Conspiracy

Alex Jones' Infowars Reporter Arrested in the Spin Room

|

About 10 minutes after the debate ended, reporters from Alex Jones' Infowars confronted Ed Goeas, who was spinning for Rudy Giuliani, and loudly asked what the mayor knew about 9/11. I rolled tape as Goeas took the bait, asking "Where are your credentials?" and "Do any real reporters have some questions?" But someone finally wrangled security and the reporter was escorted out, followed by a phalanx of cameramen.

It was surreal and I did a lot of interviewing after that moment (of, you know, the stuff I was actually covering), so it's a bit of a blur, but I'll post and upload the video a little later.

UPDATE: OK, here it is. The reporter was Matt Lepacek. I apologize for the quality of the video and for the occasional botched shot of the action. Quick rundown of the three (back-to-back clips):

1) Lepacek confronts Goeas as increasingly bewildered reporters look on. Goeas walks away and is sandwiched between Lepacek and Infowars' Luke Rudowski. Eventually, security pulls Lepacek away and he's arrested.
2) Rudowski is yanked out of the spin room.
3) Rudowski explains what just happened.

I don't know who said "You should ask your own candidate these questions, sir." I'm guessing it was a dig at Ron Paul, of course.

NEXT: Spam This Poll

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Were they actually arrested or just escorted out? Let’s not overreact here.

  2. That’s a very interesting story, David. Now, can you look at this neuralizer for me, please?

  3. “What do you know! What arent you telling us?! ISNIT TRUE THAT IT WAS THE JOOS AND THE SPACE STATION MIND CONTROL RADAR!!”

    I think the right answer to the guy would have been, “huh?”

    THEN have security drag him out and kick his ass.

    Plus, just for kicks, zap him with one of those Total Recall/MI-2 type Gun-Style-Injectors, and say “Now we can blow up your dick from our space station at any time”

  4. Rudy: Well I know I was mayor of New York at the time, have I ever mentioned that? That I was mayor of New York when 9/11 happened? I don’t think I have. You see I was mayor when it happened. It being 9/11 and by mayor I mean I was mayor of New York. Have I mentioned that?

  5. Great reporting by the winner of the Brad Delp Prize.

  6. Either he had a press pass or he didn’t. If he did, he did nothing wrong per the video and the New Hampshire police department should be extremely ashamed of themselves. If he didn’t he should have been escorted out, written a ticket for trespassing and sent on his way. He offered no resistance to police, so if he was truly arrested, either New Hampshire law is really harsh or the police fucked up. I look forward to hearing more about this story.

  7. Man, you can’t arrest a guy that’s wearing a tie. Or is that just my addled brain malfunctioning?

  8. “I was just asking questions.. ya that’s it questions , tought questions, ya that’s it TOUGH questions ya.. that’s my story and I’m sticking to it..” proof that any wing bat can get a press pass…

  9. Yeah, the guy seemed a little wacky, but I think the point is more about the police arresting him (apparently) just for asking questions that some GOP press guy didn’t like.

  10. proof that any wing bat can get a press pass…

    I believe that Helen Thomas proved that over a century ago.

  11. Great. The GOP makes 1st Amendment martyrs out of a bunch of lunatics. (I’m assuming that he was arrested and also that there wasn’t a good reason for it.) Would someone patiently explain to the powers that be that the most effective response to these people generally doesn’t involve handcuffs?

  12. Karen,

    Ignoring them would be an option, if they would behave like civil folk. Unfortunatly, many folks who pull this crap refuse to be ignored and must be removed so that the sane can converse.

    Kind of like those “cry rooms” they used to have in movie theaters for loud children.

  13. By the way, these guys that are asking “tough questions” are fucking loony:

    “One activist, the relative of a firefighter killed in the collapses, asked the former NYC mayor, for an explanation as why no steel framed building in history has ever collapsed from fire damage except for on 9/11 and why people in the buildings including rescuers were not given warnings they were going to collapse when he was.”

    http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/giuliani_infowars_reporters_gain_national_media_attention.htm

  14. of, you know, the stuff I was actually covering

    Yeah, uncovering lies about 9/11 certainly isn’t your job. Your a journalist after all, working for the media. Your job is to ask candidates things that they want to talk about so that they can get their message across efficiently. I mean, really, how would you or your organization get access if the relationship with the politicians became too adversarial? Pissing off Mr. Goeas is not a good idea if Infowars wants to become a real player in the media game.

  15. As a resident of the People’s Republic of Austin, I’ve been hip to Alex Jones and his merry band of David Icke lizardoid overlord-promoting compadres for over 10 years. Think of it as performance art that the artist doesn’t realize is performance art.

  16. It is irrelevant whether you think these guys are “loony” or not. The point is that if a journalist was arrested or even just escorted out this is evidence that there is no longer freedom of the press.

  17. Well, I assumed that the highly controlled public availabilities, “free speech zones” surrounded with razor wire at both major political conventions, and the immediate “watch what you say” admonitions after 9/11 from Ari Fleischer had already answered THAT question, Kat.

  18. “The GOP makes 1st Amendment martyrs out of a bunch of lunatics.”

    yeah, basically. they already feel like martyrs.

    also, rudy. RUUUUUUUUUUUUDY! RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDY!

    a very stupid move on the part of organizers.

  19. I think the right answer to the guy would have been, “huh?”

    I prefer, “The U.S. government is not competent enough to conduct and keep secret a conspiracy of that scale.”

  20. “The U.S. government is not competent enough to conduct and keep secret a conspiracy of that scale.”

    Which is why the media polices itself. For example:

    https://www.reason.com/blog/show/120583.html

  21. “Ignoring them would be an option, if they would behave like civil folk. Unfortunatly, many folks who pull this crap refuse to be ignored and must be removed so that the sane can converse.”

    Exactly.

  22. It is irrelevant whether you think these guys are “loony” or not. The point is that if a journalist was arrested or even just escorted out this is evidence that there is no longer freedom of the press.

    Kat,

    That is quite loony itself.

    “Freedom of the press” does not include disrupting the activities of others, tresspassing, theft, speeding, double parking, assault or a whole list of other things. Not that these child-like beings did all of that, of course.

  23. “Freedom of the press” does not include disrupting the activities of others

    Sounds like you are saying:

    Asking questions: okay.

    “Loudly” asking questions: arrestable offense.

    Thing is, this “loudness” restriction can easily get abused into a pretext to avoid taking questions that are embarrassing or incriminating. Is this about loudness, or is about Guiliani knowing things about 9/11 that he doesn’t want to say?

    Frankly, a Guiliani presidency would probably be the next best thing for a Truther, right after a Paul presidency. A Truther would believe that Paul would investigate, while Guiliani basically keep the issues fresh in people’s minds. the best hope of this dying down would be to get Obama or someone like that in there.

  24. Back in 2004, Al Franken tackled a LaRouchie who was “asking tough questions” at a Howard Dean rally. In that case the heckler was interrupting the actual candidate, not a spinmeister, and had already resisted security guards who tried to escort him out. That didn’t stop many GOP hacks from criticizing Franken for “suppressing free speech”. It was a stupid argument then, and it’s a stupid argument in this case.

  25. In that case the heckler was interrupting the actual candidate, not a spinmeister, and had already resisted security guards who tried to escort him out.

    and this case is the similar to that case why?

  26. Guy –

    None of that is relevant in the least, because the organizers of the event [CNN] did not want this guy arrested.

    Who made Rudy Giuliani’s empty fucking suit of a press secretary Emperor all of a sudden?

    Until this pimp is in fact Emperor, if someone has a press pass and is being a jerk he gets to sit there and take it until the people that issued the press pass tell the guy to leave.

  27. At first, I thought he didn’t have a press pass, but if you look closely just before the officers take him away, you can see the press pass around his neck (at 1:40 in this video). Now, he was arguing with the officers who came to escort him out, and not moving as quickly as they would have liked…I’m not sure if that would qualify as refusing to leave when instructed to do so, which would be criminal trespass.

  28. “”Loudly” asking questions: arrestable offense.”

    And preventing anyone else from asking a question.

  29. Also, hasn’t the SCOTUS ruled that the First does not necessarily protect speech if it is directed at a “captive audience” which clearly tries to disengage from the conversation? I mean, the Giuliani guy obviously didn’t want to answer the question, and turned his back and walked away as if he was going to talk to someone else, and this guy kept following him and demanding an answer to his question.

  30. And preventing anyone else from asking a question.

    According to the video he did not do that. Not to mention the fact that is customary for reporters to talk over each other in this kind of setting. Heck, based on the video, I don’t even think he qualifies as “loud.” This is not about loudness and it is not about speaking out of turn.

  31. and this guy kept following him and demanding an answer to his question.

    This did not make the guy a captive audience. usually when politicians are hounded by reporters, then they proceed to an area where the reporters are not allowed to go. Traditionally, that is how it works.

  32. Dave, there’s an expectation that the press secy. is going to be in the “spin room” continuously after the debate. It’s not like he can go hide somewhere for a while and wait this jerk out; doing so will cause him to be unable to do his job.

    You don’t have to have barriers to re-entry in order to have a captive audience. That’s why protesting at military funerals can be restricted, since the family members can’t be expected to just leave the gravesite if they don’t want to listen to the protesters’ speech.

  33. TWC, “Man, you can’t arrest a guy that’s wearing a tie. Or is that just my addled brain malfunctioning?”

    I once wrote a song about that, “White Guy In A Suit.”

    Everbody’s helpful
    No one’s ever rude
    Never see a mall cop
    Cuz I’m a white guy in a suit.

    People ask directions
    Even when I don’t know the route.
    They bring me my drinks right away
    Cuz I’m a white guy in a suit.

    (ba-ba-ba-dada)
    White Guy In A Suit!
    (ba-ba-ba-dada)
    White Guy In A Suit!
    (ba-ba-ba-dada)
    Everybody loves me
    Cuz I’m a white guy in a suit.

  34. Or, to put it more succinctly, it’s not that the press secy didn’t want to talk to any reporters; it’s that he didn’t want to talk to this particular guy. If he went somewhere where no reporters are allowed, then he can’t speak to those he wants to speak to either.

  35. this whole thing is gay

  36. Dave, there’s an expectation that the press secy. is going to be in the “spin room” continuously after the debate.

    A press secretary going into the spin room leads to the expectation that the press secretary will answer questions posed by people legitimately in the spin room. If the press secretary wants to talk only to reporters he hand-picks, then that can be done in a different setting with different types of expectations on the part of all involved (especially the ultimate media audience).

    If the press secretary had stood his ground and waited for the guy to become truly disruptive then things might have been different. as the video shows, the INFOWARs reporter wasn’t trying to talk over anybody that the press secretary was trying to talk to, and he wasn’t being particularly loud.

    I also think his question deserved a fuller, better answer than “no comment.”

  37. I also think his question deserved a fuller, better answer than “no comment.”

    I agree

    The fuller, better response would have been, “you’re a fucking goof. Next question?”

  38. I still want to know why Giuliani’s press secretary is entitled to get someone expelled and arrested.

    Did he own or lease the building?

    Did he sponsor the event?

    Was his candidate the only candidate present?

    Was he responsible for issuing the press passes?

    Why can this guy decide at a group event sponsored by others that someone with a legitimate credential not issued by him has to be expelled and arrested? If he’s entitled to do that, can Paul’s people unilaterally get the cops to expel people from the spin room, too? That would be awesome – just get the cops to arrest all the other spokespeople and candidates, and then you get all the press coverage to yourself!**

    **Obvious satire.

  39. ‘Kind of like those “cry rooms” they used to have in movie theaters for loud children.”

    Perhaps they should rename them “Hit and Run rooms”?

  40. The fuller, better response would have been, “you’re a fucking goof. Next question?”

    (Without cheating and going back to the video), do you even know what question that reporter Matt Lepacek?

    For those of you who can’t say off the top of your heads what the question was:

    1. Why are you so convinced the reporter is a loon or a goof?

    2. Are you judging Reporter Matt Lepacek by his employer (as Weigel’s post is worded to make you do) or by his actual question to the spin meister?

    3. Should you judge a reporter by his actual questions or by the identity of his employer?

    4. As best as I can hear it, the question was:

    “Are you aware of who told Mayor Guiliani that the buildings were going to collapse?”

    5. It is difficult to interpret what happened next, but I think that the Mr. Goeas expressed disbelief that Mayor Guiliani knew the buildings were going to collapse before they did, and then Reporter Matt Lepacek offerred to show him some kind of video footage indicating that Mayor Guiliani did know before the collapse in question. Correct me if I am wrong, because I am no Truther, and am not aware of any issue or proof of Mayor Guiliani’s forebodings of collapse. So far as I know, Guiliani was as surprised as I was. However: (i) this line of questioning is relevant to what kind of President Guiliani would make; and (ii) it is certainly more interesting than whatever it is Weigel considered himself to be in town to cover.

    6. Assuming I have interpreted the exchange correctly, a better answer from the press secretary would have been:

    “Your question assumes that Mr. Guiliani knew in advance the buildings would collapse. He did not. Neverthe less, if you can show me some convincing proof that he did, then I promise to have Guiliani show up at the next debate in a dress. Please post links to your so-called proof at the Guiliani website. If Guiliani shows up at the next debate in a suit, then it means your proof, pardon my French, sucked. I think that is tough, but fair, and probably more than you deserve. Next question.”

    Is that so hard?

  41. I heard the fucking question

    It was a non question-question. He was asking why “he lied”. Even responding admits to some case the guy has. He has none. He was (in H&R parlance) ‘baitin’. He wanted to show ‘evidence’ of a ‘contradiction’. But its all statements taken out of context and twisted to address their assumptions of ‘vast conspiracy’. Those guys are shitheads. Did it require security? no. But the guy wasnt obligated to take them seriously in any way.

  42. He was asking why “he lied”. Even responding admits to some case the guy has.

    You mean like when Guiliani asked Ron Paul whether the US invited 9/11?

    btw, in my previous post, I gave the press sec’y a suggested answer that does not admit that the “guy” had a case.

  43. Dave W,

    There’s a difference between a “why” question and a “whether” question. The former assumes that the following statement is true, the latter does not.

  44. Don’t get drawn in like I did, crimethink.

    It’s a maze of suppositions if you let it get much further.

  45. I saw your suggested response. The difference is that you think the guy deserved a response. I dont think he did. I think he certainly could have been handled deftly with a quick acknowledgement that the rep wasnt going to deal with him, and asked if he had any ‘substansive’ questions, but he wasnt obligated to treat the guy’s question with any respect. It’s not just ‘like’ being asked “Prove you are not a liar!”, it IS being asked that question. The guy was accusing Giuliani of ‘lying’; if he had proof of that point, then he didnt need the press rep to confirm or deny. He just wanted footage for his rant site. Gayzorz. I am not suprised they released the hounds on him. Although it inadvertantly provided them exactly what they wanted, which was acknowedgement of their existence, and hopefully martyrdom.

    I’ve commented before that these kind of fundies deserve all the abuse, disdain, contempt the rest of us can muster. They arent going to change their minds when you try to explain Occams Razor to them.

    And Guiliani didnt ‘ask’ Paul whether the US invited 9/11. He twisted Paul’s comment to suggest he’d actually meant that. Which was dishonest and cheap. People say things that are open to multiple readings and using isolated statements to attribute a POV to the opposition is disingenuous.

  46. I saw your suggested response. The difference is that you think the guy deserved a response.

    Earlier in this conversation I didn’t know whether Guiliani had advance warning that the Twin Towers were going to collapse. So, when I got back from lunch, I looked it up on the Internet. Turns out that Guiliani said this:

    “I–I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”

    Which means, of course, that the reporter’s question was reasonable after all and deserved a respectful, thoughtful and true answer. It is pretty clear to me now that Mayor Guiliani had at least some forewarning that the Towers would fall before the first one did. The press sec’y should come clean with the full scoop.

  47. There’s a difference between a “why” question and a “whether” question. The former assumes that the following statement is true, the latter does not.

    Okay, crimethink. Do you know whether Mayor Guiliani said the following thing to Peter Jennings on ABC news:

    “I–I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”

  48. Dave you dont need to quote the same @#&^$ thing twice

    And the quote means nothing. He also said they didnt have time to act on the report that the buildings were going to come down. Whats the unknown here?

  49. Whats the unknown here?

    How much time did he have to react?

  50. thats known. About 10 mins. And command and control was such that any order would have taken an hour to reach all units, if at all.

  51. And command and control was such that any order would have taken an hour to reach all units, if at all.

    I thought you were on Guiliani’s side in this?

  52. Giuliani was referring to building seven (where the emergency headquarters was located) coming down, not the Towers, unless you really think he survived the collapse of a 107 storey building falling on top of him…

    Professional journalists don’t heckle. The guy was a nuisance who should have been removed.

  53. Dave W. | June 6, 2007, 4:06pm | #

    And command and control was such that any order would have taken an hour to reach all units, if at all.

    I thought you were on Guiliani’s side in this

    Christ.

    You’re being a heckler Dave. I am on the side of reality. Read the fucking 9/11 commission report. Page 319-320 summarize some of the communications problems, timing issues with command and control, different organizations operating on different frequencies, etc. This was not “Rudys” fault. As I said at the start = you are acting as though he was RESPONSIBLE or in control of every detail of what was happening. That would simply not be possible. It would NEVER be that way. Thats not how emergency management works. There is always delegation. If the report from the site came at 9:57 that engineers on the ground thought the building was coming down, by the time it reached Rudy’s team (10mins?) they had ~10mins to send out orders to evacuate – which would have taken an hour to reach everyone, and many, never. None of this could have been changed by the decisions of one guy.

    If you read the report, and do a little thinking, you might quit worrying about what Rudy did or didnt do on 9/11

  54. “TOO MUCH ROUGE” RUDY (SO NAMED BECAUSE OF HIS CROSSDRESSING PICTURES AND THE VIDEO WITH DONALD TRUMP ONLINE) GIULIANI, just officially lost the nomination of the Republican party, and of course, any pretense at the Presidency.

    He can thank his goons and his spinmeister, Ed Gooneas (or is it Goeas as in “GO ASS”) for turning all the money he spent on his fiasco of a campaign into a giant money pit.

    WAY TO GO RUDY…EVEN GOD USED LIGHTNING TO SHUT YOU UP!

    “TOO MUCH ROUGE” RUDY…AMERICA’S FAILURE!
    http://ronpaulisright.blogspot.com

  55. Thats not how emergency management works. There is always delegation. If the report from the site came at 9:57 that engineers on the ground thought the building was coming down, by the time it reached Rudy’s team (10mins?) they had ~10mins to send out orders to evacuate – which would have taken an hour to reach everyone, and many, never. None of this could have been changed by the decisions of one guy.

    1. First of all, you give the guy who decides if the building is coming down a direct link to the command center. If Mr. Nameless Engineer knew 20 plus minutes in advance, then Guiliani should have also known 20 + minutes in advance.

    2. Second, he should have given the evacuation order quickly, whether or not everybody would have been able to get out of the way. I mean, maybe you want to check as to whether survivors are still being evacuated at a fairly fast rate (I don’t think they were), but after a couple of minutes you give that order, whether or not everybody can get out or not.

    3. I wasn’t there, but I imagine that a lot more firefighters were standing around the perimeters of the buildings than were way up in the stairwells. even 5 minutes notice could have done a lot of those guys a lot of good.

    4. Sure would be nice to know how Mr. Nameless Engineer knew when he knew. I realize the explanation is probably technical, but I bet he could dumb it down for us if called to testify.

  56. Also, if Rudy was superman, he could have blown the fires out with his super-breath and flown around rescuing people all the people in the building

    All you’re trying to do is create a reason to claim the guy wasnt acting in his best capacity in the circumstances, and frankly you’re just wrong. There was no ‘failure’ on anyone’s part. Yes, they could have all had a single communications network. Now they do. No one was planning to have to conduct combined operations on a disaster site of that scale. But none of this matters to you; you’re more interested in political bullshit “he said she said” It’s crass and opportunistic. If you had any intimacy with the event that day you’d be a little more reasonable but you and other prefer to treat it as armchair dilletantes. Im sorry i’m unable to get you to be fair, but go back to your Quest For Blame…its apparently more fun for you

  57. No one was planning to have to conduct combined operations on a disaster site of that scale.

    They already had had an attempt to blow up the Towers. They better have had an expert at the ready to decide whether the Towers were going to fall, and they better have had plans for ensuring quick communication between the expert and the decider.

    The expedient of the jets may (or may not) have been foreseeable, but the need for the expert and quick communications should have been foreseeable both before 9/11 and during the 56 minutes that Tower 2 burned.

    Which is not to say that Guiliani did planning or did a bad job. But it is not clear that he did a good job either. we just don’t know enough to say either way at this point.

  58. we just don’t know enough to say either way at this point.

    You would define “good job” as what.

  59. You would define “good job” as what.

    Reasonably quick and decisive decision-making in light of the clarity of relevant expert opinion available at the time on an ongoing basis.

    Isn’t that everybody’s def’n?

  60. So, Dave – if you were mayor and 9/11 happened in your town… read the 9/11 report and tell me what you would have done differently?

    Seriously. You’re starting to some degree with assumptions that “management failed”. NYC is the biggest metro area in the USA (fuck LA). THe guy has the second hardest job next to the president. He has to deal with a small nation here. And he was on the scene within minutes coordinating efforts of 4-6 agencies at once (port authority, EMT, FDNY, NYPD, National Guard, US military). He actually managed to help save 1000s of people. there were (est) 18000 people in the buildings when the shit started. 3000 died. A lot of the stuff the agencies did was contradictory and confused (at one point Port Authority told people to stay where they were which delayed evacuation efforts). But he was there, on the block, trying to make the thing work and help the people of the city. As a lifelong resident of this place, Rudy isnt just admired for being a strong leader on 9/11, but for the decade of revitalization he oversaw. He was also a loundmouth dick with a lack of fear of the press. He was a very genuine NY’r, who made his bones taking down mob rings in the fulton fish market. You can hate on the guy for whatever reason, but he’s much more of a get your hands dirty problem solver than most of these empty suit politicians, and while I can’t say i’m a supporter of his or potential voter, the man deserves a modicum of respect for his track record of facing down tough problems and taking them head on. He’s honest to a fault (with recent exceptions, the downsides of national politics), and a pragmatic guy. I may never vote for him, but people who disparage his character or capability over bullshit details that they miscontrue and half understand should be called out for the schmucks they are.

    all of the citizens of NYC, and the officials and departments under rudy’s control during the whole 9/11 thing have praised his rapid take-charge ability ad nauseaum. You – a stranger to this event to a large degree – declare him a questionable character. Who do you think people should take more seriously?

  61. From PrisonPlanet.com:

    Presidential candidate Ron Paul was informed about what had occurred and stated words to the effect that while we are supposed to be spreading freedom and democracy abroad, we couldn’t even handle it in New Hampshire.

  62. Hey, time for the Truthers to kiss and make up for Ron Paul effectively spurning them in some of Reason’s recent interviews.

    “All is forgiven! Please be our friend!

    Sincerely,

    Alex Jones”

  63. http://blip.tv/file/256575
    new video of incident only more blatant cause the audio is clear. and multiple camera angles

  64. He really was arrested! Why are you reading articles here if you don’t trust the reporters. Would you believe it if CNN said it? Why is this any different?

    There are several reports across the internet and they all state the fact that he was ARRESTED. CNN staff pleaded that he not be arrested because they really did give him a press pass.

  65. Marcvs

    Fucking lunny? thats funny asking a question as to how in the history of mankind no steel building has ever failed due to fire is a lunny question indeed. Just to point out this “activist” lost a famuly member in the 911 attacks and you should show some fucking respect regardless of what you think of this so called “activist” And regardless of how lunny this reporter may be the fucking 1st amendment gives him the right to ask a question dummass especially if he has a presspass now you notice my use of name calling towards you and use of labeling does it feel good you fascist pig? I can tell you this:the U.S.A was founded on the premise of free speech and to say or justify someone being arrested for asking a question means we are turning into fascist state just like the lunatics Alex Jones and David Icke have been mentioning for decades. If getting arrested for asking the wrong questions means nothing to you then maybe you should go live in China you fucking commie or maybe your are a cuban trying to push a socialist\fascist agenda in the U.S.A? its the only reason you could justify the breaking of the 1st amendment the bedrock of what makes America free. Or maybe your North Korean? Because you are not a fucking American for #1 calling an AMERICAN HEROES NEPHEW A LUNATIC FOR ASKING A QUESTION. #2 for justifying the arrest of someone for asking a question breaking the 1st amendment of the United States Of America. Maybe your a Nazi? spill it out and tell us where your really from because you are definetly not American and if you are you have just commited treason againts the 911 victims, againts the U.S constitution and our founding fathers.Who is more lunny the person who asked the question or the one who called someone lunny because they were excercising there freedom of speech? I think you are the one who is Lunny.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.