Learn the Truth about 9/11!

You are an idiot.

Well, spammers always are.

Ron Paul.

Pancakes

Shrillary did it.

Ron Paul does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. Anyone going on with that point of view has blinders on.

... to be locked!

PS: Just kidding, on the death bed part, that is!

It is NOT out of the realm of possibility that the government orchestrated and/or facilitated the September 11th attacks as a way to get into a war (i.e. the Iraq war and the "War on Terror" with Afghanistan).

More investigation could be done, but what would be the point? The government is never going to get caught anyways.

he's on the wrong forum.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

He's clearly a government stooge trying to discredit the truth movement.

If anyone wants to argue that 9/11 might have been an inside job, then one of the most convincing places to look is the government's own data and evidence. Here's a couple at random, amongst legions:

(1) the c.s.v. data, as analyzed by the NTSB from Flight 77's flight data recorder has AA77 at an atitude of >450ft above the Pentagon's lawn (according to the altimeter readings adjusted to msl) during the last 1 second of flight before the termination of data. (!?!). The NTSB has not retracted this data; the plane's instruments are presumed to have been functioning correctly. At this height, 77 could have neither impacted the Pentagon, nor brought down the 5 lamp poles as it traversed the Pentagon's lawn. The "official story" has AA77 coming in horizontally a few feet above the lawn, clipping the lamp poles as well as a large cable-drum and a truck parked in frnt of the building: the security cam video shows some kind of craft trailing smoke (but the type of plane is *not* apparent). The NTSB data is in severe conflict with this version, showing AA77 coming in at a different trajectory in both the vertical and horizontal axes, in which it is far too high to have hit the Pentagon, and it is displaced horizontally away from where the lamp poles stood by a considerable distance.

Both sources of information are from the US Government. They both cannot be simultaneously correct. One (or both?) is wrong, or a lie. Scientific instruments, as a rule, tend not to follow political agendas.

(2) June,5, 2006: According to FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb: “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Hmmm... Isn't OBL prime suspect #1? Think about all the times we all have heard OBL's name in the msm bandied around as the culprit? This has happened, 24/7, for several years since the event; no wonder there's this strong connection forged between the public perception and OBL's supposed guilt. I wonder why President Bush, in hs own words, said:
Good Lord.

(3) According to evidence presented by theFBI in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, the Department of Justice (where Solicitor General Ted Olson worked) received NO (i.e. zero) phone calls from Barbara Olson, his wife. Her four alleged calls to him at the DOJ while the plane was en route to (apparently) hitting the Pentagon (via either her cellphone, or AA77's seatback phones (which apparently might not have existed on that plane, according to the 757 service manuals) form a major component in the official narrative. But, to repeat, according to the FBI, there are no records that Barbara Olson talked to her husband, and certainly not on 4 separate occasions, as reported by the 9/11 Commission. (Ted Olson claimed only two calls). Furthermore, Ted Olson changed his story about these calls, twice!

If the official story is shown to be unreliable (or untrue, or questionable) as regards official evdence, especially that presented in a US court of law during a high profile terrorist case, nonetheless, it warrants questioning the entire oficially sanctioned story. (Which has not yet happened in an official capacity)

And, as Segovius said.. this Bofors person is a troll, probably out to discredit those who are trying to find out what the fvck happened that morning.

freakin' idiot

Hey, was that you on Bill Maher last Friday?

As if it needs any help.

Would you call these people idiots?

Scroll down the home page. Maybe I underestimated your knowledge base? You are presumably more qualified in such matters than a selection of generals, colonels and a wide selection of experienced military folk who have had the guts to look a little further than the Bush Admin sanctioned baby-formula gushing forth from the mainstream media?

I have this text file on 9-11/World Domination et al for these such occasions...

First a few history lessons on World Domination:

"The Money Masters"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...en&sitesearch=

"The Power of Nightmares"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...ghtmares&hl=en

"Bill Moyers: The Secret Government"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...+Moyers+secret

Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study, Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess., August 21, 1975
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel...eum/fields.htm

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (PDF)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

"Robert Newman's History of Oil"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...y+of+oil&hl=en

Bush Family:

"The Panama Deception"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...eception&hl=en

"Meet the Carlyle Group"
http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/9118.html

"Bush Family Fortunes"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...fortunes&hl=en

Dick Cheney:

Frontline: "The Dark Side"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Donald Rumsfeld:

Frontline: "Rumsfeld's War"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...pentagon/view/

September 11th 2001:

"Frontline: The Man Who Knew"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/knew/view/

"Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Conspiracy Theories"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...nn+and+teller& hl=en

Nova's Online Audio Slide Show on the WTC Towers Collapse: DVD "Nova: Why the Towers Fell"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

French Filmmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet's "9/11"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/

"Who Killed John O'Neill?" - One Actor, One Room, Seven Characters: 9/11.
http://wkjo.com/

The 9-11 pilots and the Pentagon Pilot...

Ask the pilot - In search of the ever-elusive "truth," the pilot takes on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
"They had what they needed: Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness"
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot186/

Now about World Trade Tower 7 collapse and the term "pull"...

Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why HE PULLED EVERYBODY OUTTA THERE.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYlVmTHjHe8

"To support the controlled-demolition theory, conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting that fire doesn't melt steel. What NIST actually does claim is that the fires were sufficient enough to weaken the steel to the point where they would fail - structurally. This video attempts to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorists one at a time."
http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-cons...-debunked.html

Raw video of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center Tower. Turn up the volume. If this doesn't prove that fully fueled jet airliners flying at 500 mph could not cause structural damage...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

Need evidence from a professional group? How about the Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.

Link to article...
http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html

Links to the research material, images and simulation videos of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks...
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

And for 9|11 reading, here are some peer reviewed documents online:

"Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1"
http://www.jod911.com/

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

There you go. What I've seen and what I've read that I believe to be good alternative resources.

Controlled Demolition Debunked? (Building Demolition goes wrong):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_PLQGucFvw

This argument will go on ad infinitum. Even if a top official from the Bush Administration (perhaps unable to sleep at nights) came out and described 9/11 as an "inside job", under oath, with a cartload of corroborating evidence, a large section of the population would put him down as a conspiracy loony. Such heinous acts, such as a "self attack" do not map onto such peoples' frames of reference. As far as they are concerned, even the most psychopathic elements within the most rogue administration (such as we have currently) don't attack their own people, even if they have an enormous motivation to do such, and a pre-written agenda that could only happen in the event of a 9/11 style incident.

We are living in such weird, screwed-up times, that even asking the "wrong" QUESTIONS (you don't have to get anywhere near conspiracy theorizing).. renders one liable to being shouted down by a legion of overpaid, loud and cowardly milksops such as Bill Maher, Penn and Teller, Bill O'Reilly.... you might even get tasered....

Q. Please tell me Mr. Vice President, why did you lie before the 9/11 Commission regarding your whereabouts on the morning of September 11, 2001?

A. Security, remove that woman from the building.

More wacko conspiracy theorists...

c'mon Sego, are you not yet aware of the power of the boxcutter? A couple of these $2.29 weapons can overcome and disable the world's mightiest military machine!

\ I thought he was "coordinating" the anti-terror exercise...

Personally I really enjoy pancakes with butter and syrup, preferably made from Bisquick. It has a nice texture and tang. I like them cakey as opposed to flat and stiff.



Notice the golden color, not like the light brown that the Aunt Jemima batter produces. As for syrup, I like butter syrup, but not light syrup. Of course, the best is real maple syrup. But that's expensive!

Oh, one more thing:

Bill Maher is a "cowardly milksop" in your opinion? Because he doesn't like loud-mouth protesters in his audience disrupting HIS show, and general acting like assholes in the process?

As for "questions"... there are real questions, and then there are accusations merely semantically couched as questions, like "When did you stop beating your wife?" The "truthers" questions are of the latter variety. One must answer to each and every real or imagined discrepancy, oddity, and coincidence, and if one can't supply a "truther" with an answer that completely satisfies said truther, well then... the looming supposed answers like "inside job" and "controlled demolition" are very, very, very strongly implied to be the only real alternatives, and anyone who doesn't buy those explanations is very strongly implied to be either a fool or "in on it" too.

"Just asking questions". Please, spare me. You get so angry at the media not being honest -- and rightly so in many cases -- but fail to demonstrate honest rhetoric yourself.

Since we are on the topic...

What is the official cause of why Building 7 fell when no plane hit it?

NIST is "supposed" to release the WTC7 report before the end of the year for review to the general public, as they did with past reports, you know for PUBLIC REVIEW?

And, in case anyone didn't realize it, the NIST WTC7 has a process called a PUBLIC REVIEW, where all forms of commentaries are submitted.

There is also another well known process, it's called the peer review process, you write highly technical journal articles, to publications like ASCE and ASME, and these papers are reviewed by EXPERTS in the subject matter written about, their known as SME's.

Peer review works only if it stands the test of time and independent validation in subsequent peer reviewed papers.

At least that's how the professionals go about things, not the amateurs (nee experts at pretzel logic), you'd have to ask them how they determine FACT from FICTION. But all your queries will be answered in;

[CENTER]Loose Change (666th edition, release date December 12, 2012)[/CENTER]

Ha ha Brilliant! I see the high from those painkillers/ anasthesia has not worn off! Good stuff!

If Bill Maher could show some courage and acknowledge that numerous problems exist within the official story, then no problem. His "not wanting to know/head in the sand" attitude might have to do with why some protesters got into his audience and heckled him. He seems more comfortable with the out-of-character notion that the Bush Administration is being honest about 9/11, while (knowingly) lying about everything else they have touched.


Read the 3 examples I quoted further up the thread. These are 3 instances (there are numerous, perhaps *hundreds of others) where the government's own material and timeline runs contrary to their own conspiracy theory. T] None of these questions have been answered in a remotely satisfactory fashion, and they refer to every facet of a complex series of events that started before the day of 9/11, then the event(s) itself and have continued for years afterwards. These are not "when did you start beating your wife" type questions, and you know it.


If just one aspect of the government's version can be disproven, then it calls into question the veracity of everything else they claim. When a person in court commits perjury in the witness box, all of his testimony is thus considered unreliable and should be disregarded by a jury when considering evidence in order to reach a verdict. Just one instance of fabrications (or lies) re. the official version, and the remainder is thus considered questionable.

The challenge is not for Truthers to prove 100% of their points: it is for the government to come up with a story that is 100% failsafe and honest. In other words: Each of the truthers' claims challenge an aspect of the official story. If just one of these essential claims is disproved, then the official story is thrown into doubt. Critics need not demonstrate the falsity of every essential element of the official account; they need to show the falsity of one such element. The logic is exactly the opposite for attempts to debunk the case against the official theory. This case cannot be undermined by refuting merely some of the claims used in this case. Insofar as this case consists of claims that challenge essential elements of the official theory, this case is not undermined by showing only some of them to be false, or at least unproven. They must all be refuted.


If the government's own story is so correct, honest, accurate and representative re. what went down that morning, then why have they being so damned cagey, shifty, and secretive in the 6 years since the attack? Why have they declined to debate their points with doubters? Why have they changed their timeline to suit the emergence of new facts? Etc etc.

Historically, when there is a national disaster (for example the Challenger and Columbia Space Shuttle accidents) an official inquiry is set up rapidly, ie within days, the mission being to get to the bottom of what happened ASAP, no stones left untured. We did not get this re. 9/11: For a year, the Bush Admin refused to even consider an inquiry, and having reluctantly/grudgingly permitted such, it took them 441 days (!) to even get the ball rolling, and it was only after the pressure from bereaved family members threatened to create a PR nightmare for the White House. They did their damnedest at every turn to scupper the inquiry, starving it of cash, time, personnel and resources, and then to add insult to mass murder, put an avowed neoconservative extremist at the helm. The "inquiry", according to Fire Engineering Magazine, was a "half baked farce". They misrepresented material in their final "report", used circular reasoning throughout, and even fabricated material (ie lied) about evidence. 90% of the material that was presented was summarily omitted because it did not gel with the Commission's preordained conclusion. In short, the Commission was a national disgrace, but because it looked the part with a smart, official looking blue and white cover, with some "authoritative pronouncements", it was accepted by the public as the last word when in reality, it left many more questions unanswered as were cleared up.

Shetline: What do you think happened that morning? Do you honestly believe that the Bush Administration was taken entirely by surprise, with 19 hijackers slamming planes into landmarks with zero foreknowledge? That is what they are claiming, and many people have their doubts. What is so terrible, or insane, or unpatriotic, or "requiring medication" about having one's doubts, especially regarding a conspiracy tale so bizarre and unlikely that it belongs in the realm of wacky fiction??

Yeah..but I have more drugs whenever I wish. Mmm...Percocet and Pancakes!

And your are trying to prove your intelligent by posting this? Bravo...

Why don't you do something useful with yourself like trying to look at the movie I linked to above which scientifically proves that controlled demolitions were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings?

Here it is again, "How The Towers Fell (Blueprint for Truth, The Architecture of Destruction)" by architect Richard Gage: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874

If that is too much to ask consider that 204 archiects and engineers have endorsed it here: http://www.ae911truth.org/

And how many ACTIVE Structural Engineers from the U.S. are on that list?

Just curious. \

Good question, it looks like at least 20 to me. See the partial list here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYlVmTHjHe8

Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why he pulled everybody out of there.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").


The Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.

Link to article...
http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html

Links to the research material, images and simulation videos of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks...
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/


http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-cons...-debunked.html

"To support the controlled-demolition theory, conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting that fire doesn't melt steel. What NIST actually does claim is that the fires were sufficient enough to weaken the steel to the point where they would fail - structurally. This video attempts to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorists one at a time."

These are pretty much convinced me that it was two jetliners that brought the downfall of the WTC Towers and eventually brought WT 7 to collapse. I also talked to one NY fireman and a NY Port Authority officer, they were, like there. Plus a half dozen New York friends of mine. Demolition experts too.

Don't get me wrong, this administration and the ones before it have brought 9-11 right into their laps. Took 30 years, but here it is. The president and vice president should be impeached and tried for war crimes.

But to some here that's crazy talk!

That has to do with Building 7. It quite obviously a controlled demolition (and Silverstein even admitted it). I mean, just look at this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73116607499063

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. \tRapid onset of “collapse”
2. \tSounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. \tSymmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. \tSquibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. \t“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. \tMassive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. \tTons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. \tChemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. \tFEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. \tExpert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. \tFore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. \tSlow onset with large visible deformations
2. \tAsymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. \tEvidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. \tHigh-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.


None of this stuff answers the key questions or "debunks" the evidence which proves the WTC buildings were destroyed by the planes. Both the NIST and Purdue simulations are meaningless here. Nowhere do they even claim to have demonstrated a mechanism for a collapse at free fall speed, straight down. At best, in the case of NIST, they only propose a mechanism for the "initiation" of collapse". NIST even admits that it can not explain the collapse of the twin towers (because they refuse to consider controlled demolition): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ist_admits.htm

Just look it this, it is an explosion, it is obvious:

Again... As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1. \tExtremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. \tSounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. \tObservations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. \tSquibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. \tMid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. \tMassive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. \tVertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. \tSymmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. \t1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. \tBlast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. \tLateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. \tTotal destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. \tTons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. \tChemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. \tFEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. \tMore than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. \tSlow onset with large visible deformations
2. \tAsymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. \tEvidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. \tHigh-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

The case is proven beyond doubt in this video, please just consider looking at it for a moment, if you think it is crap just turn it off, but at least give a minute, this is very serious: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874

More on NIST...

NIST admitts that it is "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" of the WTC Twin Towers after a 20 million dollar, three year study of the case (because it refuses to consider controlled demolition):

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ist_admits.htm
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/508.html
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the NIST Fire Science Division calls for an independent review of the NIST World Trade Center study: http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Well I found four (keyword "structur"), but none of these were PhD. P.E.'s (commonly called phud-pee's where I work) or SME's (subject matter experts).

And I'm unaware of ANY structural engineer (with expertise in structural dynamics AND explosives/energy impacts) publishing in the peer reviewed engineering literature in ANY regard to "controlled demolition" of ANY of the WTC buildings that collapsed that fateful day.

You need to go through these forums for the past year or so, the issues you raise aren't new by any means, all have been dealt with ad infinitum.

If you're going to go on about this, bring something NEW to the table! \

This is new, try looking at it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874

(... on the other hand, it appears that people here still do not understand what happened on 9/11, so repetition and further explanation is necessary on this very serious subject).

EDIT: One more thing...

The Journal of 9/11 studies is here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Papers there are peer-review.

Prof. Steven Jones (Physics) paper is probably the best to look at: http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf

When was that journal started? 2006! Where's the JFK Journal, The Shakespeare Journal, The UFO and Aliens Journal, The Ghosts are Real Journal, The It's Not AGW Journal (Oops, aka Energy and Environment, it actually exists!), The Creationists Journal (DI = ID), The Blog-O-Smear Is Full Of P00p, N00bs, And Random Noise Journal.

Who does the "peer review?" Perhaps a short list from Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice!

Please list accepted and accredited works done in mainstream publications like ASCE and ASME, or dozens of RESPECTED professional peer reviewed journals that existed PRIOR to 9-11, TYVM!

As to the video by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it's meant for a lay audience, the website constricts itself only to the WTC, it even starts out like a typical AJ/DI type video showing the "church" of silent Sheeple™ attentively listening to their sermon from their high priest(s).

So what NEW specific technical information is put forth in said video? I don't have time for pretty slide show presentations of OLD disinformation!

Please wake me up when NIST releases the WTC7 report, I'm going to LOVE reading the public commentary on that one!

Oh, and thanks for updating us on who to watch out for when the WTC7 report is released, it will save us all a lot of trouble in filtering FACT from FICTION!

Sorry, no one has published there.

Perhaps you had better consider looking at papers that exist and judging them on their merit.

Or are you telling us that you are too ignorant to read a paper yourself?

So what? It proves that the WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

How old are you bofors2?

(I'm 47) Conspiracy theories have always been a "hobby" for me. My older brother experienced the JFK assassination and was very interested for years on that case (LBJ and the CIA plotted it ). So I have plenty of experience and knowledge of the conspiracy theories of the past and today. It's important to ask questions and to find the truth. But you have to be open to all information and not to ignore other points of view either.

Where were you on 9-11?

(I was at home in Phila. out of work and watched everything unfold on live television from the after the first plane hit until that evening.)

What is your experience with engineering and architecture?

(I have none, but have colleagues [I'm a graphic designer] involved in architecture, design and engineering. I also have visited NYC on 5 separate occasions in the past six years. I've recounted the day with my cousin [who has lived in Manhattan for over 12 years], friends and as mentioned before, firemen, NYPO and police officers who were there on 9-11).

I haven't wanted to attack you or insult you on this. You seem to be pretty steadfast in your beliefs.