Kudos to Luke Rudkowski and We Are Change
They won Mark (I'm not John Conner anymore now that I'm famous) Dice's $1,000 prize for the video which most shamelessly promotes Conner's site.
I'll give it up to Luke; I think he's one of those 9-11 Deniers who truly believes what he does. I disagree with him obviously but I don't get the feeling he's one of the guys in this for the money and the fame. Yeah, this was effectively whoring out the banner, but they need the money since Les Jamieson has apparently made off with the money that was in the NY 9-11 Denier account.
Labels: John Conner, Luke Rudkowski, Mark Dice
posted by Pat @ 10:41 PM
32 comments
32 Comments:
So let me get this straight...they filmed in a private street, as the police officer pointed out, and they call this an infringement of their rights? Breaking the law has become an "rights issue" ?
Idiots.
JamesB, will you and/or Pat respond as to how you found out where the fake "Pat" and Nico were from?
SD,
I think this is a red herring.
Any web site can monitor every ip address that accesses the site. If the client pc doesn't do anything to proxy or other mask their ip address, than it is relatively simple discern the organization having that ip and the geo-code.
If fake Pat and fake Nico were using the same ip, than that pretty much wrapps up the case.
Dick Cheney told us.
Ha! You said "us!" As in "we!" That proves you're part of the crypto-blogist NWO cabal. Or something.
Luke is quite possibly the dumbest twoofer out there.
Granted they're all pretty dumb but many of them manage to at least sound intelligent to people who don't know the subject matter.
Luke sounds like a wannabe Eminem, yo!
Agree with him or not, Luke is one possibly the most sincere 9/11 Truther out there along with Sander Hicks.
TexasJack
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running. What
concrete that wasn’t pulverized into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. The structural steel is being removed and shipped by barge to be recycled. All photographs shown on
television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI.
We were shown photographs that
were not released for public view.
Source: The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah Page 3.
Leslie Roberts was a keynote speaker at the presentation. The section was continued from the title Message From the Board whose entire article was about the facts from Robertson's keynote address. Notice molten steel, not aluminum etc. The information is from page 3 which was entitled Message From the Board (continued from page 1) What was page 1 about, an entire summary of Robertson's facts about his visit to ground zero. So yes, Robertson's publically said that as you claim he didn't.
TexasJack, you are owned don't ever question me or my sources again and learn how to read a publication including the title and the information (continued from page 1). before you make yourself look anymore foolish. An Engineering publication presented this information not a kooky website as you like to assert.
Swing,
your next step would be to contact The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah and ask them what they think caused this molten "steel."
I would like to see a link to the actual newsletter that says that.
God, Swing's hammering some irrelevant issues today. The vital sockpuppeting allegations claim their eighty billionth thread, and bombs can still melt steel. I think Swing might be confusing the concepts of "steel" and "ice cream" here.
Swing, it takes you 4 days to respond to that post? it was from "Answer to a Challenge".
Man ,you are dense. You asked to point out how deceitful you are, and I did. You stole words that were not yours from a bogus 911 conspiracy website (it is not the first time you have copied and pasted, acting as if they were your own words) that used the so called quote from Leslie Robertson.
Also, it was not a quote from Robertson, but a recollection from his speech. Do you understand the difference? Probably not. Here is the website stole words from: http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm
BTW did you read the entire article? Doesn't really support you does it? Nice quote mining. Here it is: http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
Since when is being sincere a valid defence of stupidity?
I must have point a dozen times now that the fires beneath the debris could well have reached tempratures capable of melting steel in the weeks after. This offer no support to CD theories as DEMOLITIONS DO NOT LEAVE RAGING FIRES THAT LAST FOR WEEKS.
That's a pet peeve of mine, too -- about both sides. Yes, it's more likely that there was molten aluminum than steel in that pit, but it's entirely possible that there was molten steel, too. But whether it was there is not helpful in either demonstrating or debunking any kind of theory about how the towers came down because it depends on conditions which persisted long after the collapse event. If pre-collapse temperatures from the fires reached a point where steel could melt, that temperature still had to be maintained (or increased) by the post-collapse fires for there to have been molten anything at the time the observations occurred. If explosives or thermite or magical space weapons were used, exactly the same is true (except that in the case of explosives the post-collapse fires must have increased, not maintained, the initial temperatures for the reason you noted).
BG said...
SD,
I think this is a red herring.
Any web site can monitor every ip address that accesses the site. If the client pc doesn't do anything to proxy or other mask their ip address, than it is relatively simple discern the organization having that ip and the geo-code.
If fake Pat and fake Nico were using the same ip, than that pretty much wrapps up the case.
I hear what you're saying, bg, but it's not that simple. You need to have these things in place ahead of time. I'm assuming Pat is saying they found this out via their blogger account through which they publish Screw Loose. But, as far as I know, one doesn't have an option to trace IP's with your blogger account. Unless that's a feature with one of the paid accounts. And that would open a whole bunch of other questions...
So, the only fessable way I could see would be if, after complaining to blogger, that the blogger administration tracked the IPs. But then why is Jimbo being such a prat about it? "We had blogger trace them," is all he'd have to say. But instead he's defensive and irrational--as if he DOES have something to hide. AND Pat doesn't jump in to save him--like mates do. Odd, much.
And even if blogger had traced them, it's doubful they would have told them much more than "they're in the same location". For liability reasons. The only other person who's claimed to know EXACTLY where one of these fakes is, is--you guessed it--Nico Haupt. So for Pat to openly express the same certain knowledge--but including both fake parties-- does make one wonder.
STill, it's possible Jenny is missing something.(expect lame debunk jokes at this) You say a "red herring"--well, how would you figure?
So, the only fessable way I could see would be if, after complaining to blogger, that the blogger administration tracked the IPs. But then why is Jimbo being such a prat about it?
Because it's funny watching you get so worked up over it.
Because it's funny watching you get so worked up over it.
That would only make sense if I was actually "worked up"--by which I assume you mean "upset". But I could be wrong about your meaning.
Oh, and in future, if you want to pretend you find someone dismissively amusing? Try not to let it show when they wind you up. ;-P
Oi! Jimbo--get snappy!
BTW, civilized worm--isn't it embarressing for you to be the fan of a lily livered coward?
Well, I'll be checking back later--see if Jimbo's grown a spine. I've other odds and sods to see to.
Be seeing you...
Jenny, et. al.
1. When I say it's a red herring, I'm simply saying it's a distraction from any real discussion.
2. getting you worked up: just avoiding answering your question and seeing how far you go trying to get what you want... kind of like holding something above a dog to watch it jump up and fail to get the chew toy.
Luke seems very genuine and sincere about his beliefs...which makes his case all the more sad.
TAM:(
2. getting you worked up: just avoiding answering your question and seeing how far you go trying to get what you want... kind of like holding something above a dog to watch it jump up and fail to get the chew toy.
Heh.
Try as I might, I simply can't figure out what the hell Jenny is talking about. Should I be able to?
I'm pretty convinced that a complete understanding of Jenny's ramblings is a sign of mental illness. That said, he seems to be extremely upset that Pat used the "editorial we" a few weeks back and that pretty much everybody thinks he was the fake Nico and the fake Pat and the drive-by guy who was pretending to be a Holocaust denier who did not believe the 9-11 conspiracy.
I don't believe Jenny was fake Pat, believing things without evidence because you want them to be true is what twoofers do.
Texas are you aware of what a direct quote and block quote is?
Two, it wasn't 'cherry picking' at all. It was something witnessed at ground zero by an engineer. No explanation is given prior to or afterward. The description was completely seperated from other parts of the article. So really stop using that tired bunk 'cherry' picking excuse. It doesn't work here.
Keep tryin' rookie!
Ok Swing, if it wasn't cherry-picking, how about giving us a complete summary of the article? Chicken?
bg--that might make sense--except it's Jimbo who's the most worked up.
He had a little mini melt down not too long ago--leaping to the conclusion I'm black mailing him. Now why would someone think that? Why would someone think I'd think I have enough to black mail him with, at this point?
The "they're teasing you" argument doesn't work past the point when THEY look irrational. Contrary to the dominant belief at SLC, most debunks DO note oddities and inconsistancies, even if they avoid pointing them out of a misguides sense of solidarity--the only ones who PUSH to DISTRACT or GLOSS OVER are either slow or socks.
There is nothing James has to gain by pretending to be:
forgettful
oblivious
unconcerned
incurious
baffled
unable to read
These all contradict the alledged debunk virtues of mental acuity. By this point, whatever his anxiety about revealing his and Pat's sources are, a clever bugger would just LIE.
But he's not sure what I know, now is he?--which is why he's avoiding the question--and hoping I'll reveal something along the way.
It's all cloak and dagger, smoke and mirrors poncy shite at this point.
And if you want to know which party is the MOST worried about this interaction--note how he's avoiding that "thing"...I won't mention in detail...
Oh, this isn't finished by half, it isn't...if a connection to Nico and Screw Loose can be made, James and Patrick's credibility as debunks will be FINISHED.
This is all part of the dis-info wars, love--you work your angle, I'll work mine. ;-)
what
Poor civilized worm--not only slooooowwwww on the uptake, but hitting every thread he/she can to show off said slowness.
Love, for your own sake, give it a rest. ;-P
what
i think if the music wasnt playing in the backround it wouldnt be so dramatic. did you have to add that to add 'effects' to the video? just think about that.
Post a Comment
<< Home