PDA

View Full Version : Why is Mike Rivero (WRH) lying to you?


StoneWT
02-14-2005, 09:05 AM
Recently Mike Rivero, the normally reliable operator of whatreallyhappened.com, posted the following comment underneath a link on his main page:

Here is more evidence that Popular Mechanics overlooked in its "hit piece" on those who doubt the official story. PHOTOGRAPHS taken of the impact holes in the towers clearly show people walking around and gazing out. This directly contradicts the official story (cited as holy writ by Popular Mechanics) of a raging inferno able to melt steel.

This is not a distortion or a mistake. It is an outright lie as proven by what PM actually said:

Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat

Mike refused to publish an e-mail pointing this out on his letters page.

To Mike:

"You are attacking a straw man. They never endorsed your fictional version of the official story."

Please bombard WRH wrh@whatreallyhappened.com concerning this outright fabrication. Pass along to other forums. Get the truth out. Mike is so wedded to his theories that he will lie to the public rather than correct himself.

truebeliever
02-14-2005, 10:07 AM
Well, only a few posts ago I said NO disinformationists/illuminists/stooges in general come to this site.

It seems yet again i am wrong.

I am having a bad day.

nohope187
02-14-2005, 10:29 AM
you too, eh? :pint:

StoneWT
02-14-2005, 05:59 PM
true,

Yes, it is sad when a normally reliable researcher lies about what was printed in a publication.

Rivero is angry that PM mentioned his site in connection with faulty interpretations of seismographs. This anger is probably what caused him to lie about what Popular Mechanics actually wrote.

After all, how do you get from what PM actually said:

"The fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. It didn't need to."

To what Rivero claims it said:

"The fire was hot enough to melt steel. This raging inferno causing steel to melt is what brought the towers down."

without lying? There is no room for interpretation or mistakes.

Rivero rages against the straw man of 'fire just ain't hot enuff to melt steel' when the article concedes that and says it isn't necessary for the collapse of the towers. His entire response is based upon a lie he cooked up.

Having built a decent reputation, he is now too proud to admit mistakes. He was on C-SPAN and has made the rounds of various radio talk shows.

Why, Mike, why?

Why are you lying to us?

truebeliever
02-14-2005, 06:23 PM
Actually StoneWT I was refering to you.

I already know Rivero is an arrogent arsehole.

He NEVER posts dissenting views...NEVER!

He NEVER returns your e-mails (like Vialls) when you catch him on a mistake...NEVER.

He even sent my e-mail address on to 'the authorities' when i told him copying MP3's was o.k and the lazy coke snorting so & so's could earn a living touring.

Rivero also gets my goat with his constant attacks on the church and religion in general instead of the scum bags in them.

The opposite is Henry Makow who is a gentleman and allows for dissent from his own views.

I believe thats because Henry is sure of the ground on which he stands.

in the end Stone...You're right! I constantly hear "the steel melted". Cods of course.

However...the ABSOLOUTE fairy tale that is the engineer's report of how the twin towers collapsed is 1000 times more bullshit so perhaps you should focuss on that whilst mentioning errors by certain people.

How do I know thats bullshit? I used to work 'melting' metals. Anyone who says a building can simply slide down itself in near free fall needs to be deprogrammed.

The joints expanded? I'm sure they did.

To the point of total symetrical collapse? Yeh right.

By a low heat 'Kerosine' fire (thats what jet fuel is)...please Stone.

When I saw those Towers go i yelled "bullshit"...i then pulled myself back as I simply could'nt comprehend the depths of the scam.

I can now.

I hope you can too.

And yes Rivero is an arsehole but he's the first site I go to in the morning...

wait a minute...i just went through your post again...i see what you're trying to say. Rivero is getting air time and pushing truth with deliberate disinformation.

Well, i have had my doubts about Rivero. Especially his inexplicable support of Microsoft.

Point taken.

I presume you beleieve the Popular Mechanics version?

In that case you're the disinformation artist.

Or, menatlly challenged.

Stake your case man...or forever return to LF where they are at him already.

We may be Religious nuts here but we are capable of simple common sense judgements.

StoneWT
02-14-2005, 09:38 PM
True,

Take a deep breath and calm down. This is why I left another forum. Too many people making assumptions (usually baseless) and acting as if you are the enemy based upon those groundless assumptions.

I am glad you came closer to my point. I was not advocating a particular view. I was merely pointing out that a man with a growing platform chose to lie to the public. However the towers really fell, Popular Mechanics never said what Mike Rivero claims they said. Hell, the magazine said the exact opposite!

What gets me is that some of these small and medium-time 'researchers' have the nerve to attack big-time researchers over opinions or perceived errors. However, you catch one of them in an outright lie and...well, you know.

Thanks for the advice on LF. However, I was already over there trying to beat some common sense into the clowns concerning garbage theories. The slightest variation from one of their pet conspiracy theories (even if you agreed with them overall) sent them into a foaming rage. All politeness and reasoning ability went out the window. They would rather believe something that is clearly wrong or overwhelmingly likely to be wrong than disturb whatever small measure of Internet fame they have achieved by posting crappy conspiracy theories as if they were their own handiwork.

this
02-15-2005, 03:17 PM
There was a piece on Rense a while ago about structural disintegration of the towers. That in the salty air with aluminum cladding and no electrolytic protection the steel girders of the towers were experiencing an electroporosis of sorts. The repair would have cost billions and the legal ramifications/embarrassment would certainly have been reason to keep the discovery hushed up.

The claimant put his name to it, and was an architect. His claim was that this flaw was detected a decade ago and hushed up by the Feds. It certainly is the case that stone buildings, bronze statues etc. need maintenance to deal with acid rain and corrosion. The one thing this theory does explain is how the building and contents turned entirely to dust. Is this normal for other demolished skyscrapers?

StoneWT
02-15-2005, 07:37 PM
More BS from Mike Rivero:

"I think this email illustrates the type of person who suports Bush and the Neocons. Lying is perfectly acceptible behavior to this clown. I do not like being lied to by anyone. I don;t know anyone who approves of being lied to. I do not give my consent to being lied to by the government, and the last used car salesman to lie to me lost the resulting lawsuit."

Funny, with the exposure (by PM) of his woefully inadequate 'research' on the WTC...he continues with his straw man issue.

His claims about what the official story is are actually based upon Internet BS tossed back and forth.

Heck, compare the two sides:

Mike Rivero's article:

The 9/11 Reichstag Fire (http://whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html)

Popular Mechanics section of their 9/11 myth-busting article:

The World Trade Center (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y)

Please do not respond unless you have read both links in their entirety.

truebeliever
03-03-2005, 06:14 AM
God, popular mechanics would have to be THE WORST article masquarading as "expert opinion" yet written by the mainstream press.

And dont tell me to calm down!

Thats what I say to others!

Best Stone.

sablefish
03-03-2005, 02:09 PM
Mike Rivero is a good guy.. It is the best place for the news I am interested in.. I like his sense of humor.. It's my first stop of the day for what's happening. I agree with him that PM is doing a hatchet job on 9/11 movement, and is one with "our" government in trying to get rid of doubts to the official story.

truebeliever
03-03-2005, 11:19 PM
Mike Rivero is a COMPLETE and UTTER ARROGENT ARSEHOLE and I can pick them as I am one myself.

He has successfully made a fool of himself over his pathetic attempts to 'prove' their was indeed a plane at the Pentagon.

Ne NEVER posts dissenting views and when disagreed with the tone turns real nasty real fast.

He claims he will not publish letters advocating violence but regularly calls for revoloution and 'catching up with' 'snitches'.

He absoloutly attacks religion instead of the people in it.

He is a home grown far left fool who will be the first lining up for a job with the U.N when it takes over as interim government of the U.S.

He has indeed inexplicably followed certain paths with certain subjects like 'melted' steel in the Towers when the so called 'science' never uses that term. Some telly commentators might but the so called 'experts' never use this term.

He calls for all hackers to be drawn and quatered but has openly defended Microsoft, the greatest single criminal corp in history. Paid for and run by the U.S intelligence services. Would you have 7 NSA representatives on your board of directors?

He constantly bleats that the Jooooze armed with a few Sunburn missiles and some comprimising photo's of Congressmen are going to start WW3 between Russia and the U.S...you may be unconnected and sometimes stupid but I assure you 'they' ar'nt.

With all this bleating Rivero gives us the only hope...THE U.N.

Rivero, if you're not a stooge then you're at least a useful idiot.

But yes Sablefish, he is entertaining with his comments and i'd rather have him than not.