I didn’t know if he would respond, but he did via e-mail. Maddox, the owner of “The Best Page in the Universe,” had stated that there was no 9/11 conspiracy, when I had countered that no matter who did it, the attack had to have been a conspiracy due to the number of people (more than one) and that his argument concerning the ability to kill anyone who questions the official story had no strength to it. His e-mail is split into block quotes with my response underneath each portion.
“I think everyone at this point knows what the word “conspiracy” means in context of 9/11. Obviously when someone mentions a conspiracy, they’re almost always talking about the controlled demolition/no missile/star wars laser program/pod theory that the “truthers” won’t shut up about. Not the fact that 19 hijackers are literally conspirators. But thanks for clarifying.“
It may seem to be obvious, but one important point has been ignored: the use of the word conspiracy. Conspiracy involves more than one person, period. The question being asked is who was involved in the conspiracy, not if there was a conspiracy, so to say in the title there was no conspiracy is still incorrect, no matter what the context is. The second error made is the lumping together of different theories. Not everyone agrees with every theory. Some advocate controlled demolition, while others talk about the no-plane theories (not to be confused with the hologram theory).
“As for killing Dylan, you make a good point if you ignore the part of my argument where I said:
The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we’re expected to believe that they wouldn’t be able to nix this kid long before his video ever became popular?“
The question isn’t whether they could kill him, but should they? Assuming a crime is committed, do you kill anyone who may have discovered something that could link a criminal to a crime? If it was small and private, such a thing could be possible, but where a large government and large event is concerned, would it be a wise thing? Probably not, especially since there are those openly opposed to films such as Loose Change and who scrutinize the arguments that 9/11 was an inside job.
“If you google all the materials that go into making a fertilizer bomb, and then you start googling blue prints for the Empire State Building, truck rental companies, etc, etc, you can bet your &#$ that you’ll have the NSA snooping your lines (if they aren’t already). If you don’t believe that our government has this capability, do some research. Read a book called “The Puzzle Palace.” Don’t be so naive.“
The assumption of being naive is not only silly, but absolutely false. I am well aware of the NSA’s ability to wiretap and spy on multiple communication fronts, especially due to legislation such as the Patriot Act.
“So presuming they have this capability, if there was a conspiracy (I’ll let you guess which conspiracy I’m talking about; here’s a hint: look up the word context), then as soon as Dylan started researching the type of engine at the Pentagon, or the PNAC commission statement, or controlled demolition information, it would have raised the same red flags it raises when you search for bomb-making materials in their intelligence systems and they could have offed him long before his video got popular. Even if they somehow fell asleep at the wheel and let his video slip through the cracks, they could have captured it as soon as a few hundred people saw it. It wouldn’t be hard to contain or track down those people because they could have confiscated his server logs, reverse traced the IP addresses to the people who own them, and killed every single one of them too.“
Now here is another problem I haven’t pointed out yet. In order to possibly consider killing Avery, he would have to be the only one who questioned the official 9/11 story. He wasn’t. There are plenty of groups of people who question many different aspects of the story. There’s even a group that apparently consists of architects and engineers. These groups may have sprung up after Avery’s film, but there was also people before Avery who questioned the whole event. There was even an individual who predicted that there would be an attack on July 25, 2001 just months before an attack took place. Hijacked planes and Osama bin Laden’s name was dropped. So before killing Avery, others before him would have to be killed too, right?
“Sounds too far fetched? Dylan’s arguing that the government killed at least 3,000 innocent Americans, and potentially hundreds of thousands more indirectly in Iraq, so what’s a few more to the government?
Wake up. Stop defending this trashy amateur conspiracy $*#&@.“
Asking what’s a few more is an old argument at best, and again, it’s not a matter of could it happen (from the perspective of those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job), but should it happen. Just so you know, there are others formerly of highly respected positions in life who are also questioning the official 9/11 story, such as Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst during the Reagan and Senior Bush administrations.
Also, when we’re talking about the government, would it be the entire government, or a few inside the government betraying the country? Many individuals who ask these questions concerning 9/11 are doing so because they see it as the root cause for passage of the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. If the official story were to fall apart, then credibility for the war on terror itself would fall apart. The last I checked, many of these individuals who are questioning the official story would hardly qualify as amateurs. There are even family members of the victims of that fateful day who question how the attack took place and how the defense system of this country failed. So here’s a hint or three:
- Jim Hoffman’s response to Popular Mechanics: Makes the same point concerning steel and jet fuel that I am going to make now. Steel can lose strength at certain temperatures, but we would need to know how long it takes for the transfer of energy to occur from a fire to the metal itself. If there is only a small amount of fire, then it might be argued (from the alternative perspective) that it wouldn’t be enough to cause an entire building to not only collapse, but to turn to dust.
- An odd statement from NIST itself.
- New York City Activist: They often respond to Screw Loose Change directly.