Merged ReThink911 - a Richard Gage ad campaign

fitzgibbon said:
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
Click to expand...

carlitos said:
Your back passage is correct. Ad agencies have entire departments that deal with "clearance." Literally every image in a TV or print ad is "cleared" by someone before it runs.
Click to expand...

Yes, we had a client recently who wanted to use photos found on an internet site. I wrote the site administrator and found, as I suspected, that the pictures were submitted by individuals and rights were owned by those who submitted them. In order to use photos we would have had to contact several dozen individuals for permission to use those photos free of charge.(client did not want to pay for them) That never did fly and we went another way for her ad.
 
I have previously joked about the fact that the same personality disorders that predispose one to conspiracy thinking apparently also prevent one's ability to be concise. But a 527 slide PowerPoint presentation? Really? 527 slides? :eek:

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php

ETA - and this is unseemly

When you donate just $50, you will receive a complimentary ReThink911 bumper sticker. Help ReThink911 distribute thousands of bumper stickers by September 1st!
Purchase the (coming soon) ReThink911 lawn sign so that everyone in your neighborhood will know a third tower fell on 9/11. Help ReThink911 distribute thousands of lawn signs by September 1!
Purchase the (coming soon) ReThink911 tee shirt and tote bag. Let those around you know you’re hip to the fact that fire can’t bring down steel-framed skyscrapers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well i did what Gage said, I rethought 9/11 and I found, for the 2nd time now, that it was a terrorist attack, and the conspiracy theorists are full of crap.

Now what?
 
carlitos said:
I have previously joked about the fact that the same personality disorders that predispose one to conspiracy thinking apparently also prevent one's ability to be concise.
Click to expand...
I have suggested that the problem is a deficiency of thinking skill called "divergent thinking" - the reverse of which is "convergent thinking". Put with brutal bluntness 'divergent thinkers" cannot think rationally whilst "convergent thinking" is, by definition, rational.

Understanding a complex event like 9/11 WTC collapse requires processing a lot of facets of data, sorting the facets into a logical relationship, determining which facets are relevant and significant, THEN progressively determining logical relationships and discarding the bits which are irrelevant and converging onto a focussed solution.

Truthers are nearly always divergent thinkers - they cannot work though the many relevant facets. All that I have said so far is basic behavioural stuff.

The bold step I have taken in my previous posts is the suggestion that being a divergent thinker will predispose people to becoming Truthers.

It not that truthers are bad thinkers. Rather that being a bad thinker tends to make some folk become truthers.

Look at their arguments - 80% or more are in the form "I cannot see how [Something] THEREFORE you debunkers prove me wrong."

If we translate that what it is really saying is "I cannot think through this complicated situation - you debunkers can think so you sort it out for me."
...then I'll tell you that you are wrong.
 
ozeco41 said:
I have suggested that the problem is a deficiency of thinking skill called "divergent thinking" - the reverse of which is "convergent thinking". Put with brutal bluntness 'divergent thinkers" cannot think rationally whilst "convergent thinking" is, by definition, rational.

Understanding a complex event like 9/11 WTC collapse requires processing a lot of facets of data, sorting the facets into a logical relationship, determining which facets are relevant and significant, THEN progressively determining logical relationships and discarding the bits which are irrelevant and converging onto a focussed solution.

Truthers are nearly always divergent thinkers - they cannot work though the many relevant facets. All that I have said so far is basic behavioural stuff.

The bold step I have taken in my previous posts is the suggestion that being a divergent thinker will predispose people to becoming Truthers.

It not that truthers are bad thinkers. Rather that being a bad thinker tends to make some folk become truthers.

Look at their arguments - 80% or more are in the form "I cannot see how [Something] THEREFORE you debunkers prove me wrong."

If we translate that what it is really saying is "I cannot think through this complicated situation - you debunkers can think so you sort it out for me."
...then I'll tell you that you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Ozeco,

Not being a scientist, I do the first part of what you talk about: "I can't figure this out, can you figure it out for me?" I ask this of both sides. What I have found is that eventually, to the "debunkers" I end up saying "thanks for the help" and to then 9/11 Truth side, "thanks for taking the time but your explanation doesn't seem to hold water and here's why." Several people think this is because I am close-minded, and I admit that one solid piece of evidence FOR CD would be real hard to integrate into a whole view of natural collapse that I currently have. But honestly, I can't think of a single technical claim made by the 9/11 Truth side that stands up to scrutiny! If that ever happens I have promised I will take it very seriously, even with the mental confusion that would cause.
 
chrismohr said:
Ozeco,

Not being a scientist, I do the first part of what you talk about: "I can't figure this out, can you figure it out for me?" I ask this of both sides. What I have found is that eventually, to the "debunkers" I end up saying "thanks for the help" and to then 9/11 Truth side, "thanks for taking the time but your explanation doesn't seem to hold water and here's why." Several people think this is because I am close-minded, and I admit that one solid piece of evidence FOR CD would be real hard to integrate into a whole view of natural collapse that I currently have. But honestly, I can't think of a single technical claim made by the 9/11 Truth side that stands up to scrutiny! If that ever happens I have promised I will take it very seriously, even with the mental confusion that would cause.
Click to expand...
Good for you Chris. As you know I understand and respect your position on these matters and your commitment to maintaining friendly courteous relations with those on the truth side.

I disagree with you on some aspects and the key ethical issue for me is how far you risk compromising your own position when you turn a blind eye to serious ethical questions such as R Gage's honesty. Specifically the potential impact on innocent third parties who may observe you not disagreeing with RG. No need to discuss that - I merely use it as an area of potential ethical difficulty.

Ethics aside the technical "risk" is in these two snippets. First you are putting yourself into the truthers false logic trap with this:
chrismohr said:
I admit that one solid piece of evidence FOR CD would be real hard to integrate into a whole view of natural collapse that I currently have...
Click to expand...
Do you realise that you have accepted "reversed burden of proof"? ;)

It is not your responsibility to integrate "one solid piece of evidence" into "a whole view" There is a flaw in the logic that many would not spot. It is this. It cannot be a "solid piece of evidence" unless and until it is already framed in a valid "whole view" hypothesis - even a draft outline hypothesis. How can you determine it is a solid bit of evidence if it isn't in such an hypothesis? Those are the fatal arguments. Your framing of the problem self destructs. (At least it does for me the cold blooded brutally objective engineer/lawyer :rolleyes:) ( Investigative journalists should be similar) (Celebrants may be different)

The second issue is the more obvious "reversed burden" which I'm sure I don't need to expand on.

So now I have shown you how to escape that trap what about this?
chrismohr said:
But honestly, I can't think of a single technical claim made by the 9/11 Truth side that stands up to scrutiny! If that ever happens I have promised I will take it very seriously, even with the mental confusion that would cause.
Click to expand...
There is no such "single technical claim". And if you are presented with one you will not have "mental confusion". the process of assessing the new claim within the hypothesis will persuade you.

However, if it does happen, you will have a lot of us friends sharing the hospice or psychiatric ward or....what ever.

And us engineers will be worst affected because the very basis of how our structures stand up l have been upset. Imagine me not able to ascend in a high rise building OR cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge.



EDIT: PS Now apply the tests of "is there an hypothesis worthy of a response?" and "where is the burden of proof?" to Mr Szamboti's stock standard truther style reversed burden of proof non argument based on a couple of anomalies he wants to tempt you with. Better still ignore him till he gets the claim process right way around.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Fuselage from 175 found on WTC 5, Engine from 175 on Muyrray and Church Steet, and a landing gear on Park Place.
Wow, you are zero for all of 911; and it is not your rookie season.

RADAR shows it was 175. Don't do RADAR, well don't worry, 911 truth expects you to be with no knowledge useful to fight the dirt dumb lies you just dished out, as your regugetate on que, the 911 truth party line.


Wow, then how were parts of the aircraft found exactly where physics predicts? Now you are saying Gage supports this incredibly idiotic fantasy?

Wow, no evidence, just silly lies. How do you avoid presenting any evidence for these nutty claims?

12 years of failure - Silk tie, Linen robe, or a Trip to Oyster Bay, to celebrate 12 big years of nothingness, and lies?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9383799&postcount=3056
 
Clayton Moore said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9383799&postcount=3056
Click to expand...

LOL, did you guess the engine weight like you guess at how the aircraft is suppose to crash? Why look it up when you can make it up. Saves time, and who cares in the fantasy world of 911 truth where planes can't break steel, or cut though steel cables and crash cable cars, etc. The world of 911 truth physics, make it up to fit the fantasy.

so-called empty aluminum wings,
Click to expand...
empty, only filled with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. The only thing empty is 911 truth's silly fantasy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo Now imagine if you will, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel going 590 mph. The shell of the WTC will not stop it. BTW, the shell is not solid steel, it is glass too. You posted nonsense, so stupid it hurts to read it; torture to engineers, but the favorite stuff of the fantasy minded 911 truth followers, who don't do math and physics. Where did you find that much stupid stuff?

Clayton, you have to show your work, the math, the physics. You can't say silly stuff like the nose would be broken, and claim it was not broken. The nose is fiberglass, it was crushed along with the RADAR in the nose. The whole plane was crushed like a hollow point bullet, but the WTC shell can only handle an impact at 180 to 280 mph, not 470 and 590 mph. Simple physics make the claims made by 911 truth nonsense based on cartoon physics, fantasy. It is ironic you show an old failed post to support 12 years of silly lies pushed by people who can't do simple physics.

Richard Gage sells lies and makes over 400k/yr. Why can't you do it too? You have some silly stuff like Gage, what makes Gage's lies worth so much more than the ones you are pushing?
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Good for you Chris. As you know I understand and respect your position on these matters and your commitment to maintaining friendly courteous relations with those on the truth side.

I disagree with you on some aspects and the key ethical issue for me is how far you risk compromising your own position when you turn a blind eye to serious ethical questions such as R Gage's honesty. Specifically the potential impact on innocent third parties who may observe you not disagreeing with RG. No need to discuss that - I merely use it as an area of potential ethical difficulty.

Ethics aside the technical "risk" is in these two snippets. First you are putting yourself into the truthers false logic trap with this:
Do you realise that you have accepted "reversed burden of proof"? ;)

It is not your responsibility to integrate "one solid piece of evidence" into "a whole view" There is a flaw in the logic that many would not spot. It is this. It cannot be a "solid piece of evidence" unless and until it is already framed in a valid "whole view" hypothesis - even a draft outline hypothesis. How can you determine it is a solid bit of evidence if it isn't in such an hypothesis? Those are the fatal arguments. Your framing of the problem self destructs. (At least it does for me the cold blooded brutally objective engineer/lawyer :rolleyes:) ( Investigative journalists should be similar) (Celebrants may be different)

The second issue is the more obvious "reversed burden" which I'm sure I don't need to expand on.

So now I have shown you how to escape that trap what about this?
There is no such "single technical claim". And if you are presented with one you will not have "mental confusion". the process of assessing the new claim within the hypothesis will persuade you.

However, if it does happen, you will have a lot of us friends sharing the hospice or psychiatric ward or....what ever.

And us engineers will be worst affected because the very basis of how our structures stand up l have been upset. Imagine me not able to ascend in a high rise building OR cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge.



EDIT: PS Now apply the tests of "is there an hypothesis worthy of a response?" and "where is the burden of proof?" to Mr Szamboti's stock standard truther style reversed burden of proof non argument based on a couple of anomalies he wants to tempt you with. Better still ignore him till he gets the claim process right way around.
Click to expand...
Ozeco,

Generally I know where the burden of proof belongs. As I say in my YouTube videos, I chose to debate Gage the hard way, by answering all his challenges directly. Literally hundreds of "what about" 's! Even with this choice, I haven't found a claim that stands up to scrutiny. In other words, it is indeed possible to meet the reverse burden of proof in most instances. (Admittedly no one can prove a negative, but it is possible to at least develop a reasonable hypothesis for every anomaly they dig up).

So Tony gave me two what-abouts (above). The "freefall of Building 7 for eight stories" is well explained in my video #18: First, the measurements are of one point along the perimeter. More importantly, Gage et al assume only two forces at play in the collapse: gravity vs resistance, therefore resistance must equal zero for freefall acceleration to occur. But torquing and leveraging were also taking place, giving us measurements that are close to net zero resistance. This could explain why one point on the roofline could be measured at approximately freefall. As for the "lack of deceleration" of the North Tower, first of all femr has shown the deceleration, and secondly, in general the building came down at around 70% of freefall, showing resistance was occurring during the collapse.

You're right Ozeco that I'm leaving myself wide open by accepting their standards of proof etc, but even that vulnerable position has not inspiredthe 9/11 Truth side to produce any data that can be explained only by CD.

I'm not sure what you mean about my agreement with Gage. A few weeks ago, I told him to his face that I disagree with every technical conclusion he has ever made about the cause of the WTC collapses! We certainly have strong points of agreement around both politics and our spiritual persectives, but on 9/11 CD we are in 100% disagreement and we both know it and assert it to one another.
 
chrismohr said:
Ozeco,

Generally ....
Click to expand...
Hi Chris - my comments intended to complement (and compliment) your position. Not to disagree.
chrismohr said:
You're right Ozeco that I'm leaving myself wide open by accepting their standards of proof etc, but even that vulnerable position has not inspiredthe 9/11 Truth side to produce any data that can be explained only by CD. ..
Click to expand...
I have comprehended and admired that stance from the start. You may recall from some of our discussions way back then.
chrismohr said:
I'm not sure what you mean about my agreement with Gage..... We certainly have strong points of agreement around both politics and our spiritual perspectives, but on 9/11 CD we are in 100% disagreement and we both know it and assert it to one another.
Click to expand...
Understood BOTH the common ground of values and the opposition on WTC collapse stuff. I have empathy for someone in your position on both aspects.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Cynthia McKinney supports ReThink 911!

Donate $50 and receive your own Metro ad!

Over the coming weeks "many prominent public figures" will come out in support of the campaign.

http://rethink911.org/alerts/2013/07/19/

Barf.

They have two weeks to raise the final $60,000 before it's goalpost shifting time again.
Click to expand...

They now have to raise $46,000+ by August 1. (6 days).

ReThink911250713_zps48762b33.jpg
 
rethink911.org said:
ReThink911’s London ad buy will consist of one backlit portrait billboard on Commercial Road near the “Gherkin” and four backlit boards at the Old Street roundabout. These eye-catching ads will be seen by nearly 50,000 people each day and are sure to get Londoners talking about the third tower that fell on 9/11.
Click to expand...


http://rethink911.org/london/

The "backlit portrait billboard" is located at the intersection Greenfield Rd and Commercial Rd, more than one kilometer (beeline) away from the high rise informally called the "Gherkin". AE911Truth took the image they use on their website from Google Street View, but increased the billboard size in Photoshop (see image below). For some reason they also took care to cover the name of the outdoor ad company that owns the billboard (Primesight Ltd) while doing this.

I'm a bit confused regarding the "four backlit boards at the Old Street roundabout", since the second picture they have on their website doesn't show a location at or anywhere near that place. Not even one in London. This one is located in suburban Manchester, at 601 Wilbraham Road, and thus will certainly not be involved in the ReThink911 campaign in any way. Again, they removed the "Primesight" sign below the ad, and rather sloppily so. Not really a Photoshop wiz they have there.

 
Muc said:
http://rethink911.org/london/

The "backlit portrait billboard" is located at the intersection Greenfield Rd and Commercial Rd, more than one kilometer (beeline) away from the high rise informally called the "Gherkin". AE911Truth took the image they use on their website from Google Street View, but increased the billboard size in Photoshop (see image below). For some reason they also took care to cover the name of the outdoor ad company that owns the billboard (Primesight Ltd) while doing this.

I'm a bit confused regarding the "four backlit boards at the Old Street roundabout", since the second picture they have on their website doesn't show a location at or anywhere near that place. Not even one in London. This one is located in suburban Manchester, at 601 Wilbraham Road, and thus will certainly not be involved in the ReThink911 campaign in any way. Again, they removed the "Primesight" sign below the ad, and rather sloppily so. Not really a Photoshop wiz they have there.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4547051f198e8746d0.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

:newlol London to Manchester - 300km. That's only a few feet, right, truthers?

Nice sleuthing, Muc! :thumbsup:
 
Muc said:
http://rethink911.org/london/

The "backlit portrait billboard" is located at the intersection Greenfield Rd and Commercial Rd, more than one kilometer (beeline) away from the high rise informally called the "Gherkin". AE911Truth took the image they use on their website from Google Street View, but increased the billboard size in Photoshop (see image below). For some reason they also took care to cover the name of the outdoor ad company that owns the billboard (Primesight Ltd) while doing this.

I'm a bit confused regarding the "four backlit boards at the Old Street roundabout", since the second picture they have on their website doesn't show a location at or anywhere near that place. Not even one in London. This one is located in suburban Manchester, at 601 Wilbraham Road, and thus will certainly not be involved in the ReThink911 campaign in any way. Again, they removed the "Primesight" sign below the ad, and rather sloppily so. Not really a Photoshop wiz they have there.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4547051f198e8746d0.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Oh, geez. I had thought that they were using art produced by the outdoor agency or an ad agency. If that were the case, I'd be more confident that they were in a real process to commit to these ads. If they are just photoshopping stuff from google street view, all bets are off. Maybe it's only the UK one that is doing this?
 
All this is reminding me of the guy in my town who used to drive around in a truck with "Jesus Saves" banners on the back.
 
At one point during the disastrous fundraising on Fundly last month, AE911Truth was so happy about $900 they received from the members of "Team San Diego" that they proudly announced it on their Facebook page. Yesterday, out of the blue, the donation counters on ReThink911.org had the enormous amount of $12,454 added, which was by far the highest daily amount of the revamped campaign, probably even the entire fundraising campaign alltogether. This was about as much as was added to the counter in the entire previous week, which included another sudden spike of $5,762 on July 25.

The amount for today dropped to a still impressive but comparatively low $3,970. This means that ReThink911, according to its own numbers, made more money in the last 5 days than it made in the two weeks before. As far as I can see, except the project nearing its fundraising deadline, nothing happened in the preceeding days that would explain this increase. Actually, numbers appeared to have reached a low point just before this started.

The following graph shows how exorbitant the boost was. The red line represents how much was added every day since the campaign got reorganised in late June, the blue line is based on the same numbers but flattened a bit by calculating an average for every day that didn't see an addition to the counters on the website, based on the next numbers that were added (for example, three days counting 0 / 0 / 3,000 would show as 1,000 / 1,000 / 1,000).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom