$84,968 wowsa goosebumps.
Go on Clayton, donate $10,000
Think of the good you will be doing
$84,968 wowsa goosebumps.
They put out the "official video" for the cyber-begging campaign a few days ago. It has received around 3,800 hits since.
They tried to get Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, Daniel Sunjata, Charlie Sheen, Woodie Harrelson, Roseanne Barr, Jesse Ventura, Margaret Cho and Lupe Fiasco to promote the video by sucking up to them via Twitter. As far as I can see, only Sunjata retweeted so far, and Woodie Harrelson and Michael Moore never will, since the ReThink911 people didn't pick their right Twitter accounts.
There is also a second, somewhat strange video of Niels Harrit and a bunch of Danish truthers on the ReThink911 YouTube account, and AE911Truth are now asking people to send in similar "inspiring" videos till the 14th. The 5 best will win ... well, nothing. They'll just be put up on the ReThink911 Facebook page.
Meanwhile the counter crossed the $150,000 mark with $3160, $5,462 and $2,255 added in the last 5 days.

If only "truthers" had an open mind.![]()
http://rethink911.org/boston/Description: ReThink911’s Boston ad buy will consist of dozens of taxi top ads which will swarm the streets of Boston’s pedestrian heavy downtown for the month of September. Each taxi top ad generates over 5,000 impressions daily, resulting in several hundred thousand impressions each day for the entire month of September.
What's the point of having Rethink911 on their advertising?
Isn't Rethink911 supposed to be the campaign to raise money for the advertising?
Snakes eating their own tails.
ReThink911 has already raised two-thirds of the $225,000 for this ad campaign. We are counting on you to bring us the rest of the way by August 1. Together we will make ReThink911 go viral this September.
ETA - I wonder if they licensed those images for use in advertising?
I wonder if they licensed those images for use in advertising?
License, shmicense! They found it on the Interwebz so of course everyone knows it's public domain!
Probably, this will be the excuse to have to 'pull' their carefully-crafted campaign at the last moment: the ebil rights holder will want an "exhorbitant" rights fee which poor ol' Dick won't be able to summon-up in such a short time.
So either the donations won't be returned or else not returned in full, the vig being kept.
Fitz
The lies come from the US government that is little different from the old USSR.
If the US government is sacrificing 10s of thousands of our precious youth in the military, fighting conflicts started by bald faced lies, why should 3,000 9/11 lives be of any consequence to help set the conflicts in motion.
The "after" picture they are using was taken by Ryan Remiorz for Associated Press on September 18 2001. Here are its information pages on AP Images and on Getty Images.
As for the first picture: AE911Truth were actually asking for a relatively high resolution "mid drop" picture of WTC7 on 9/11 Blogger in April. Looks like they eventually changed their mind regarding the "mid drop" and finally settled for this one, which is taken from approximately the same spot this WNBC clip (at 1:25) was taken from. Apparently "911research" obtained the picture from the "Here is New York" project at one point (picture ID: 7794) and since then were sometimes credited for it. Unfortunately, the HINY web site is currently broken and the picture is not available there anymore, so it would be very difficult to find out where it actually came from. Does anyone here know?
PS: ReThink911 claims to have booked $200,000 worth of ads at this moment with only $160,000 on their donation counter. If they don't have very good cancellation clauses, that would be quite a leap of faith, given how spectacularly some of their previous fundraisers failed.
I'd hope for them having to pay the "exhorbitant" rights fees that cost them all the money they raised, then end up dead in the water when they cant raise enough to actually run the ads.
Is this something the people who manage these advertising venues concern themselves with or do they just run just about any ad not concerned about copyright?
I wonder if the copyright holders of the images they are planning on using have any clue yet as to their plans.
I'm just pulling one from the back passage but I'd be awfully surprised if their standard contract doesn't include a rider about the clients either owning the copyright or having acquired the requisite releases from the copyright holders.
Fitz