Sunday, February 25, 2007


Screw Loose Change gets rid of Holocaust denying 911Debunker
~
With LOTS of Jenny's help.

A Cautionary Tale in Three Acts

ACT I: In which we lay out what has gone before

Once upon a time there was a movie made by three young men called Loose Change. Frankly we don't know why it was called that. It's a mystery, probably intentional. Loose Change challenged the accepted goverment acount of the 911 attacks, focusing on inconsistancies with the offical interpretation of the physical evidence. Many people who saw the movie felt their own doubts about the official 911 story validated, and if they didn't have doubts before, they started to wonder now. Some of them even went as far as joining the already existing 911Truth Movement. Eventually someone, some where, decided, "Something must be done!"

Thus was "Screw Loose Change" born, a blog run by JamesB and Patrick Curtiss, whose raison d'etre is to challenge everything "of" Loose Change" including what the creators had for breakfast. Okay, Jenny exagerates--I haven't heard Jason or Dylan's eating habits questioned--yet. The point is, the blog exists to tell everyone how "Loose Change " is wrong, even when it's right. And the comments forums are infested with "debunkers" whose raison d'tre is have a place where they can feel good mocking people they don't agree with. Well, consenting adults and all that. But while "Loose Change" was the orginial focus of disparagment, soon all aspects of the 911Truth Movement were grist for their "debunking" mill--even the dead obvious one, that, even if the official story was correct, everyone in charge should have been fired for gross incompetence. Months passed and, in spite of Pat and James efforts, as well as many other "debunkers", the Truth Movement would just not go away. It was time to turn up the volume. It was time to drag in the Holocaust.

What the bleeding hell does the Holocaust have to do with the 911Truth Movement, you ask? Well, nothing--except that it is the last ditch effort by all those concerned to discredit ANY and ALL questioning about the official story of 911. And so Pat and Mike, sorry, Pat and James, jumped the "Truthers are Holocaust deniers" bandwagon, with occasional help from their dis-info mate, Nico Haupt. And what a rollicking ride that bandwagon was! Starting in September with this entry:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/brilliant-editorial-in-seattle-pi.html

...never did they seem to past up an oportunity to conflate Holocaust denial with 911Truth. No matter how tenuous the connection, for months they hammered this theme, until they'd have you believe the majority of 911Truther's denied the Holocaust. Equally shrill are the semi-regular insinuations by many debunking individuals that 911Blogger tolerates Holocaust deniers, in spite of the fact we have exactly one who is always rated into obscurity.

(For the record Jenny knows of no Holocaust deniers in her local 911truth group. Jenny has never personally knowingly met a Holocaust denier. While Jenny is certain they DO exsist, clearly they are a fringe to ALL groups--if they were as common as Pat and the "debunkers" at his blog would have us believe, surely Jenny would have tripped over one by now.)

As the 911Accountability confrence in Arizona drew near, the shrill hysterial was cranked up at Screw Loose Change: ONE THE ORGANIZERS IS A HOLOCAUST DENIER! When the organizers removed this man from any precived position of authority, this wasn't good enough for Screw Loose Change: THE HOLOCAUST DENIER IS STILL THERE AS A VENDOR, they screeched. Yes, boys--and girls, presumably--a vendor, which means he had to pay to sell stuff. Take a valium. Lacking new matterial, SLC change kept up the hysteriacal HE'S STILL THERE, BREATHING! diatribe in the days up to the con. Then Pat crashed the gig, undercover as a Jone's fan, accompanied by Stephen Lemon, who, being a prat, tried to start some shite and almost got himself thrown out.

Well they got pics of the event--did you get my good side?--and blogged their little Hardy Boys adventure, and I'm sure were going to have great fun over the weekend mocking the "Holocaust denying Truthers". And then it happened to them--a Holocasut denying 911 DEBUNKER came to their site to set them straight.

ACT II - Wherein Pat and James reveal a double standard

Contrary to what one confused indivuidual said this is NOT the first time they've had this--according to them-- problem as these archived blogs, and their comments, show:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/10/six-million-person-question.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/steven-jones-denies-anti-semitism.html

Yep, they must have forgotten their debate mates JoanBasil and nesNYC, among others. Frankly it was only going to be a matter of time before another would come by. Ignoring these inevitable probabilities one "debunker" has gone off the deep end with his own conspiracy theory, but more on that later.

So this new debunker, with the handle of "Paul Revere" and speaking with what sounds like an attempt at being an old fashioned gentleman, claims he doesn't deny Jews died in WWII, just that it was a Holocaust:

>>>Paul Revere said...

Shawn: I agree with you lad. But perhaps it would be good to email the convention organizers? What will they say?

However, your hot temperament, well inspired to be sure, perhaps over looks some of the historical similarities to the construction of the Holocaust myth and the construction of the 911 myth. Both are rooted in the machinations of a media elite.

This is NOT to saw murder was not done against many during the great war, only that it has been exaggerated, as 911"Truthers" exaggerate the culpability of our great government.

Truth be told, America has NEVER done wrong, no matter how many would slander her or our great President Bush who is doing everything in his power to protect us from the true terrorists.

24 February, 2007 12:29 <<<

Whatever. By the rigorous standards Pat and James have set up, this boy should be gone pronto. What's good for the goose, and all that. But when Jenny challenges them they say:

The comments on our site are pretty much unmonitored, it says so at the top. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Pat or I. Hell, even you post there, and we have not removed your annoying and pointless posts. All sorts of people post there, we do not have a system like here, where you vote on posts you like or not, and we don't go through and ban people that disagree with us like on the Loose Change Forum.







Tuesday, February 20, 2007

A curiosity for your consideration:
Who'd have thought Ronald Wieck would open up to Nico Haupt(sort of)...
Even going so far as to admit he was wrong about something(sort of)!

From Jenny's Diary~

Warning: what follows may be long and tedious.

To those new to the on-line 911 battles, the names Nico Haupt and Ronald Wieck will mean nothing. Read further to destroy your current blissful ignorance. But if you prefer your bliss, click on this link to Tulips instead.

For those who wish to soldier on, Nico Haupt was one of the earliest 911activists, respected by many until certain actions made him reviled in the 911Truth Movement. Now he dedicates his time to dredging up dis-info, or as he would say it, "exposing the 911truth cultists"; observe how he mocks everyone but gives no clear indication of where HE stands. Some have asked him if there are ANY 911activists he DOES get along with; this question was unanswered last I heard. One of Nico's handles on-line is "ewing2001".

Ronald Wieck, or as I call him, my "papa bear", is an alleged libertarian who voted for Bush not once, but TWICE, and occasionally hosts Hardfire, a New York based cable program. He is a rabid debunker of the 911 Truth Movement, and for a while registered with 911Blogger supposedly for research. This research involved posting 8+ per day, almost non stop, until his insulting rude posts got him banned.(you might hear from JREF that he was banned because his comments got rated down--not true; I hear you will only get banned for violating the site rules--repeatedly in his case). To get an idea here is the link to Ghosts of the Firemen; no matter which side of the debate one is on, there are plenty cringe inducing posts by Ronnie(Yes, later that's me sardonically agreeing with him; there really wasn't any point trying to discuss anything seriously). Another handle Ronald Wieck uses at both Screw Loose Change and the JREF forums is "pomeroo"; and I don't know what it means either.

So, let's read the following exchange(warning: you may want to skim until the end!) at the Screw Loose Change comments forum, after "Alex Jones' Prisonplanet Picks Up On EMT E-Mail":

pomeroo said...

The fraud Swing Dumpster shovels another steaming pile.

The conspiracy liar who wrote the fake "letter" stated that the crowd was warned that the building (WTC 7) was going to be "pulled." No, WTC 7 was NOT going to have cables attached to it--IT WAS FAR TOO BIG. Nobody was "pulling" anything, except the legs of those too stupid to spot the deception.

Nobody used the term "pull." The liars have set this trap for themselves with their insane insistence that Larry Silverstein's suggestion that the contingent of firefighters be PULLED out of the unstable building somehow meant that he, the owner, was demanding that the Fire Department (!) blow up his own building. The liars are unfazed by the fact that the Fire Department is not in the business of blowing up buildings.

Swing Dumpster's ancient quotes are debunked in many places. Perhaps the most useful compilations are available on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

The false claim that somebody other than a conspiracy liar used the term "pull" exposes the whole game.

08 February, 2007 17:21

ewing2001 said...

pomeroo--perhaps you will learn to debate without name calling one day, but I doubt it.

did that frau jenny sparks annoy you so bad you think straight even less these days?

08 February, 2007 17:36

pomeroo said...

Ewing, you make a few mistakes in your post.

Jenny Sparks doesn't annoy me at all. She is a highly entertaining loon.

You accuse me of name-calling, but Swingie has been shown to be a fraud many, many times. Writing "the fraud Swing Dumpster" (okay, the "Dumpster" part is not polite) is equivalent to writing "the actor Johnny Depp."

Incidentally, you neglected to comment on my assertion that the misuse of the term "pull" exposed the letter-writer as a conspiracy liar and a fake. Must have slipped your mind.

08 February, 2007 20:06


pomeroo said...

Swingie, all of your posts are utter rubbish. You prove yourself a fraud every time you unload. Here's the problem with your, heh-heh, logic: Nobody but a conspiracy liar talks about "pulling" a building. If you're in the demolition industry, you use the term only for a specific type of operation. If you're an outsider, it would never occur to you to associate the imminent collapse of a building with something that is being pulled. The liars' use of the term makes no sense. They invented it in order to pretend that Larry Silverstein a) was confessing publicly to an unprecedented crime, and b) was asking the Fire Department--insanely--to blow up his own building. I understand that if you're a loon, you have no problem with asking the Fire Department to blow up a building, but some us do. We have the same problem we'd have with someone who asked the mailman to fix the leak under his kitchen sink.

There were no explosives in the WTc. The reason no one in the demolition industry buys the conspiracy liars' silly fabrications is that the collapses of the Twin Towers obviously are initiated at the impact floors. And, yes, planes really did fly into those buildings.

The forthcoming NIST Report will show why no explosives were used to bring down WTC7, but, as you have no intention of reading it, that won't inconvenience you very much.

09 February, 2007 10:33

ewing2001 said...

pomeroo-you are right. he should not be calling you a dumpster. let we who aree truthers not imatate the worst of "skeptics".

As for the british frau sparks, perhaps I am mistaken. it is just you said many frustrating things about her at jref and so I have this impression. if it is wrong i appologize.

this reminds me--do you really think you can tell if a writer is man or woman just by their writing as you claimed at jref?

09 February, 2007 14:49

pomeroo said...

Ewing, a few corrections:

I'm the one using the offensive term "dumpster."

You are not a "truther," as truth is a meaningless concept to you. You are a fantasist, because you are wedded, for purely emotional reasons, to unsupportable beliefs. People who understand exactly how insane the nonsense they promote really is are accurately, if harshly, termed conspiracy liars.

I'm not sure what you mean by "frustrating" in regard to my various commnets on Jenny Sparks. She is a spectacularly ignorant and dishonest person. Her over-the-top viciousness makes her easy to ridicule.

No, it is not always possible to determine from a short sample of prose the gender of the writer. Occasionally, the voice is distinctively male or female, as it was for the anonymous poster you allude to. I felt it was highly probable that the writer was female, and it turned out that I was right.

09 February, 2007 20:26

ewing2001 said...

pomeroo--it is sad you throw stones from your glass house. i know jenny is very sarcastic, but she was never vicious, though perhaps you think so. but that is after you posted insults hours around the clock at 911Blogger.
anyone will be angry if you provoke them much. pehaps you give sample of this viciousness?

i assume frustration is what caused your obsesive posting and say this by trying to help YOU. i also had same problem with people i don't agree with. do not go over the top and others will not respond so. maybe you can show how this frau provoked you so before you hours and hours of posts?

11 February, 2007 08:14

pomeroo said...

Well, Ewing, if my explanation for posting on 9/11blogger.com, repeated four or five times, didn't satisfy you, repeating it another time probably won't do the trick. For the record, I wanted to hear the fantasists defend the mania that grips their minds. I wanted to find out if they were saying something that rational people ought to hear. I discovered I could not achieve anything by posting occasionally and restricting myself to recommending actually reading the NIST Report. Saturation bombing, so to speak, was essential to provoke the fantasists into revealing their inner selves.

Yes, I expended time and energy, but, in the end, I managed to amass a considerable body of material. I discovered that the twoofers have nothing--no coherent narrative accounting for the events of 9/11/01, and no evidence to support any of their specific claims. Unlike some rationalists who merely know OF the fantasists, I believe I can say that I now KNOW the fantasists.

Jenny struck me as intriguing. Here is someone who is, to euphemize, extremely passionate about what she does. She is all frenzied action, to the total exclusion of thought. She hasn't the slightest idea of the implications of what she says. She couldn't begin to make a case for her absurd fantasies. She just don' need no stinkin' evidence. She is, in short, the quintessential True Believer.

The undercurrent of violence on that site simultaneously repels and fascinates me. These people share a lynch mob mentality. They would--and I don't think I'm exaggerating--literally kill Bush and Cheney for crimes these men quite obviously did not commit. That doesn't faze you, but it should.

11 February, 2007 19:49

ewing2001 said...

pomeroo--you say frau sparks didn't make a case. but you know from reading blogger she says she will not debate the facts with a person who is just there to disrupt. which you admit. So, no you have not discovered anything but that angering people makes them not want to talk with you.

but perhaps you can make your case clearer now by giving a link to an example of what you think happened? otherwise i believe you need to take a step back like i did and see how you are discrediting your side with your actions.

11 February, 2007 23:04

pomeroo said...

Ewing, you make certain assumptions that are unsupported by the evidence. I did keep a file of my posts on 911blogger.com. You sound as though I spent all my time calling names. I purposely escalated the level of ad hominem attack I'd permit myself very gradually. That is not a matter of opinion: you can check the relevant threads. I began by employing no insulting language whatever. As the abuse hurled at me increased in volume and intensity, I started responding in kind. Again, don't take my word for it--see for yourself. You imagine that I can discredit the rationalist case by speaking honestly and presenting accurate information? I purposely stressed certain key points over and over. Examine the entire thread dealing with that odious painting of the ghosts of firemen haunting Bush. Tell me what I wrote that isn't true. Show me a single fact-based argument the regulars used against me. I invite anyone to check the record.

11 February, 2007 23:25

ewing2001 said...

if you purposefully attack people then you can not claim you are doing good. everyone knows people will be angry if you attack them. this is nothing new.

you ask me to show where you wrote that was not true. so here it is:

"You are not providing a valid e-mail address. Surely you get the idea by now?"

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5425#comment-107430

i have much practice with links! and the frau says:
"It is a valid email address"

but i understand we may not believe her. so i go here to jref:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2278007&postcount=28

and read:
"Jenny Sparks has contacted me regarding her forum registration. Her denial to the forum had nothing to do with her email address."

so you are wrong to say she was not providing a valid email. but you cannot admit this simple thing; do you see how this takes away your credability? perhaps not with 911 facts but with your ability to discuss effectively with people?

you were obscessed for days. this affected your judgment. this is not normal for even just curious people. please, for your health, get help like I have. and consider it a blessing in disguise you were banned as you had lost self control.

12 February, 2007 02:37

pomeroo said...

Ewing, you continue to write very silly stuff. I suggested, based on what JREFers were writing, that the cause of Jenny's registration difficulties were most likely related to the e-mail address she was submitting. It is extremely easy to post on JREF. When she said, or implied (who the hell remembers?), that fear of her devastating arguments and her uncommon brilliance was preventing her from registering, I smelled a rat. If Lisa Simpson states that Jenny's problems were due to something other than an e-mail address, then it must be so. The fact that Jenny chose not to resolve those problems confirms my suspicion that she realizes that she'd be in way over her head trying to peddle thoroughly debunked nonsense to such a super-savvy group. Rest assured that any registration problems she was experiencing could have been overcome with little effort.

I'm not the ultimate authority on registration procedures at JREF. I know that it's quite simple, so simple that a great many conspiracy liars manage to do it. So, what am I supposed to admit? Jenny says she tried to register; Lisa Simpson says her e-mail address is not the reason for her inability to do so. Okay,then something else is stopping her. It's not something insurmountable. In fact, it's almost certainly something trivial. You act as though you're making some sort of point when, in reality, you don't have one. Jenny never had the slightest intention of parading her ignorance in a forum populated by real scientists and engineers.

You seem to live in a dream world. I have no obsession with the pathetic souls at 911blogger.com., and my judgment is fine, thank you.
Perhaps you recall the technique I employed to send Andrew Lowe-Watson running for the hills? I simply pinned him down and demanded that he respond to specific questions. There is no way to expose an elusive fraud unless you're willing to sink your teeth into him and hang on, like a dog with a bone. Andrew loves to hit and run. He asked me what it would take to change my mind about the myths promoted by the fantasists. I told him. And then I told him again. And again. He kept dodging and I kept reminding him. Eventually, everyone got the idea, although they lack the integrity to acknowledge it, that he was never going to uphold his end of the arrangement.

Why it took so long for the Stalinists in charge to ban me remains a mystery. Freedom of speech is not something ignorant fanatics respect. I had gathered all the material I needed and felt that I was repeating myself. Clearly, it was time to go. I finally had to push Gold's buttons to get myself banned, as leaving of my own accord wouldn't work. My detractors would have accused me of cowardice.

I'm not sure what sort of psychological help you required, but I sincerely wish you well. Why not add a few books on critical thinking, particularly 'How to Think Straight,' by Antony Flew and 'Dumbth,' by Steve Allen, to your recovery regimen? Albert Ellis was right, in my opinion, in maintaining that many common emotional problems have their roots in faulty thinking. Check out 'A Guide to Rational Living.'

12 February, 2007 05:13

ewing2001 said...

you were wrong to say frau's email address was invalid. you cannot admit this, you loose credibility. you do not have to guess all what she said. i gave you links. are they wrong(the links)?

watson you know has little credibity with other 911bloggers for the same reasons you have none. both of you are obsessed and cannot think straight when you talk. think about how you say this: you call them stalinists but they took so long to ban you. this is not the action of a stalinist. this is very tolerant, giving you lots of rope. you have no one to blame but yourself for banning.

i too am to blame for my banning. i thought emailing kindred spirits to blog all at once on certain topics per day was a good idea. but it was not. it was disruptive and smothered other better ideas.

much of what you say sounds like trying to save face. you will not admit small simple mistakes no one would hold against you for admitting. you make people angry on purpose and try to show how this makes them fanatics, but anyone you did that to would be angry. and it is not normal to spend full work days posting with people you do not like. where do you find time? this can only be obsession.

i hope things are better for you in your life. you do not sound like a happy man.

12 February, 2007 11:45

Comment deleted

This post has been removed by the author.

13 February, 2007 04:32

pomeroo said...

Ewing, you still labor under the misconception that I'm particularly knowledgeable about the registration procedures at JREF. I know that registering is easy. I know that all sorts of conspiracy types regularly manage to do it.

I got the idea that Jenny must have submitted an invalid address when that explanation was suggested by JREF members who have been posting there longer than I have. You claim that I was "wrong," but you can't seem to understand that I have no inside information. My opinion was based entirely on what other people said. Lisa Simpson has stated that the e-mail address was not the problem. So, that settles the question. I still don't have the slightest idea of what could stop Jenny from posting if she wanted to. She doesn't.

On the subject of banning, I can only repeat that I was--and continue to be--astonished that they let me post for so long. They never did give any explanation for the banning. They simply pulled the plug when Gold was starting to look silly. I was thoroughly tired of going around in circles, but I had left myself with no convenient way out. By the way, I enjoy calling Gold a Stalinist. He gives the impression of not believing a word of the preposterous tinfoil-hat stuff. His aims are purely political, I think.

Understand that I don't regard the people at 911blogger.com, a few of whom were quite civil, as fantatics because they get angry. They are fanatics because they are wedded to crazy beliefs that they can't possibly defend and refuse to examine. I'm not a hater. I bear no ill will toward them. I just wish they'd learn to think critically, to control their emotional need to stand reality on its head.

Where did I find the time to post as often as I did right after Christmas? Well, catching a nasty virus helped. My work does not require going to an office. But, the truth is, I couldn't possibly sustain the pace I set for more than a handful of days. I didn't feel obsessed. My girlfriend, however, thinks you may have something there.

I'm reasonably happy, but thanks for expressing concern.

13 February, 2007 04:37

ewing2001 said...

Pomeroo
thank you for admitting you were wrong about the fraus email. it makes you a bigger person. it was probably not wise to jump to the conclusion her email was wrong as you did not know well how registration worked...but you know that now!

hope you have recovered from your illness. i worry that you stayed sick longer by constantly posting when you should have rested! this also i see could explain some of your bad judgment there. in future do not post seriously when you are sick!

13 February, 2007 12:33

pomeroo said...

Ewing, you strike me as a decent sort. Thanks for the kind wishes, but my illness was just an upper-respiratory virus, the sort I pick up from time to time.

Actually, I finding posting on a blog rather relaxing. My purpose at 911blogger.com was to engage as many different people as possible. It became surprisingly easy to distinguish the ones who were honestly troubled by this or that aspect of 9/11 from the True Believers. The latter have no questions that haven't been answered over and over.

One poster at 911blogger.com endlessly recycles firemen's quotes, the same ones that are explained--IN CONTEXT--at debunking911.com. What can he hope to achieve? Everyone gets the idea that things explode when a building is on fire. Yes, lots of people heard copier machines, soda machines, transformers, computers, etc., blowing up. There could not possibly have been extensive fires that produced NO explosions. Apart from the absurdity of attemting to convince others that the inevitable explosions were the result of planted charges, how does he manage to deceive himself? Does he ever stop for a moment and reflect that building fires ALWAYS produce explosions?

I lose patience with people who demonstrate utter contempt for the truth. If you want to promote a theory that flies in the face of all the available evidence, it is YOUR obligation to explain why the rest of us should take it seriously. You may have an emotional need to cast America as the villain in any conflict, but why should anyone else care about that?

Incidentally, I don't find it particularly hard to admit mistakes. I often wonder why so many people do, given that mistakes are absolutely inevitable. Politicians make me laugh when they tie themselves into knots to avoid simply saying, "I misspoke," or "I was misinformed on that one." Don't they realize how silly trying to create an impression of infallibility makes them appear?

13 February, 2007 19:54


Admittedly that was only a portion of the posts--I selected the ones relevant to pomperoo and ewing2001. I also wanted to archive them. As soon as pomeroo realizes he's been had, I suspect Pat and James will want to remove all evidence of the conversation--because here's the real kicker--the person Ronald is confiding in wasn't the real Nico at all, but an imposter that has been making Nico's life hell for the last couple or three weeks by running around appologizing for him, A la, the "Yes Men".

And this fake "Nico" has done what no other 911activist has managed to accomplish: have a human and mostly civilized conversation with Ronald Wieck while known to be a truther. While not actually saying he was wrong, Ronnie also doesn't vehemently deny it, as he has done elsewhere. What was the difference, I wonder? Ronald Wieck had to know ABOUT Nico, from his associate Mark Roberts at the very least.

Well, some mysteries weren't meant to be solved--perhaps the accidental humanity of Ronald Wieck connecting with indentity corrected "Nico" is one of those mysteries.

~Jenny


Fine, fine...comment here if you must...

Friday, February 9, 2007

The Strange Romance between Screw Loose Change and Nico Haupt


From Jenny's Diary~

I'm trying to understand the strangest thing I stumbled over at Screw Loose Change: apparently Nico Haupt is considered a valuable source of news--valuable enough that Pat of SLC will not ban him no matter how much he spams their blog:

"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."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/nico-haupt-news.html

Now there is a Nico imposter at SLC whose goal, from his/her posts, is apparently to annoy Nico by acting like a decent, civil person. Pat appears to have a problem with this, and plans to hunt down and remove all the imposter's posts. As Alex commented:

"The real Nico is for all intents and purposes a goddamn link-spam-bot on here, while the "fake" Nico actually offers opinions and is quite civil. Yet you're going out of your way to remove fake Nico's comments while leaving the real ones!

Not trying to criticize, but, damn, that's really ironic."

It is ironic. And strange. Others have called for Nico's banning. He constantly annoys with his useless spamming. It is within the power of Pat and James to either ban him or delete his spams. And until Nico(presumably)came by to object, they had no problem with the alledged imposter's posts.

Why would people who run a blog dedicated to disparaging the 911Truth movement care whether a disinfo spammer they despise is a target of disinfo? More baffling, why use the excuse of access to his news aggregator as a reason to be "soft on him" and allow him to continue to spam their blog? If Pat truely finds Nico's "information" blog worthy--(this by itself is mind-boggling; surely if we at 911Blogger think Nico is untrustworthy, a 911debunker should want no part of Nico's "news")--certainly he could still access Nico's site even if Nico was banned from their blog.

Pat, who will accuse the mildest 911activist of tolerating Holocaust Denial if they make a simple honest mistake, also defends Nico's actions of January 21st where he taped a printout of an email on the wall of the church--the content of which not only includes the image that made dz decide to ban anonymous posts, but the content of the print out was the subject of a blog post at Screw Loose Change on January 22nd, the day after the church incident:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/9-11-denial-party.html

where Pat's opinion of this "parody" is: "Pretty amusing stuff, although there's one gross bit near the bottom."

Later, on Feburary 5th, Pat's defense of Nico's actions include: "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."

First he thought it was "pretty amusing". Now there "is certainly some offensive stuff". Yes, it is possible Pat finds offensive stuff pretty amusing--we all have our moments--but we usually don't link to offensive "humor" involving swastikas and feces on a site where you regularly attack the opposision for tolerating holocaust denial on the flimsiest of pretexts. Perhaps the SLC crew has an under-developed sense of irony. But has anyone considered there might be a connection between Nico Haupt and Screw Loose Change?

Their tolerence of his antics AND their agressive moves against his civil dopplganger are too odd. I'd expect they'd laugh at Nico's misfortune, taking a chance to mock a Truther, like they always do. And coddling Nico because he's a source for news would be comparable to 911Blogger not banning Ronald Wieck because sometimes he hosts debates with Loose Change on Hardfire, and therefore we'll let him continue posting no matter how disruptive he gets.

Well, so what? you're thinking. Even if they are working together some how, does it matter? Together or apart, they're still annoying.

They'd be annoying in any universe, but if there is a conection between Screw Loose Change, Pat and James, and Nico Haupt, it may point to a more organized pattern of disruption dirrected at 911Truth than some have considered before.

That said, I admit this is speculation. That's why I'm throwing this out to see if anyone has anything more substantial to explain ...

The Strange Romance between Screw Loose Change and Nico Haupt.

~jenny


Leave comments at http://www.911blogger.com/node/6096