeda [a
reference to the 'computer base' listing such fighters] It must be
taken into consideration that these groups are the creation of western
intelligence from that point forward.

Your problem is you don't know the history hidden beneath what finally
manifest in the 9/11 "attacks".
You wish to hand wave the entire history of false flag operations, and
in doing so put yourself in a false perspective.

Continuing to refer to Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin as
"conspiracy nutbars" is simple argumentum ad hominem. The assertions
that you have debunked them seven years ago I see as quite a display
of hubris.
Tit for tat, aye?

I will read your article "what-do-we-know", and you can be sure I will
return with a critique of it.

Until then, sweet dreams, W. Whitten


Alright Los, I have read the first page, it is passable--but other
possiblilities exist and I will bring them to you shortly.

I am as certain as you, two aircraft hit the two towers. Yet there
are, outside of this prosecutorial brief, other testimonies and
evidences that may be brought to the bench {as it were}

It is when we get to the second page however that the dispute arrises
in earnest.
And I will make a full accounting of those disputes as time allows.

Meanwhile I will continue reading your brief.



I had written this before your last response, and decided to hold off
on it until I addressed your latest.
But here it is for what it is worth:

"I use the George Washington example. I know that George Washington
was the first President of the United States. If asked to, I can
prove that fact is true."~Los

>But, you must add the caveat that Washington was the first president of the United States *under the new constitution*. There were several Presidents of the Continental Congress and three Presidents of the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

If you leave out real history, even by subtle defaults such as this
one, how reliable are the rest of your arguments? This may seem
esoteric to you, but I am making the point, that as a lawyer your
comprehension of history, of physics, of engineering may be equally as
flawed as they are all subtle crafts and knowledge.


Well, you know, its funny that you mention that. I quit the practice if law to go back to school to get an MA in U.S. history. I am quite familiar with the so-called "presidents" of the Confederation Congress, and I happen to know that they are not analogous in any way to the head of the executive branch that was created anew in 1789.

So, since you can't use that argument, what else do you have?

I have no need of an argument other than your use of the term "so-called".
If you consider the United States as beginning in 1789, and disregard
the previous history on rhetorical basis, that is up to you.
They certainly didn't have the same extant of powers as the
Constitutional grant, I will go along with you there.

I have a critique of the following, which I anticipate will end our
dialog as I cannot help but be candidly harsh in my appraisal, as I
consider it a piece of lawyerly doublespeak/Newspeak and spurious.


[1]Conspiracy theorists almost always conflate and confuse real
examples of government or corporate secrecy or wrongdoing with
perceived examples. [2] They ignore the differences, which are
important. To them, the fact that anybody, anywhere in government
suggested or successfully took a covert or illegal action makes it
more likely that someone must have in some other case--even if the
transgression in the past is proven, and the one the conspiracy
theorist believes happened is not. [3]There's also a difference in
scale and result. If the CIA did something that was dishonest 50
years ago that was comparatively minor in scope and didn't result in
any deaths or crimes being committed, a conspiracy theorist will use
the small long-ago transgression to "demonstrate" that it's likely the
CIA would be willing to commit murder or criminal activity on a vast

Let's take an example. Conspiracy theorists love [4]Operation
Northwoods. This was a plan proposed by some military brass in a 1962
document which would have had the CIA fake terrorist incidents and
blame them on Cuban forces, thus building public support for U.S.
military action against Cuba. [5]President John F. Kennedy rejected
the plan out of hand and the officer who suggested it was later
relieved of his command. [6]The document was not declassified until

[7] Why is this not a conspiracy theory? Well, first off, it was
rejected; it never got off the ground. [8]Second, it was not even
known about until the 1990s. [9] It's not like some conspiracy
theorists were sitting around in 1962, batting scenarios around and
someone said, "Hmm, you know, I bet the CIA is planning to stage
false-flag attacks against the U.S. to justify an invasion of Cuba!"
and then magically, 36 years later, a document drops out of the sky
that proves this speculation was correct all along.


I'm going to be just flat out candid here, because this whole stanza
that I refer to has got to be one of the biggest loads of doublespeak
bullshit I have ever encountered.
perceived examples."

>What the fuck are you saying here? If it is real conspiracy then it isn't a real conspiracy, it is merely "government or corporate secrecy or wrong doing"??? yea, this is legally pigally bullshit, "always conflate"...Always?? Such a gross generalization is remarkable coming from a supposedly intelligent and learned barrister.

[2a] "They ignore the differences, which are important. To them, the
have in some other case--[2b] even if the transgression in the past is
proven, and the one the conspiracy theorist believes happened is not."

[2a]>If any other criminal enterprise, say the mafia were attended to
in this fashion, it might be argued, as J. edger Hoover argued that
"there is no such thing as the mafia." You are attempting to separate
the systemic criminal enterprise that is the CIA, and pretend that the
individual characters within that org., even at high managerial levels
are simply acting on their own.

[2b]> This is the same pretense--that you KNOW is not treated this way
in criminal law, that a history of criminality does indeed have
bearing on the probabilities of continued criminal activities by the
perpetrator. It is known as Modus operandi [and you damn well know it]
murder or criminal activity on a vast scale."

[3]>This is an asserted theoretical on your part. I certainly do not
make such blatant mistakes of reason. And this is one of the errors of
your thesis here, that "conspiracy theorist" are a contiguous mass, or
an organized system of dogmatic thinkers.
for U.S. military action against Cuba."

[4]> "Some military brass"? No, the Chiefs of Staff; the Highest
military brass. This subtle rhetorical turning is really insidious.
Yes, let us be clear here; these fake terrorist incidents were spelled
out in great detail and involved the murder of American citizens in
American cities. A false-flag air hijacking, reminiscent of a famous
later event was also envisioned in this white paper, among quite a
list of other criminal and violent activities.
[5]> Ah, end of affair. Not quite, and this will be addressed in the
further numbered responses.
[6]> The Northwoods document was released by mistake in a file that
got into the hands of James Bamford a national security researcher. It
was only declassified after Bamford made it public in the Puzzle
Palace, an expose on the NSA.
[7]> The fact that Northwoods was rejected by Kennedy had great
repercussions in the military and intelligence community. Kennedy was
seen by many as "soft on Communism", and there was dissension up and
down the ranks which was already brewing since the Bay of Pigs fiasco
in 1961, which Kennedy had inherited form the previous administration,
that had been planned with Nixon in mind as the torch bearer to
continue these covert machinations, involving plots to kill Castro
under the JMWAVE. This is linked to Operation Mongoose, which is now
viewed by researchers as a turn-around operation that led to the
assassination of Kennedy himself. Considered a coup d'etat by most
knowledgeable researchers.
One of these being Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who worked directly under
General Lansdale--the major force and probable author of the Northwoods

[8] >It wasn't known about by the public, but it was certainly known
about by the operatives themselves, especially the anti-Castro Cubans
who worked closely with Lansdale and Theodore Shackley the Miami CIA
station chief.
[9]>It is this framing of "conspiracy theory" that seems tho most
spurious and twisted of all of your remarks. Of course there would
have been interested parties with very much those sort of suspicions.
Researchers such as {*}William J. Lederer, {+}David Wise and Thomas B.
Ross, {~}John Marks, May Brussels and many others. Although I doubt if
these would consider themselves "conspiracy theorists", as the term
hadn't been skunk dipped and spun into the public consciousness at
that early time.

{*]}A Nation of Sheep, 1961

{+} The Invisible Government, 1964

{~} The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, 1979


I find it interesting that instead of trying to impeach either the facts or the reasoning in the document where I proved that 9/11 was not an inside job, the "What Do We Know" file that you seem to have not gotten more than two pages into, you'd rather try to argue that George Washington wasn't really the first president of the United States, or that some naughty thing the CIA did in 1962 somehow substitutes for evidence that they did 9/11.

You claim that conspiracy theorists are not an undifferentiated mass--yet in your own thinking you demonstrate complete congruence with the same classic reasoning errors made by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists. You focus on small details and willfully ignore the big picture. You seize upon meaningless inconsistencies and blow them up into causal factors. You sneer at the very idea of historical or logical consensus, because deep down you know that your conspiracy theorist beliefs can't hold up under the scrutiny of generally recognized principles of critical thinking and scientific inquiry.

I'm sorry that you persist in the bizarre delusion that 9/11 was some sort of government plot. It wasn't, and you haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary, but my long experience with conspiracy theorists informs me that you won't be changing your religion any time soon, and of course not because of anything I can say in the way of, you know, actual proof, which conspiracy theorists detest. Nevertheless I won't alter a single word of my blogs or articles. They remain correct so far as I know.

Thanks for writing in.

Bottom line 9/11
I think it is obvious that the World Trade Towers blew up. That is
what I saw on that day watching them go down on television. I have
never changed that opinion as everything I have seen and read since
reinforces that opinion.

It is a case of, "are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?" I
am going to believe my own eyes. I trust my own perceptions, I don't
need anyone to tell me what I see.

And this issue that NIST had a mandate only to make new
recommendations for the way buildings are constructed in the future
based on the findings of there "investigation" on the destruction of
the towers is absurd. How can they make such recommendations if they
haven't discovered what caused the destruction?
The actual mandate to NIST was to discover what the mechanism was that
caused the destruction of the towers first and foremost--as it is
obvious that one cannot make such recommendations for new building
codes unless such a determination is made as to the cause of
But NIST, by it's own admission claims that the destruction was only
modeled to the point of what they term "initiation". What then was
initiated by this "initiation"? This is not determined beyond the
point of...that's right folks, "initiation."
It is merely assumption that said "initiation" caused the total
destruction of the towers--because NIST by its own admission did not
model the destruction of the towers. So the term "initiation" is
nonsensical as it is not determined what has been initiated.
It is obvious that NIST is offering a circular argument in their report.

So what are we left with? Both sides arguing over 'witness
testimonies', what the visual evidence shows, what was heard by whom.
The whole divisive argument has it's genesis in the lack of a genuine
forensic investigation that never took place as concerns the
destruction of the WTC complex.

It is argued that there is no "proof" of an inside job by the side
known as the "Debunkers", while it is argued that there is adequate
grounds for suspicion by the "Truthers" side. And as things have
progressed the grounds for such suspicions only grows as the
government continues to prevaricate, make lame excuses and keep secret
the "evidence" claimed to prove that the official conspiracy theory of
19 Arab hijackers armed with box-cutters foiled the entire military
intelligence complex of the most powerful nation on the planet.

Otherwise intelligent people take on faith all the various assertions
of such issues as chain of evidence, excuses for the in mass
destruction of vital evidence, and lack of an honest accounting by the
military and the so called investigators. The Co-Chairs of the 9/11
Commission have themselves said publicly that their investigation was
compromised, that they were "set up to fail," that the military lied
to the commission, that they had considered charges against said
military officials, that official 'minders' were present during the
testimony of subordinate military personnel during the proceedings,
that the Bush administration was uncooperative to the point of
grandstanding, that chains of evidence were incomplete or broken with
no explanations given.
And still the "Debunkers" claim that the case for the official
conspiracy has been iron clad proven.
It has not been proven--not even close. Any reasonable observer of all
of this must surely come to the conclusion that all of these so called
investigations have been politically compromised.

I have read some of the most complex convoluted rationalizations by
these "Debunkers", who charge that it is the "Truthers" that are
making complex convoluted rationalizations, and the result is a
stalemate. Which is perfect for the perpetrators, who go on about
their nefarious business unmolested, continuing to lead the nation
deeper into a state of despotism based on obvious lies.

*****************************************************However Los,
I will finish reading your essay on "what we know", as I am always
looking for something that I may have missed.

I could say that I am sorry you persist in your bizarre delusions that
the intillegence and military defenses of the most technologically
powerful nation on the planet could possibly be breached by inept
fools with box cutters, but my long experience with true believers in
the official conspiracy theory informs me that you won't be changing
your religion any time soon...etc, and bla bla bla.

Thaks for writing back.



"The reason is clear: 'Homeland Security' (HS) is an Orwellian
misnomer. The agency is not concerned with domestic, civilian,
American security. HS is part of a military-police response to
imagined overseas threats, which have not materialized or at least
have not produced deaths comparable to tornadoes and floods in the
last 11 years."~Prof. James Petras

By golly Los, here is another fool who just doesn't get what 1984
really means on the deep deep level that only you seem to have
Bailiff, whack his peepee...Lol


This is why you will never understand the reality of the events of September 11, and why it's pointless to continue responding to you. With this statement it's very clear that your mind is made up and you have no regard for the actual facts of 9/11. You saw it "blow up" on TV and you interpreted this consistently with your conspiracy theorist mindset. You won't abandon that mindset under any circumstances, no matter how many facts or how much logical analysis is presented to demonstrate that your position is completely baseless.

I don't know how your nightmarish world of paranoia, illogic and non-sequitur works, but however it works, I'm glad I don't live there.

I'll be posting this exchange on the "Hate Mail" section of the Conspiracy Science website. If you browse some of the other entries there you may see some familiar arguments. Cheers!