Friday, January 29, 2010

Korey's Response



I'm certainly not going to criticize him for making a $750 donation to the Fealgood Foundation; but it is confirmation that the Avery Foundation is not going to be operating anytime soon despite the "in the process of filing paperwork" claims.

Update: Commenter Patrick from Cincinnati encouraged me to do a little more digging on this, and I noticed that the receipt is addressed to "Third I Records". I did a little investigoogling and noticed that Dylan apparently created this "record label" a few years back.

Third I Records was created by Dylan Avery to showcase alternative musical talent speaking Truth to Power.


The Wayback Machine shows that the domain was last active in 2008.

Labels: , ,

61 Comments:

At 29 January, 2010 15:02, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Pat, come on! More details!

The date of 12/28 might tell us something. It might tell us nothing. It likely tells us nothing. But ... but ... Dancing Dylan and Baby Blue Korey set up a charity, teed up some big name donors (and small game donors), told those donors the IRS was not getting back to them on (c)(3) status and other things, asked the donors to give directly to their personal pockets, most donors didn't bite, but some did, Dylan got to hang out on the beach during the day and play in his band at night, Korey could take his community college classes, all the while thinking they'd replace the charity money with money made from An American Coup, then AAC, even with the Sunjata narration, failed miserably, so they went through some panic, and the panic grew over time, and then people started looking into their charity contributions, then they scrounged together what they could at the end of the year, so they used their Christmas money to come up with $750, which is the best they could do but it certainly wouldn't solve the problem, and here we are.

Admittedly, it's just speculation, but notice that I didn't merely ask questions - I actually came up with a scenario as to why we're now looking at a $750 receipt dated 12/28.

 
At 29 January, 2010 15:14, Blogger Triterope said...

What a typical Truther answer from Korey: a lame attempt to claim moral high ground that has nothing to do with the question.

Who cares if they wrote a check for $750 out of the millions they claim to have earned peddling Loose Change? The issue is why they can't be bothered to fill out legal paperwork for an organization they've been promoting for a long time now.

 
At 29 January, 2010 15:46, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Have they signed Payday Monsanto to their record label yet? He's an, er, alternative act that speaks, uh, truth to power, or something.

 
At 29 January, 2010 16:02, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Thanks for that catch, Pat!

But what the hell is going on here? If Third I, out of the kindness of Dylan's heart, gave $750 back in December (and are we talking about 2009?), then we would have heard about it - they would have touted it somewhere. That's big news for these people.

I wonder if Third I somehow took money as donations for first responders. If so, I wonder if it's over $750.

 
At 29 January, 2010 16:06, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Pat, I'm (we're) quite curious - can you reveal how you got this?

 
At 29 January, 2010 16:27, Blogger Triterope said...

Have they signed Payday Monsanto to their record label yet?

Now that's funny.

 
At 29 January, 2010 17:01, Blogger Pat said...

Patrick, if you're talking about the copy of the receipt from Fealgood, it was forwarded to me by Matt Brown.

 
At 29 January, 2010 17:34, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Pat, yes, that was my question.

And thank you for deleting that silly goose's stuff - I know that you're not in favor of that, but if it adds nothing (even in respect of the truthers), then it's just abusive noise.

 
At 29 January, 2010 17:39, Anonymous paul w said...

OT:

Some time ago, met a bloke who couldn't help himself raving on about 9-11 inside job, etc.

A real believer of the shadowy forces running the world.

He's a local, so bumped into him again today, with his wife, on their way a Christian meeting.

We did not mention 9-11, but they gave me a book, 'The Secret Terrorists' by Bill Hughes (based in Florida with Truth Triumphant Ministries).

It's the usual stuff, mostly how the Jesuits have run everything, and still do.

JFK, 9-11, various American presidents, Titanic, Waco, World War one and two, Oklahoma bombing, the Illuminati, and so on, all a big inside jobbie.

Truthers and religion.

Gee, What a surprise.

 
At 29 January, 2010 18:16, Anonymous Damocles said...

They're the worst of them. They're convinced that the world is ruled by satanists and that it's and indicator of how imminent Christ's return is.
Why didn't they just leave out the Book of Revelation and save us all a lot of trouble?

 
At 29 January, 2010 18:34, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Why didn't they just leave out the Book of Revelation and save us all a lot of trouble?

Because whoever assembled the new testament mistook John of Patmos for the author of the Gospel of John. That's why of all the loony apocalyptic early Christian texts out there, Revelation is the only one that made it into the Bible: it's a case of mistaken identity.

God help us all.

 
At 29 January, 2010 22:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is a "Civilian Congressional Medal of Honor."

 
At 30 January, 2010 09:18, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The Debunker Cult:right on the case like white on rice!!!As usual you Bozos have the tail wagging the dog.

 
At 30 January, 2010 09:30, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

"Arhoolie said... The Debunker Cult:right on the case like white on rice!!!As usual you Bozos have the tail wagging the dog."

Cheese sandwiches! Replace toilet brush! The square root of the Loch Ness Monster must be greater than Mark Twain! I love turtles!

 
At 30 January, 2010 09:57, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Titanic????

Well yeah, I guess, it was the first time ice ever sank a steel frame boat. Well a boat that size. And why did people report hearing explosions, and why did it break in two?

Titanic was an Inside Job!

 
At 30 January, 2010 09:57, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Another day, another comment from Spacebar guy. Nothing ever changes.

 
At 30 January, 2010 10:00, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Did someone say Titanic?

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

 
At 30 January, 2010 10:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The Debunker Cult"

Lather.


Rinse.

Repeat.

 
At 30 January, 2010 10:03, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

And how much has the Debunker Cult donated to any element of the First Responders charities? Combined?

 
At 30 January, 2010 11:05, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"the Debunker Cult"

Lather.

Rinse.

Repeat.

 
At 30 January, 2010 11:09, Anonymous Triforcharity said...

I personally have donated more than Third I has.

And most likely, have done more to help the victims of 9/11 than ANYONE in the TM has EVER done.

Ever.

 
At 30 January, 2010 11:53, Blogger Billman said...

I personally have donated more than Third I has.

And most likely, have done more to help the victims of 9/11 than ANYONE in the TM has EVER done.

Ever


You forgot to add "combined."

 
At 30 January, 2010 13:48, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Luke, Dylan, everybody at we area change, loose change, change I.. you guys rock!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t5_sHMypXA

— John Feal


Say Pat, how about a donation of your own? Still got a lotta love?

 
At 30 January, 2010 14:58, Anonymous Wan, Weak Guanoroo said...

Interesting how Shyam Sunder said that anything with 'structural elements' beneath it would NOT experience free-fall, not just at GZ, but 'anywhere on the planet'. How do you suppose that free-fall occurred over 2+ seconds, for a building that had fire in fewer than 30% of its floors? Did WTC 7 have any 'structural elements', or is that just a product of the delusional conspiracy fantasist liars?

 
At 30 January, 2010 15:17, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"How do you suppose that free-fall occurred over 2+ seconds"

Nobody cares, Krazee.

 
At 30 January, 2010 16:07, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Interesting how Shyam Sunder said that anything with 'structural elements' beneath it would NOT experience free-fall, not just at GZ, but 'anywhere on the planet'. How do you suppose that free-fall occurred over 2+ seconds, for a building that had fire in fewer than 30% of its floors? Did WTC 7 have any 'structural elements', or is that just a product of the delusional conspiracy fantasist liars?

It fell because of fire and damage from debris.

 
At 30 January, 2010 16:54, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

New Yorker: no.

According to NIST, it fell due to fire alone. If you want to defend the official story, then do it right.

I can cite NIST if you insist in pushing the fire/damage-collapse myth. Read their report.

 
At 30 January, 2010 16:58, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker: no.

According to NIST, it fell due to fire alone. If you want to defend the official story, then do it right.

I can cite NIST if you insist in pushing the fire/damage-collapse myth. Read their report.


OK, so it fell from fire. So what?

 
At 30 January, 2010 17:34, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

OK, so it fell from fire. So what?

It's extraordinary. It's, according to FEMA and NIST, a historic first that a building such as WTC 7 collapses from fire alone. Even if WTC 7 wasn't demolished, NIST's explanation in entirely unsatisfactory to the engineering profession and to tenants & occupants of similar buildings, in my opinion.

Yet, a law suit claiming WTC 7 was 'badly constructed' was thrown out.

WTC 7 is a mystery, and anybody mindlessly trumpeting official explanations about it is being lazy. There are many more dimensions to the WTC 7 story than just "conspiracy theory".

WTC 7 reveals the enormous problems caused by the phenomenon known as "Bush science". Same phenomenon that perverted the EPA.

 
At 30 January, 2010 17:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Roid Rage said...
New Yorker: no.

According to NIST, it fell due to fire alone. If you want to defend the official story, then do it right."

That's not what it said.

Moron.

 
At 30 January, 2010 17:52, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"WTC 7 is a mystery"

False.

 
At 30 January, 2010 18:11, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"That's not what it said.

Moron."

O Yeah? Then what DID it say, shitbeard kookloon ultra-nationalist? I fucking dare you to quote the NIST report. Literally. With page number.

Go ahead. (You didn't fucking read it, retard, we both know that. I'm owning your ass on the other thread and now I'm going to own your sorry monkey ass here)

QUOTE. NIST. RIGHT. HERE. RIGHT. NOW.

Are we clear?

 
At 30 January, 2010 18:12, Anonymous Damocles said...

WTC 7 is a mystery
As Chomsky pointed out when discussing 9-11, even controlled experiments produce unexplained anomalies. These don't prove anything.
Also, Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the most influential thinkers in foreign policy circles. He and Gates go way back, one can't just poo poo him because he was in Carter's administration.

 
At 30 January, 2010 18:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"QUOTE. NIST. RIGHT. HERE. RIGHT. NOW.

Are we clear?"

Do your own fucking research, retard.

 
At 30 January, 2010 18:51, Anonymous New Yorker said...

It's extraordinary. It's, according to FEMA and NIST, a historic first that a building such as WTC 7 collapses from fire alone.

Yes, from a massive fire that was raging for 7 hours without anything to control it. How many other high-rise structures in history dealt with those conditions before?

Even if WTC 7 wasn't demolished, NIST's explanation in entirely unsatisfactory to the engineering profession and to tenants & occupants of similar buildings, in my opinion.

Nobody cares about your opinion.

Yet, a law suit claiming WTC 7 was 'badly constructed' was thrown out.

Who cares?

WTC 7 is a mystery, and anybody mindlessly trumpeting official explanations about it is being lazy. There are many more dimensions to the WTC 7 story than just "conspiracy theory".

Yes, it's a mystery just like the processes that power the sun are a mystery, which is to say, not a mystery at all. Yes, there are more dimensions to the WTC 7 story than just "conspiracy theory". There's the "terrorist attack" dimension.

WTC 7 reveals the enormous problems caused by the phenomenon known as "Bush science".

False.

Seriously, I started googling around for WTC 7 long before I discovered this blog because I just couldn't understand what the hell the conspiracy types were talking about with that building. It's so absurd and counter-intuitive that it took me forever to figure out what they were blathering about.

 
At 30 January, 2010 19:01, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"That's not what it said."

"Do your own fucking research, retard."

Woops. Bad call, Dorothy. What did you think? That you were going to get away with this?

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

NIST NCSTAR 1A, page xxxvii

"The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

NIST NCSTAR 1A, chapter 4, page 47

"The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse. The American Society of Civil Engineers defines progressive collapse—also known as disproportionate collapse—as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it (ASCE 7-05). Despite extensive thermal weakening of connections and buckled floor beams of Floors 8 to 14, fire-induced damage in the floor framing surrounding Column 79 over nine stories was the determining factor causing the buckling of Column 79 and, thereby, initiating progressive collapse. This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e., buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building."

NIST NCSTAR 1A, chapter 4, page 48

 
At 30 January, 2010 19:05, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Yes, it's a mystery just like the processes that power the sun are a mystery, which is to say, not a mystery at all. Yes, there are more dimensions to the WTC 7 story than just "conspiracy theory". There's the "terrorist attack" dimension.

Whatever. Smartass. You probably haven't even fucking read the report. All you did was "Google around". I would take you seriously if I believed you had seriously studied the matter.

 
At 30 January, 2010 19:11, Anonymous paul w said...

So, NIST proved it fell due to the fire.

Check.

And, NIST said that this was the first time a building has fully collapsed from fire, as opposed to partial collapse.

Check.


And the problem with that is....what exactly?

 
At 30 January, 2010 19:23, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Paul W, so... if there's a discussion, shouldn't there be agreement on some basic facts, say about what the official story is?

I can't proceed if there's no basic consensus on the NIST report's literal words, can I?

Sigh. Nevermind.

 
At 30 January, 2010 19:27, Anonymous paul w said...

So, I asked you what was wrong with that, and you answer with...

Exactly.

You're not interested in discussing anything.

You're an idiot.

PS. Seek professional help

 
At 30 January, 2010 19:37, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

paul w: okay.

The problem with that is that NIST admits there is no precedent for a highriser fully collapsing due to fire. This means that their hypothesis is in violation of Occam's Razor.

The problem with that is that NIST builds its theory mostly on drylabbed computer simulations which do not correspond with reality. Would you like me to elaborate?

The problem with that is that there was very little physical evidence of WTC 7 left for NIST to examine.

The problem with that is that NIST contradicts various earlier theories by FEMA/ASCE. The question arises whether they are right this time.

The problem with that is that NIST's simulation visualization doesn't correspond with the video footage AT ALL.

et cetera, et cetera.

Even if WTC 7 wasn't blown up, the NIST report is false. This doesn't even have to be a choice between NIST's theory and controlled demolition. Has it occurred to you that there could be a third explanation for total failure, unaddressed by NIST's politically motivated report?

 
At 30 January, 2010 19:56, Anonymous paul w said...

"The problem with that is that NIST admits there is no precedent for a highriser fully collapsing due to fire. This means that their hypothesis is in violation of Occam's Razor."

No, the problem is you will not accept there is a first time for everything.

Like you having sex, for example.

"The problem with that is that NIST builds its theory mostly on drylabbed computer simulations which do not correspond with reality. Would you like me to elaborate?"

Dear god, you're an idiot. What did you want them to do? Build another couple of Towers and crash planes into them?

Computer simulations are done on many incidents, such as plane crashes.

They base it on reality, and it works. Deal with it.

"The problem with that is that there was very little physical evidence of WTC 7 left for NIST to examine."

No, wrong again; they examined thousands of tonnes of the stuff.

The problem is you did not read the reports.

"The problem with that is that NIST contradicts various earlier theories by FEMA/ASCE. The question arises whether they are right this time."

Yes..THEORIES...thanks for pointing that out.

Do you know what 'theory' means?

Exactly. Their investigations proved some of their theories wrong.

This is how professionals (note that word) search, and find, the truth. Deal with it.

"The problem with that is that NIST's simulation visualization doesn't correspond with the video footage AT ALL."

Yes, it does. That's how they figured the simulations were correct, or as close as possible to what what occurred.

Hmm. Did you read the report?

"et cetera, et cetera."

Indeed.

"Even if WTC 7 wasn't blown up, the NIST report is false."

No, it's not. Nor have you provided any evidence to prove otherwise.

"This doesn't even have to be a choice between NIST's theory and controlled demolition. Has it occurred to you that there could be a third explanation for total failure, unaddressed by NIST's politically motivated report?"

Well, if it's not the NIST's conclusions, or controlled demolition..er, UFOS?

PS. you are an idiot.

 
At 30 January, 2010 20:42, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"No, the problem is you will not accept there is a first time for everything.

Like you having sex, for example."


If only you could be the man your mother is. You wouldn't be projecting your frustrations.

"Dear god, you're an idiot. What did you want them to do? Build another couple of Towers and crash planes into them?"

I didn't know WTC 7 was a "couple of Towers (sic)" but if you say so.

"Computer simulations are done on many incidents, such as plane crashes.

They base it on reality, and it works. Deal with it."


Not if they are drylabbed.

"No, wrong again; they examined thousands of tonnes of the stuff.

The problem is you did not read the reports."


BULLSHIT! The problem is, not only have I read the reports and you haven't, you haven't even read the fucking FAQ, dingleberry:

"Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics."


Source : NIST FAQ

"Yes..THEORIES...thanks for pointing that out.

Do you know what 'theory' means?

Exactly. Their investigations proved some of their theories wrong.

This is how professionals (note that word) search, and find, the truth. Deal with it."


No. Their report is a cover-up based on fabrications and falsifications. Cover-up. Note that word.

"Yes, it does. That's how they figured the simulations were correct, or as close as possible to what what occurred.

Hmm. Did you read the report?"


Yes, whereas you haven't even read the fucking FAQ, nor (apparently) seen the simulation.

"No, it's not. Nor have you provided any evidence to prove otherwise."

Yes it is. Now what, sophist?

"Well, if it's not the NIST's conclusions, or controlled demolition..er, UFOS?

PS. you are an idiot."


Guilt by association fallacy. If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid. Dismissed.

 
At 30 January, 2010 20:58, Anonymous New Yorker said...

No. Their report is a cover-up based on fabrications and falsifications. Cover-up. Note that word.

Ah, the Brian Good method of argument: assert something as ironclad fact without a shred of evidence to back it up.

At some point, do you plan on telling us what you think really happened at WTC 7, and how it fits into the conspiracy?

 
At 30 January, 2010 21:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If not a controlled demolition, what is there to cover-up?
What is a drylabbed simulation and what better alternative is there to it?

 
At 30 January, 2010 21:55, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Anonymous: drylabbing is manipulating the experimental data until it matches your predetermined conclusions.

NIST, for example, appears to say that some observed fires were not "model inputs". Also, there is no discussion of thermal conductivity used in WTC 7's FEA. The collapse time produced by their simulation happens to EXACTLY match the observed collapse time, claims NIST, but in fact, when looking at the video evidence, it appears NIST simply works back from the end and then picks a starting point that does not even match global collapse initiation. NIST exaggerates fire loading, fire duration and fire intensity. This was documented by e.g. Frank Greening.

 
At 30 January, 2010 21:59, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"At some point, do you plan on telling us what you think really happened at WTC 7, and how it fits into the conspiracy?"

The only purpose speculation serves is as an attack vector. I'd rather stick to the facts. And in fact, the facts do not all point to controlled demolition.

Yes, I know you would argue that none of the facts point to controlled demolition. That's your prerogative.

 
At 30 January, 2010 22:03, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The only purpose speculation serves is as an attack vector. I'd rather stick to the facts. And in fact, the facts do not all point to controlled demolition.

Yes, I know you would argue that none of the facts point to controlled demolition. That's your prerogative.


So if the facts do not point to a controlled demolition, what on earth are you arguing about? If you want to talk about the awfulness of the Bush administration, you'll get a sympathetic ear from me, but hating the Bush administration is no excuse for accepting conspiracy nonsense.

And I'd argue that not only do none of the facts point to controlled demolition, but that it's more insane to believe controlled demolition at WTC 7 than at the twin towers.

 
At 30 January, 2010 22:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with that is that NIST admits there is no precedent for a highriser fully collapsing due to fire. This means that their hypothesis is in violation of Occam's Razor.

Sooooo Stundied!
Good Luck,
DT

 
At 30 January, 2010 22:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS
I agree with what Patrick said in the first post. I was thinking very similar thoughts, while reading the Do Over/Korey stories.


DT

 
At 30 January, 2010 22:49, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"So if the facts do not point to a controlled demolition, what on earth are you arguing about? If you want to talk about the awfulness of the Bush administration, you'll get a sympathetic ear from me, but hating the Bush administration is no excuse for accepting conspiracy nonsense."

I don't see why conspiracy nonsense is any worse than normal nonsense, except that it intersects with politics, feelings of identity and pride to a point where people lose their calm, especially if accusations of murder are involved.

I'm acutely aware of psychological barriers and pitfalls that prevent or obstruct rational thought. But that cuts both ways: in some cases it's just as irrational to reject a conspiracy on an a priori basis as it is to accept one. Take anthrax. Take the murder of Litvinenko.

For conspiracies, it's seems like the litmus test for a conspiracy is if the suspected perpetrators admit to it. Or if our governments and/or mass media subscribe to them. Well that's rich.

In that case, are you aware of former 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey's remark that 9/11 was a "30-year-old conspiracy", probably referring to the covert sponsoring of the mujahideen in '79? Or that the 9/11 commission considered referring NORAD for criminal prosecution?

I don't "crave" bombs in buildings so I can turn 9/11 into a sensationalist gubmint conspiracy orgy. There are various levels of weirdness to 9/11, each with its own plausibility level. Obviously controlled demolition of say WTC 7 is so far out for most people it's just not debatable. I can understand, and maybe WTC 7 wasn't a controlled demolition.

But certainly it can be argued that the 9/11 report was a cover-up (should I quote the commissioners themselves?), possibly of criminal negligence, and maybe some CIA or NSA rogues even tried to make money on the stock market with insider trading. Who knows. Incompetence demands reprimands though. Point is: either rejecting all of it or accepting all of it... is nuts. That's about us-vs-them doctrine, and that ain't working for me.

"And I'd argue that not only do none of the facts point to controlled demolition, but that it's more insane to believe controlled demolition at WTC 7 than at the twin towers."

Okay. But WTC 7 mimics a classic controlled demolition, while the main WTC collapses are quite chaotic.

I just find NIST's WTC 7 report extremely inadequate.

I think I've disrupted this blog enough. I'ma let you folks get on with your TM bashing.

 
At 30 January, 2010 23:28, Anonymous Traffic Cop said...

"In that case, are you aware of former 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey's remark that 9/11 was a "30-year-old conspiracy", probably referring to the covert sponsoring of the mujahideen in '79?"

Someone needs to pop that zit on walt's ass...

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/12/bob-kerrey-gets-truth-squadded.html#links

You ARE new here - it shows! You wonder why it's an all or nothing arguement. Go read the last three fucking years of posts here and you'll see why Mr. Aids Infected Dildo!!!

 
At 31 January, 2010 05:21, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250&ei=b4NlS5DAMJmw-AaE0q2RDg&q=The+conspiracy+files&hl=en#

'Roid Rage', watch and learn.

 
At 31 January, 2010 07:07, Anonymous New Yorker said...

But that cuts both ways: in some cases it's just as irrational to reject a conspiracy on an a priori basis as it is to accept one. Take anthrax. Take the murder of Litvinenko.

I'm not rejecting conspiracies. I'm rejecting the possibility that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration. Of course there was a conspiracy on 9/11: a conspiracy by al Qaeda.

In that case, are you aware of former 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey's remark that 9/11 was a "30-year-old conspiracy", probably referring to the covert sponsoring of the mujahideen in '79? Or that the 9/11 commission considered referring NORAD for criminal prosecution?

Neither of which suggest in the slightest that 9/11 was an inside job, and in fact suggest the opposite.

But certainly it can be argued that the 9/11 report was a cover-up (should I quote the commissioners themselves?), possibly of criminal negligence, and maybe some CIA or NSA rogues even tried to make money on the stock market with insider trading.

If you're going to make claims, back it up with evidence. That's all I ask.

Okay. But WTC 7 mimics a classic controlled demolition, while the main WTC collapses are quite chaotic.

It looks like a controlled demolition from a distance, with certain details ignored (like the collapse of the mechanical penthouse). I'd argue that its collapse was actually more chaotic than the twin towers. WTC 7 collapsed in multiple stages.

 
At 31 January, 2010 09:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, really. WTF is a "Civilian Congressional Medal of Honor" and how did John Feal get one? I don't want to call shenanigans, but well, pretty much everyone who has ever said anything nice about the truth movement has turned out to be a fraud so I wanna know if Feal and his charity are for real or fake. What is a "Civilian Congressional Medal of Honor" and how did troofer-lover John Feal get one? The Fealgood foundation implies it's really an "Above and Beyond" award given by the Congressional Medal of Honor society. If that's the case he's misrepresenting what it is on that tax receipt. But in any event he's not listed as a winner: http://citizenserviceaboveselfhonors.org/highlights-from-2008-2009/2008-highlights

 
At 31 January, 2010 11:45, Blogger Pat said...

Anonymous, I am not going to question John Feal; the kidney donation story was well-reported. I have not recommended donations to the Fealgood Foundation only because his charity has not been rated by either Guidestar or Charity Navigator. But Feal himself is a certified hero in my book.

 
At 31 January, 2010 13:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So was William Rodriguez. Life's complicated and it's entirely possible to do something quite heroic and subsequently do things which are not.

 
At 31 January, 2010 14:32, Anonymous Damocles said...

Take the murder of Litvinenko.
What about it? I'd say 50-50 it was the KG- err FSB, or an exiled Oligarch. Litvinenko validated every crazy anti-Russian right-wing conspiracy theory out there. He even accused Putin of being behind 9-11 and said that Zawahiri is a Russian agent. There's no reason we'd have to knock him off.
NY'er
WTC7 is the hardest part of 9-11 to explain because most people don't know how much damage that building took. It's easy to frame it as "undamaged building collapses out of nowhere! Fires have never brought down a skyscraper!" Of course, that's nonsense, but it's not as obvious as the north and south towers into which crashed transcontinental airliners with almost full tanks of jet fuel.

 
At 31 January, 2010 16:10, Anonymous paul w said...

Dismissed?

Not so fast.

1.
"No, the problem is you will not accept there is a first time for everything.
Like you having sex, for example."

If only you could be the man your mother is. You wouldn't be projecting your frustrations.

...........

You do not answer my point: there is a first time for everything.

As for the comment about you and sex...gee, did I touch on a testy issue? Oh dear.

2.
"Dear god, you're an idiot. What did you want them to do? Build another couple of Towers and crash planes into them?"

I didn't know WTC 7 was a "couple of Towers (sic)" but if you say so.

...................

Once again, you refuse to address the point I made; do we have to build another building (be it the Towers or WTC7) to find out what happened?

I say no.

You have an alternative?

3.
"Computer simulations are done on many incidents, such as plane crashes.
They base it on reality, and it works. Deal with it."

Not if they are drylabbed.

..................

Drylabbed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_lab

Your point is...?

3.
"No, wrong again; they examined thousands of tonnes of the stuff.
The problem is you did not read the reports."

BULLSHIT! The problem is, not only have I read the reports and you haven't, you haven't even read the fucking FAQ, dingleberry:

.............

Point accepted. I meant steel from the Towers.

4.
"Yes..THEORIES...thanks for pointing that out.
Do you know what 'theory' means?
Exactly. Their investigations proved some of their theories wrong.
This is how professionals (note that word) search, and find, the truth. Deal with it."

No. Their report is a cover-up based on fabrications and falsifications. Cover-up. Note that word.

...............

Once again, you simply ignore my point and make accusations without any evidence whatsoever.

Evading the issue, unprofessional, and immature. Note those words

5.
"Yes, it does. That's how they figured the simulations were correct, or as close as possible to what what occurred.
Hmm. Did you read the report?"

Yes, whereas you haven't even read the fucking FAQ, nor (apparently) seen the simulation.

................

Again, baseless allegations without any evidence. Yet another fail.

PS. I have read the reports.

6.
"No, it's not. Nor have you provided any evidence to prove otherwise."

Yes it is. Now what, sophist?

................

Yet again, you make allegations without any evidence. "Yes it is" is not evidence.

Another fail.

7.
"Well, if it's not the NIST's conclusions, or controlled demolition..er, UFOS?

PS. you are an idiot."

Guilt by association fallacy. If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid. Dismissed.

.................

You said - 'Has it occurred to you that there could be a third explanation for total failure, unaddressed by NIST's politically motivated report?'

I answered your question, by suggesting it could be UFOs.

Do you have a 'third' explanation?

All in all, RR, you evade points made, and make baseless allegations.

Fail.

 
At 31 January, 2010 18:42, Blogger Triterope said...

No, really. WTF is a "Civilian Congressional Medal of Honor"

I dunno, but a quick Google search shows that other people have received them:

Christina Cruz

Don Schoendorfer

Jack Bryant

Howard Hughes (yes, that Howard Hughes)

Unlike most other 9-11 conspiracy claims, where every single hit is the same dubious text with the same dubious sourcing on three dozen different dubious conspiracy websites.

 
At 01 February, 2010 08:56, Blogger Triterope said...

I should say "other people claimed to have received them."

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home