Gentlemen:

1. Are you so frightened of the potential consequences of publishing your article that you can't simply identify yourselves as the authors in the old fashion way by placing the preposition "by" in front of your names? Is it really necessary to use the passive voice and obliquely identify yourselves in the most unobtrusive way possible by writing: "This article appeared originally at FireFightersFor911Truth.org and is the intellectual property of David R. Wayne & Greg Garrison C2008 with all use permissions hereby granted provided that all copies include this notice of authorship" This reads as if someone else is writing these words about you, rather than these statements coming from you (If someone other than David R. Wayne & Greg Garrison is the author of these words, will that individual do the reader a great courtesy and identify himself?)

2. If you two fellows are the authors of these words: "From a scientific standpoint, it is inadvisable to leap to conclusions because there are always scenarios we may not be prepared to imagine. In science, as in life, an open mind is a good thing. It is conceivable that there was a bio-threat airborne in the CIA undercover New York station in Building 7 capable of wiping out 20 million people if it wasn't immediately neutralized by the use of Thermate. Although that isn unlikely, it remains possible and therefore, scientifically, it stands as an unknown, as do many other unknowns.", then truly you are cowards--and damnable cowards at that.

3. Your article is dated "25 Nov 2008 / Controlled Demolition, Evidence". How brave of you to stick out your neck seven years after the fact! What a feat of dogged research and "authorship" to re-present the pioneering work of others in determining how the buildings came down and why the buildings came down. I can attest from personal experience that those of use who publicly proclaimed that the WTC buildings came down from controlled demolition on September 12, 2001 and again on September 23, 2001, were on the receiving end of harsh criticism from a radio talk show and his guest, along with a hail storm of hate mail from dumbed-down, brainwashed flag wavers all over this country.

4. If you really wanted to defend the memory of firefighters who died on 9-11 due to the willful complicity of the Pentagon, the CIA, et. al. and those Illuminatied traitors occupying the White House on 9-11, then it would have been of greater significance had you come out with your "expose" about 5 years ago-when it would have meant something- and NEVER have made the outrageous, cowardly, and contemptible cop-out disclaimer quoted in item 2 above.

Ken Adachi

---

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/nycfirefightersandwtc07dec08.shtml
December 7, 2008

Firefighters for 9-11 Truth.org: "You're Seven Years Too Late" (Dec. 7, 2008)

Subject: FIREFIGHTERS NYC
From: JC (Australia)
Date: Sun, December 7, 2008 1:22 pm
To: Ken Adachi

This is very comprehensively documented---

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11

This work is dedicated to Chief of Department Peter J. Ganci Jr. and his 342 fellow F.D.N.Y. members killed in action while trying to save others.
Summary of Evidence of Controlled Demolition at the World Trade Center (Expansive citations below)

This article appeared originally at FireFightersFor911Truth.org and is the intellectual property of David R. Wayne & Greg Garrison C2008 with
all use permissions hereby granted provided that all copies include this notice of authorship. The evidence summarized below proves conclusively that 3 World Trade Center buildings collapsed on 9/11/2001 as the result of controlled demolitions. It makes no attempt to determine why, or to imply by whom. From a scientific standpoint, it is inadvisable to leap to conclusions because there are always scenarios we may not be prepared to imagine. In science, as in life, an open mind is a good thing. It is conceivable that there was a bio-threat airborne in the CIA undercover New York station in Building 7 capable of wiping out 20 million people if it wasn't immediately neutralized by the use of Thermate. Although that isn unlikely, it remains possible and therefore, scientifically, it stands as an unknown, as do many other unknowns.

[snip} Read entire article at: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11

 

---

Comments

Subject: FIREFIGHTERS
From: John C (Australia)
Date: Sun, December 14, 2008
To: Ken Adachi

Ken Adachi---FYI From John C from Oz.
Who do you trust GWBush or Sir Isaac Newton.?

TRUTH IS TRUTH
his is very comprehensively documented---
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11

This work is dedicated to Chief of Department Peter J. Ganci Jr. and his 342 fellow F.D.N.Y. members killed in action while trying to save others.
Summary of Evidence of Controlled Demolition at the World Trade Center (Expansive citations below) This article appeared originally at FireFightersFor911Truth.org and is the intellectual property of David R. Wayne & Greg Garrison C2008 with all use permissions hereby granted provided that all copies include this notice of authorship. The evidence summarized below proves conclusively that 3 World Trade Center buildings collapsed on 9/11/2001 as the result of controlled demolitions. It makes no attempt to determine why, or to imply by whom. From a scientific standpoint, it is inadvisable to leap to conclusions because there are always scenarios we may not be prepared to imagine. In science, as in life, an open mind is a good thing. It is conceivable that there was a bio-threat airborne in the CIA undercover New York station in Building 7 capable of wiping out 20 million people if it wasn't immediately neutralized by the use of Thermate. Although that is unlikely, it remains possible and therefore, scientifically, it stands as an unknown, as do many other unknowns.--------

CAVEAT REDEMPTOR

***

Hi John,

I'm not sure of the purpose of your question.

You may not know that there were many well written articles, books, and DVD documentaries outlining how the WTC buildings came down as a result of controlled demolition. The men taking credit for the article mentioned did not pioneer any of that information. Rather, they copied what others had already researched and premiered some years before. The cop-out remarks about how the article "makes no attempt to determine why, or to imply by whom. From a scientific standpoint, it is inadvisable to leap to conclusions because there are always scenarios we may not be prepared to imagine" is pure horse manure spouted by cowards.

Thus my comments.

Regards, Ken

---

© Copyright 2008 Educate-Yourself.org  All Rights Reserved.