On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Mr. Y wrote:
If a “news” paper does not cover something so obvious as the controlled demolition of WTC 7, that should tell you that you are subscribing to a propaganda paper controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family. If “investigative reporters” cannot see a sign right in front of their building that does not say much for their observation abilities.Newspapers don’t cover anything without evidence, and you stating something does not contitute evidence. I would suggest to you that no newspaper in the US will ever print anything you say until you have a civil engineering firm and a demolition firm to backup what you say. This is how it should be. I count on my newspapers to only print stories for which there is verification.
You say “obvious,” but I think it is obvious that the WTC7 building came down from fire. In fact, I think your arguments do not make any sense at all. Apparently the Bush-hating Village Voice—and the other five major large circulation newspapers in NYC to include the sensationalistic NY Post and NY Daily news see it my way, not yours.
The Reporters I’m sure saw the sign, but the sign does not say anything and it does not provide any evidence for any claim.
Their lack of response clearly shows that top level management has a policy against publishing anything about 9/11. And you want to read a paper that has a policy against something which 60% of Americans have questions about?
You are trying to suggest that every newspaper int country, and in NYC newspapers as utterly diverse as the Post and Village Voice and Wall Street Journal all have “top level management policies?” I think you are dreaming. If you think that why don’t you call them up and ask them? A reporter or rep from the paper will talk to you if you call. In the case of the Voice, you can call the lady and ask her if there is such a policy. See what she says. Most Journalists worth their salt won’t work for a paper that censors what they choose to write.
How about you find out why instead of making things up?
The 60% is utter nonsense. You can repeat it as often as you like. It is a ridiculous claim, and if it were true for ten percent, you’d see articles in all the papers.
For what’s on Broadway, or local crime, the NY Times is fine. But not on the most important issues, like was America fooled into war.
America was fooled into war over WMD, and that was convered extensively in the Times.
Fortunately, NY Times advertising sales have plummeted for 11 quarters straight. People can easily get objective news from Russia Today and other independent news sources.
You are claiming that in Putin’s Russia—Pussy Riot in jail for simply speaking out at a concert—you can get objective news? Dude, bullshit me all you want, but make it passingly credible. And it isn’t the Times—-dude, you can’t get into The Village Voice. Com’mon.
If you read propaganda, you will continue to be duped and say stupid things – such as “it is an empty claim” that steel should fall down. Have you been awake for your almost 60 years? Haven’t you had any experience with steel objects?
The papers and magazines I read—and I read extensively–don’t make empty claims. They back up what they say. I’m not interested in what you make up.
Go back to high school and re-take physics. You speak wacky nonsense – like “concrete has no resistance, like air”. You are so brain washed it is sad.
One way to end my “brainwashing” is to produce a civil engineering firm that will back up your claims (actually to be fair, you would need two).
I get the “Frank should believe something because Rick has stated it” argument, but I don’t buy it. Don’t see the press, academia or government buying it either.
To you, and “empty claim” is one where you are empty of any come back or logical or scientific rebuttal. You should be providing a link or explanation for how the steel got 600 feet and stuck into the AmEx Building.
Actually, I did. I gave you seven arguments, that I got from a physicist as to why the steel was thrown without explosives and then I gave you one argument from my 4th grade son that I didn’t think of. He thought what you were saying didn’t make any sense either.
But no. You wish it would go away, because you realize you have no explanation for it.
I’m not a member of the Rick makes something up and Frank has to rebutt it school of debate. I’m a member of, show me some evidence.
The gullible are devoid of any common sense understanding of the basic laws of physics.
So you keep saying.
—– Original Message —–From: Mr XTo: Mr. YSent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:16 PMSubject: Re: Billboards. Waste of money. NY Times discredits itselfThe NY Times conducted an 18 month 9-11 investigation using five of the Pulitzer Prize nvestigative Journalists in the business and in connection with the award winning Frontline series. The idea that the time would ignore that, and Scientific American, five Universities in favor of Mark Basille conducting experiments in his backyard or you making empty claims about the behavior of steel, the idea that they’d throw that out for a group that can’t be bothered hiring a civil engineering firm to check claims of mass murder is one of the single most preposterous ideas you’ve ever had.The New Times is probably not aware you even exist. The idea that they are embarrassed…..yeah.IPRSJs are not what most people mean by “peer reviewed.” That review must be blind and independent and it needs a civil engineering signature, maybe two. You can see nobody—including the NT Times is paying attention to that—this might be your first clue.Basille’s project will provide you with zero coverage. You won’t even get mentioned in the Village Voice, the greatest we-hate-Bush paper of all time.To get 9-11 Truth taught in physics classes, you’d have to engage independent physicists, which you refuse to do—good luck with that.>The OCT is so ridiculous.So you say, Don Quixote. My neighbor says the same about Alien Abduction.On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Mr. Y wrote:My argument on the volunteer conference calls is that the NY Times has discredited itself, showing they will stubbornly ignore the truth to feed its readers propaganda and silly stuff like Miley Cyrus twerking.We should not pay for another month of big signs. We have embarassed NYT enough and have photos we can use to expose them for years. Small posters to reach more people are still fine.Funds should be put into research such as Mark Basile’s project. Then we will get coverage that is priceless and cannot be bought, publication in independent peer resviewed scientific journals, IPRSJs.
We have only 5 IPRSJ articles and there should be 50 to get 9/11 truth taught in physics classes. Priceless.
You could not pay me $1000 to go to a CE firm I cared about and propose steel floated sideways into the AmEx bldg and concrete crushed like air, only in jest. The OCT is so ridiculous.Frank McLaughlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:There is no chance any New York Times reporter will write about 911 Truth. That will never happen.Mark Basile’s project would have been a complete waste of money. There is no independent oversight in what he does, and he is not qualified. No impact no matter what he does.I don’t believe any lobby firm would take your group as a customer so I don’t see you would have that as an option. You can’t get somebody to go up on the Hill and present information for which there is no evidence. A lobbyst who would do that would ruin his reputation. And you can’t get any Congressional support for the same reason. However, if people had contacted some lobbying firms it would help 911 Truth to understand that they have no hope of succeeding—-whereas the billboards don’t give feedback.I’m do not believe Bush is a liar. Just the opposite. I do agree the 911 wars were a disaster.There is no man who can get you media attention. Can’t happen.And in the presentation you are preparing, without evidence, how you not not look like a fool?Mr. XMr. Y wrote:I agree with you on this.Possibly some NY Time reporter is thinking of challenging his editors.So hopefully good will come from it. But so far it has been a flop.There is a lot of discusson on the conference calls from both sides.The money should have gone towards Mark Basile’s projectand for lobby on Capitol Hill – people who get a new investigation going,not the people in the street on Times Square.There is one man in NY who knows Bush is a liar, the 9/11 wars werea disaster, and could get instant media attention on a new investigation.I contacted him and am preparing a presentation for him.—– Original Message —–From: Mr. XSent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:55 AMSubject: BillboardsIt looks like Gage spent upwards of $100,000 on billboards in NYC and what he got for that enormous sum is not a single article in any of the major New York newspapers or any mention in any of the NYC based magazines. He appears to have gotten no press or tv coverage at all. (There was non-print blog coverage that the billboards exist, but it did not cover the Truther’s claims or arguments).He could have hired 10 civil engineering firms for $10,000 each to find one that would support a few of his positions, ignore the results from the other nine and market the one that agrees with him as providing evidence the buildings fell from explosions. Then you have real evidence. Something that government might listen to, something that might give the press a story.Ahhhh, but he knows that all ten civil engineering firms will come up empty so he can’t go that route.The billboard play is to keep his followers stupid by giving the illusion of progress (“that darn media is just controlled by big business and won’t give us a break”).He’s either stupid (throwing away $100,000 for nothing) or a fraudster. I vote the later.