John Albanese Recycles the Old Stuff

There are three more videos in this series that you can find here. It's the usual "Troof Lite Just Asking Questions" stuff: why were no planes scrambled to protect the Pentagon (because the military didn't know about Flight 77's hijacking until 3 minutes before it crashed), why did Bush oppose the commission (because he knew it would be politicized), why did nobody get fired (because the focus was on fixing problems, not assigning blame). Albanese recycles the same old tropes about how the commission only got $4 million (not true; it was later increased to $13 million), when the Monica Lewinsky investigation took $50 million (not true; that was the total for all the Kenneth Starr investigations, including Whitewater, which resulted in several convictions). I do love that he claims that some of the disinformation out there is deliberately sabotaging the movement, but conveniently he won't specify which information he's talking about. And I especially love his indignation that ABC wouldn't interview Bob McIlvee (sic); surely if it's that important, he could at least get McIlvaine's name right!

It Ain't Me, Babe!

Over at TruthMove, where the folks even more responsible than the Truth Action Truthers hang out, a Paul Kenyon posts his proof of the Troof:

Such a structure could topple, or buckle in either mode 1 (bend over from the top (unlikely but possible)) or mode 2 (bulge out from the center (less likely)) but should not have fallen straight down as though the earth opened up under it or it had been melted from the bottom by fast acting acid.

Actually, as we look at it in the best videos we have of it, it is not a single column but several columns solidly tied together. The top slender section rose above the several columns below. This made for a strong structure. It stood 20 seconds and I think it should have stood for 20 years...or 200 years of the calm clear weather of that morning if left alone to do so.

Does anyone have a natural scenario that could have made the spire collapse as we see it collapse in the videos? Does anyone have an interpretation of the videos that shows it actually toppled or buckled only we couldn't see it do this?...though the images, though not great, certainly show that it goes straight down.

John Albanese, correctly, laughs at Kenyon, but unfortunately this just encourages him to continue on with his theorizing:

In other words, in straight down collapse of the spire after the 20 second existence of it after the WTC 1 collapse, we have proof of human hands in the spire's collapse. This would be proof positive of foreknowledge, for example, and access for some time to set charges all along those columns...or of some other mechanism deliberately planned and deployed. What we have, then, is inarguable proof that the WTC collapses were not due to the aircraft impacts but that the whole thing was set up as a made for television event for public consumption...The buildings were rigged to collapse...no question. So, where do we go from here? Can we take this to court?

Yes, but I suggest a court where the judge harrrumppphs a lot and says things like "This is highly irregular, but..."

This is the same basic problem the Troofers have had all along; the claim that if you squint your eyes at this grainy video just right, you will have proof positive of an inside job!

Well, Truth Move is apparently full of those jaded types who've been hearing about "conclusive evidence" for years now. They're not interested in evidence, they're interested in "just asking questions" and "supporting the family members". So they tell the guy to take his "evidence" elsewhere. So far, so good. Kenyon claims to be an engineer:

I am a mechanical engineer and have worked as a design engineer for 40 years or so. I know steel fairly well and the way things tend to work and happen in the real world on a classical physics level.

Except, as the Truthers point out, he's not using any engineering ability or calculations but the usual "this doesn't look the way I'd expect it to look". Albanese:

how is it that a mechanical engineer schooled in the sciences and emperical thinking could claim that the spire was unaffected by fire - and was not hit by a plane - while IGNORING the hundreds of thousands tons of debris that fell on it that day?

How can an engineer even raise this question without blueprints that illustrate exactly what the BASE of this spire looked like - and how it may have been compromised?

gee - do you think it is possible the base of the spire was damaged, key joints weakened - and gravity simply brought it down?

Very reasonable points, points that might be brought up with Richard Gage's gaggle, which shows Kenyon as one of their engineers.

But another guy chimes in to support Kenyon, expressing disappointment with the Truth Move folks for not giving this guy more of a chance. And, not surprisingly, that causes one of the chief goofs over there to label him an agent:

I've seen the post above so many times in different forms, it's certainly become a cliche. The cheesy hand wringing. "I am disheartened by the reaction of the people on this site." The sly insults and turnabout. 'There's no point in going on with it.'

So, stop acting like a troll and you won't be treated like one.

But one step further, because I'm not in a great mood, and John inspired me to be honest. This looks like totally transparent trolling to me. Is it 911movement, or screwloosechange? What rock did you crawl out from under?

One more time. We don't have to work at making Truthers look like dolts; it's a given. Kenyon's an idiot, and the folks panning him for his idiocy are right. They're dolts too; they believe in 9-11 Troof while studiously avoiding evidence, which ain't exactly the scientific method. But Kenyon's more of a dope.

We Now Return to "As The Truther World Turns"

The soap opera just got a little more operatic. Our commenter Patrick pointed out this mind-boggling discussion of the NYC Ballot Initiative fiasco waiting to happen over at Truth Action Forums. It's a delight, but I do have to wonder; don't these folks read Screw Loose Change? There is so much that we were pointing out months and years ago that suddenly seems blindingly obvious to the geniuses over there.

Much of the discussion is over whether Les Jamieson is a good person to be running the initiative, and as to whether he'd control the purse-strings of any commission. There is much moaning and gnashing of teeth, as if Jamieson's initiative had any chance of getting enough signatures to begin with, and then passing.

Les' split with the We Are Change boys comes up, and Arabesque is startled to hear that Luke Rudkowski and Tom Foti don't have any money to do their street actions. Of course, this was the case back in February 2007, when the missive he refers to was written.

Jon Gold checks in and says if you New York guys don't like Les, ease him out of the picture. Easier said than done, replies Albanese (which is true). So Gold writes an email to Jamieson suggesting that he step down in favor of somebody named Jules. But Jules demurs, saying he doesn't want the job. LOL! Gold's point is established; Les is only running the show because everybody else stepped backwards when they asked for volunteers.

My favorite comment may be this one, by somebody who attended one of the St. Mark's "organizational" meetings:

It's useful to read the different perspectives of this ballot initiative. I've been curious to what is really at work here. It sounds like a good idea, but there seems to be little support behind it. With a basic grasp of the background info, I went to the 9/11 Ballot Initiative meeting at St Marks last month to witness first hand the dynamic. It was strange. There were only about 70 people (attendees/organizers), and mostly very old. Several people spoke, but the actual plan was never discussed. Two older women helping were both German, maybe irrelevant, but interesting.

Paula Gloria and Webfairy were there. Paula got kicked out after bothering William Rodriguez while both were in the audience (asking him to be on her show). There was a big commotion about that lasting nearly 10 minutes. It almost seemed staged, but that's probably disinfo paranoia affecting my perspective. It's just that the doorman could have handled it better, it seemed like he was being louder than needed and not taking it outside right away.

Les seems robotic, like a droid. I know that is subjective, but it stood out. No charisma or genuine enthusiasm. The event had a sense of going thru the motions, but lacked a sense of purpose or spirit.

As we discussed, the split in New York was generational; hence all the young people are in WAC and all the older people are with Les.

The Chandler conference comes up again, and somebody (Albanese I think) makes the claim that Eric Williams released his book of Holocaust Denial "literally days" before the conference. Not true; for one thing, Stephen Lemons and I broke the story on February 1, 2007, three weeks before the conference. And I picked up the story two weeks before that. And the copyright date on Eric Williams' book was several months before that.

Jon Gold chips in that he threw Stephen Lemons out of the press conference; actually he made the suggestion that Stephen be thrown out, but it wasn't until hotel security arrived that he agreed to leave (and was allowed back in five minutes later by Phil Berg).

At any rate, it's a hilarious discussion. Great find, Patrick!

Truther Wars Continue As Albanese Shuts Down 9-11 Researcher

This may be a little too "inside baseball" but I found it interesting. Rick Siegel put up a site a number of months ago called 9-11 Researchers that is basically a group blog for the no-planers. Uncle Fetzer posts over there, as does Nico, Coffinman, Peggy Carter (usually in the comments) and others.

The people over there do not have much use for John Albanese, who created the LIHOP movie Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, and apparently the feeling is mutual. I remember seeing a clip of Nico marching with some Truthers at Ground Zero, and giving Albanese the finger.

Anyway, Albanese has apparently gotten some revenge by shutting down the 9-11 Researchers site:

911Researchers has accused a great many people of a great many things. IN recent days they accused me of being a member of Al Qaeda and a homicidal lunatic planning murder. The FBI and police are aware of this. The tags associated with these stories included 'gas chamber' - 'torture' - 'hanging' - 'murder' etc etc. All of this I quietly tolerated. But after a lengthy conversation with 911 widow Ellen Mariani last night I decided the time to act was now, and I decided to pull the plug on Mr. Siegel's operation. It is my hope that Mr. Siegel and the 'researchers' who support him will reevaluate their lives and consider the pain and suffering they have brought into so many people's lives with their irresponsible accusations and harassment campaigns. Simply put, attacking witnesses, first responders and 911 widows is off limits and is does not occur in a vacuum. People are indeed watching and prepared to act when that sacred line is crossed."

I suspect that Siegel will simply remove some of the stuff from the server if it really is as bad as Albanese claims, and have the site back up on another server in a couple days.

Note as well this claim apparently from Alex Floum:

911Researchers.com was Rick Siegel and Nico Haupt's site, and promoted theories such as holograms. Rick Siegel recently sued the makers of the movie "911 Mysteries" for copyright infringement, and has allegedly made death threats against several prominent 9/11 truth activists (some of them in were purportedly made in email form).

Two obvious points; as far as I know, 9-11 Researchers did not promote holograms; Nico's "TV Fakery" is not the same thing (although it is equally insane).

I'm not sure if Siegel has actually sued Sofia, and I'd be very surprised if he personally was making death threats; he doesn't strike me as that kind of nut.

Note as well that in the comments on that post, everybody manages to avoid talking about the very real criticisms that Siegel has leveled about 9-11 Mysteries; the sounds Sofia added to cover up her removal of the WINS radio in the background, and the ridiculous identification of the North Tower collapse as that of the South Tower.

Anyway, score one for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea.

Hat Tip: Nico's 9-11 Bloglines

Nico Haupt News

First off, we've got an obvious Nico imposter posting occasionally in the comments here. If you see a comment from Ewing2001, do not assume it's really Nico. Check the link under his name; if it's leads you here, it's the imposter. You can tell that it's not really Nico, because that blogger profile reads:

It's been a rough six years, but I'm turning over a new leaf. I hope many I've offended can forgive me in time.

And at the phony Nico Haupt blog, there's an apology to 9-11 Blogger.

I apologize to dz and 911Blogger for not only slandering your person and your site, but also for my inexcusable trolling before you banned anonymous posts. It was nasty and juvenile, and there was no excuse.

That this is not really Nico is obvious from this post over at 9-11 Blogger:

According to Les Jamieson, leader of the NY group:

"On Sunday Jan. 21st Nico Haupt came to our Sunday event at St. Marks Church. He interrupted it and caused a huge disturbance. When people tried to oppose him he just cursed them out. Then he taped a printout of the email below (archive) on the wall. I'm sorry for any shock or disgust you'll experience, but I think it's important that this be seen."

The email went on to include photos depicting prominent 9/11 activists and Websites - including 911Blogger - depicted as associated with nazi imagery, swastikas, concentration camps and excrement.

John Albanese, who posted the claim about Nico's actions, wants him arrested for a hate crime, which is ridiculous. There is certainly some offensive stuff on that page, but free speech allows us to be offensive. This is not remotely the same thing as spray-painting a swastika on the side of a synagogue.

Anyway, I'm going to do my best to remove the phony Nico's posts.

If you're wondering why I handle the real Nico so gently, it's because he's actually quite a bit more reasonable than many other 9-11 Deniers. He doesn't insult people here, he doesn't insult the firefighters or the passengers or their families or the pilots or Edna Cintron, or engage in Holocaust Denial. I can point out many, many instances of the more prominent, supposedly more mainstream 9-11 Deniers who cannot say the same. His news aggregator is one of my regular stops looking for bloggable content.

And I think he's dead on the money when he talks about the movement and the efforts by various cults to subvert it to their own ends.