Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hyman Brown falsely presented by Tom Brokaw (and others) as the 'architect' of the Twin Towers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 02:16 AM
Original message
Hyman Brown falsely presented by Tom Brokaw (and others) as the 'architect' of the Twin Towers
The problem is, Hyman Brown never had anything to do with the design or the construction of these buildings.


-----------------
“Chief Engineer” Hyman Brown by Patrick Marks

While introducing an interview that appeared on NBC-TV on September 11, 2001, Tom Brokaw referred to Hyman Brown as the “architect” of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers.<1>

Hyman Brown was not the architect of the Twin Towers.

In an article that appeared on September 10, 2007, The Jerusalem Post referred to Hyman Brown as the “Twin Towers chief engineer.”

Hyman Brown was not the Twin Towers chief engineer.

Hyman Brown, in various books, articles, lectures, and television interviews has been referred to as the “architect . . . chief engineer . . . project engineer . . . construction manager . . . fifth in command ” of the Twin Towers.

None of it is true. What’s more, Hyman Brown admits that none of it is true, although he has made no effort to set the record straight.

The Twin Towers were designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki in the early 1960s . . . when Hyman Brown was an undergraduate at City College of New York. Construction on the Twin Towers took place in the late 1960’s . . . when Hyman Brown was attending California State University at Los Angeles. The Twin Towers were completed in 1971 . . . when Hyman Brown was employed at Tishman Realty and Construction in Los Angeles. According to his own resume, Hyman Brown began working at the World Trade Center in 1972, a full year after the Twin Towers were dedicated. Did he hold a position of authority after 1972? Maybe. But he held no important position before then, although everywhere he goes, from Boulder to Jerusalem, he strives to leave the impression that he did.

In a history of the World Trade Center entitled City in the Sky, architect Minoru Yamasaki is referred to six times, chief engineer John Skilling thirteen times, structural engineer Leslie Robertson eight times, and construction manager Ray Monti six times, but Hyman Brown is not mentioned. In a personal email to me, Leslie Roberston said that he never heard of Hyman Brown. How could that be? How could the structural engineer not know the identity of the “architect”, the “chief engineer”, the “production manager”? Is that credible?

In an interview with me, conducted in June of 2008, Hyman Brown admitted that he held none of the titles attributed to him. “It was my first job out of college, I was 25 years old, and I was the guy who sharpened the pencils. . . . It was my job to open the trailer and make coffee in the morning.”

But even those modest claims are probably not true.

When I asked him how he could simultaneously be in graduate school in Los Angeles and an engineer in New York, Brown told me that he “commuted” between New York and Los Angeles from 1967 through 1970, but is that credible? The typical salary for a novice engineer in 1966 was approximately $9,000, or $173 a week. The cost of a one-way ticket from Los Angeles to New York during that period was $217.65, which means that a round trip ticket was probably around $400. To believe that Hyman Brown commuted between New York and Los Angeles on the company’s dime, you have to believe that Tishman Realty, which had a fixed contract of $3.5 million, paid weekly travel fees in excess of salary for a novice engineer, who, by his own admission, did little more than make coffee. Is that credible? It is even less credible that Brown footed the bill himself, since the 1967 cost of a round trip flight was more than double his salary. And even if he did commute, how could he possibly work full time in New York and attend school full time in Los Angeles? No matter how you slice it, the story doesn’t add up.

Why is this information important?

1. Hyman Brown is often cited as an “expert” on the construction of the World Trade Center. In the Tom Brokaw piece, for example, “architect” Hyman Brown “explained” why the Twin Towers collapsed. In a public talk in Boulder, Colorado, “5th in command” Hyman Brown “explained” how the steel beams melted. Hyman Brown is cited as an authority in documentaries made by the History Channel and the BBC, and even 9-11 Truth champion David Ray Griffin has quoted “construction manager” Hyman Brown. Brown’s remarks are considered valuable because he was there. Problem is, he wasn’t there, in all probability, and even if he was, all he did was make coffee.

2. Brown’s “expert analysis” always supports the official Bush administration myth. Always. Brown “explains” why the steel melted and the buildings collapsed, even though his “explanation” has no basis in engineering, architecture, the forensic evidence, the temperature of jet fuel, the melting point of steel, or the laws of physics, and he uses his “authority” as “architect”, “chief engineer”, “production manager”, and “5th in command” to gain instant credibility. And when people believe him, they believe the Official Myth. I know people with PhD’s in the sciences who parrot Bush Administration propaganda because they heard Hyman Brown “explain” it to them. But if Hyman Brown was not “architect”, “chief engineer”, or “production manager”, if Hyman Brown was an undergraduate when the Twin Towers were planned, if Hyman Brown was in California when the Twin Towers were built, if Hyman Brown is a complete stranger to the men who actually built the Twin Towers, what does that say about his credibility?

3. The Myth of 9-11, for which “chief engineer” Hyman Brown is one of the most vocal spokesmen, has been used to justify unprovoked attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, the murder of between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens, the building of concentration camps, domestic spying, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, the payment of billions of dollars to shady defense contractors, a national debt that is counted in the trillions, and hundreds of other domestic and foreign policy disasters. Indeed, The Myth of 9-11 is so entrenched that Barack Obama himself pledged to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan. It might seem like an innocent prank to fake your credentials and get on TV, but Hyman Brown’s testimony is far from innocent. He did not create the 9-11 Myth, of course, but he lied in order to perpetuate it, and he lied early, when the myth was still being formed. It would have developed without him, I’m sure, but in his small way, he has been a cog in the Death Machine.xi

The question is, why was NBC News interviewing Hyman Brown in the first place, on the very day of the 9-11 disaster, when he

. . . wasn’t the architect (although Tom Brokaw claimed he was)?

. . . wasn’t the project engineer (although NBC correspondent Roger O’Neal claimed he was)?

. . . wasn’t even living in New York when the Twin Towers were built?

Why did NBC call him? Or did he call them? But if they called him, why? Where did they get his name? He isn’t mentioned in any book I have read about the construction of the Twin Towers. His own resume places him in California during the years when the Twin Towers were built. Why call him when people who played key roles in the project were available? Was his name on a list? And if so, where did that list come from? Who compiled it? Was the Bush administration involved? Why call him when five minutes of fact-checking would have revealed that he was neither “architect” nor “construction manager”? Why did NBC fail to do that fact-checking? And if he called them, why? Was it ego? Was it delusions of grandeur? Was he seeking his 15 minutes of fame? Or was he on the payroll of the Bush administration? Was it Hyman Brown’s job to spread disinformation? And why did NBC bite? Were they merely incompetent or were they actively seeking an “expert” to lend credence to the Official Myth?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. All I know is, something fishy is going on.

www.911blogger.com/node/20261
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. If he is so important to the official story
why do we never talk about him here? I certainly have never referred to him while discussing 911 - I certainly can't recall any truther attacking one of his comments or papers.

If he is in fact on of the most "vocal spokesmen" for the OCT, why is this the first time there has been a thread about him in this forum? Looks like the truth movement is scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for that "smoking gun".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Good point, Hack...
of course, we know the "truth movement" is desperate at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. If he isn't important
then what is he doing being interviewed by Tom Brokaw on NBC news? As well as going on the BBC to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers, being featured in a History Channel documentary about 9/11, etc. Do the major networks have a habit of interviewing people of no significance to explain one of the most devastating events in US history?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. A handful of interviews in 8 years? This a major spokesman?
can you show me any recent interviews? Books? If he only did one interview a month, there should be nearly a 100 interviews you could show me. Can you even show me 8 interviews (one per year)?

Why do you think he is a major spokesman when no one here has ever heard of him?

I have never attributed intelligence to major networks - there is a reason I get most of my news from the internet. There is a reason the MSM is a dying industry. In this particular case, I am sure that they were scrambling to find anyone remotely associated with the WTC. The fact that he has subsequently faded into obscurity should tell you something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. We agree on that score
the major networks have become little more then dessiminators of propaganda and tabloid entertainment. The only source of real television news these days are ironically the comedy channels. Daily show, Colbert Show, Real time.

We don't hear about Hyman Brown anymore because he did his job, which was to spread the meme of official pancaking/melted by fire BS on the day of the attacks. The networks didn't have him on anymore because his job was done after that, everyone in the major media picked up on the official memes and they didn't want anyone to start fact-checking this Hyman Brown character.

Funny, I don't recall the major media interviewing any ACTUAL engineers and architects who WERE in fact involved with the design and construction of the Towers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Since his initial comments are completely irrelevant
to the subsequent NIST reports, I guess my only response is "so what?".

He was wrong then about pancaking/melted by fire then and he is wrong now. Of course the "melted by fire" was never seriously advocated by the government - that was and is a truther strawman that never dies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So what???
So what if he misrepresented himself as an authority on the WTC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I don't see you so upset about Jones, Gage, Ryan, Griffin, etc.
representing themselves as authorities on the WTC. Maybe you should take an aspirin and see if this passes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. That is a completely baseless accusation
Edited on Tue Jul-14-09 05:36 PM by procopia
and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
30. Is it any different than you gushing over Ryan Mackey, calling him a NASA Engineer...
when the only thing he engineers is chases for electrical wiring on aircraft?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. There have been many on both sides that have done the same
but since he has had no influence on the discussion since 911 I am not sure I understand your outrage. We have never discussed him here. I have never heard of him until this thread.

He is such a minor player in this drama - I find it interesting that the truth community has to inflate the importance of such a bit player in order to create another "smoking gun".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Minor player, maybe...
Edited on Tue Jul-14-09 08:02 PM by procopia
but he was one of a cast of players who worked to establish the OCT meme early on.

Another player:

The incredibly fake "Harley shirt" witness
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=250549&mesg_id=250549

Also:

The authors of the scientific paper "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" which was submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, after just two days, on 9/13/01, and posted on several academic websites on 9/14/01, apparently without peer review.

Footnote from Northwestern.edu:

1The original version with Eqs. ~1! and ~2! was originally submitted to
ASCE on September 13, 2001, and an expanded version with Eq. ~3! was
submitted to ASCE on September 22, 2001. The appendices were added
between September 28 and October 5, 2001; The preliminary report ~Baz
ˇant and Zhou 2001! on which this article is based was posted on September 14, 2001, at ^http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news&, ^http://
www3.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc&, and ^http://math.mit.edu/
;bazant&.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Your reference to Bazant Zu is factually inaccurate.
The paper was not published on 9/13/01. Please go back to the paper and correct your factual inaccuracy.

You will find a link to it here:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Submitted after 2 days
Published on several academic websites on 9/14/01.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Reviewed for accuracy by all who could read it and understand it
Rewritten and added to. Finally published - when?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Ok - and then NIST did real studies
opened them up for public comment and had them nearly universally accepted by the engineering and scientific communities.

Science is science. Engineering principles are engineering principles. They are universal and not controlled by the BFEE.

So again - big deal. Why don't you quit making mountains out of molehills. a
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. You're missing the point
Edited on Tue Jul-14-09 08:27 PM by procopia
The point is not whether Bazant's paper was accurate. Accurate or not, it's purpose was to establish the OCT meme immediately after 9/11.

This isn't a molehill. It's a drip. Drip...drip...drip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. What possible evidence do you have that Bazant was a part of the coverup on 9/13???
That he submitted a paper to a journal outlining a limiting case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Of course!
Because anyone who disagrees with the "truth movement" is a Bush-loving shill! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Like what, a signed confession?
Is it just a coincidence that this paper, however flawed, and published on several academic websites within days of 9/11, was just the godsend needed to establish the OCT meme? It was submitted on 9/13 (!) and it was published on websites the following day. It required several revisions and additions before journal publication.

Why the mad rush to publish within days, before it could even be peer reviewed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I guess you don't know very many engineers.
Quite of few of them exhibit curiosity about events within their area of expertise, so much that they are inspired to write papers about these events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Most of them wait for physical evidence
Edited on Tue Jul-14-09 09:45 PM by procopia
before jumping into a project and rushing to complete it in one day. Media reports on the day of 9/11 repeatedly mentioned explosions, and the collapses looked like controlled demolition. How did he know they weren't, without examining physical evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. You make this into a bigger thing than it was.
Perhaps you have heard of "back of the envelope calculations"? Engineers do them for a reason - to get a better feel for the numbers behind an event. Bazant's model was simple enough no physical evidence was required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. And just how long did we have to wait for "Hunt the Boeing" and other Truther gems?
Their purpose was to establish the Truther meme immediately after 9/11.

Just like JFK - you are going to be dripping for a very long time. You really think this smoking gun is going to ignite the public's passion for a new investigation? 99.9999% will never even hear about it. A fundamental fact of the internet is that it amplifies and adds apparent importance to the most trivial of matters. Trust me - this is trivial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. I don't know, do you?
Do you know when the "Hunt the Boeing" website was created? Your point would be better demonstrated if you had some actual facts to support it.

Are you not in the least bit curious as to why Hyman Brown misrepresented himself as an architect for the WTC? Why did he do that? Why was he interviewed without being checked out by the network?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I know why he did it
the networks were scrambling to find anyone that could talk about the WTC. He had a Phd and was an engineering professor so some junior network flunky tracked him down and asked him to appear on TV. As for misrepresenting himself, I don't know him personally, but people misrepresent their professional qualifications all the time. Spend some time in HR going through resumes and job interviews and you'll see - people are vain and ambitious. Ward Churchill immediately comes to mind but there are many others.

Since he is such a bit player that we have not talked about here for 8 years, why is this so important? It appears he had zero impact on the 911 debate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Why do you claim to "know"
something you couldn't possibly know? So a junior network flunky tracked him down? You know that, how? Isn't it possible Brown contacted the network himself? Five minutes of fact checking would have shown he wasn't what he claimed to be. Aren't networks responsible for vetting those they interview as authorities? Brown has a PhD? Proof?

Actually, you have no idea of the extent of Brown's impact on the 9/11 debate. Besides his NBC interview the day of 9/11, he has been cited as an authority by BBC and the History Channel. Even today, "debunkers" are citing him as an authority. See here:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html

As much as you refer to him as a "bit player," it seems he is a bit more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Since neither of is in the position to know what happened
then why do you claim to know that this is somehow significant? The honest assessment is that we don't know his motivation and it is therefore ridiculous to automatically assume nefarious motives like you have done.

I tell you what - I am perfectly willing withhold judgment until you have actual facts. OK with you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Not significant?
In my judgment, and for most people, an NBC interview, an AP article, a BBC article, and a History Channel program, all based on fraudulent statements that helped to establish the OCT meme from the day of 9/11--that's fairly significant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. And in my judgment it is not. Go find some real facts to break the tie.
and please remind me again why it took 8 years for his name to come up in this forum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. What tie?
Edited on Wed Jul-15-09 10:34 PM by procopia
Most reasonable people would find it significant. It's the very reason you are trying so desperately to trivialize it.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along...:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Keeping telling yourself that
the fact that 8 years after the fact, you had to find a obscure bit player, pump up his importance, and present it as yet another "smoking gun" says it all as far as I am concerned.

The rest of the world has moved on - haven't you noticed how little company you have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Quoted on NBC, AP, BBC, History Channel
Edited on Thu Jul-16-09 06:30 AM by procopia
and still being quoted even now. How is that "pumping up" his importance?

"The rest of the world has moved on" = "Move along now, nothing to see here..."

Oh and btw, thanks for at least admitting he was a player.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. I don't see your point here
again - so what? Where is your evidence that he was part of a concerted disinformation campaign? Where is your proof that yours is the only explanation?

You cannot show in anyway that he has influence the public's perception of 911 one way or the other. He is such an insignificant player in 911 that it took 8 years for the truth community to discover him. By no stretch of the imagination has he entered the public's consciousness as a spokesman for 911. He is as obscure as they come - once again the truth movement is left with nothing else to but manufacture a smoking gun by making a mountain out of a molehill.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Journal of Engineering Mechanics is peer reviewed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Who were the reviewers?
Edited on Tue Jul-14-09 08:11 PM by procopia
It was possibly peer reviewed, I'm not going to argue that.

The point remains:

The paper was published on several academic websites and widely disseminated within 3 days of 9/11 to establish the OCT meme early on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. You have to see it to believe it
Tom Brokaw's phony interview with fake 'architect/project engineer' Hyman Brown on 9/11.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqJqc-rafI

How the could this Brown character make all these conclusions before any investigation even took place??

It's just stunning beyond belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. And since we never have talked about him in this forum
so what? He is a bit player in 911.

And just how long did we have to wait for "Hunt the Boeing" and other Truther gems? They didn't wait for an investigation - how valid are their questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. The authors of Hunt the Boeing
never claimed to be something they were not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Thierry Meyssan lied to sell books
he claimed a level of expertise he certainly did not possess in order to defraud gullible CTrs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. Really?
What did he claim to be?

do you have a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC