The Truth Movement: Finally, Lost in Space

[timhau]

This statement is utter hoghwash, because Mackey is the self-proclaimed judge on what is "new and insightful" and nothing will ever meet this "challenge" - it's "testable" only by him.

Actually, you don't know that nothing will ever meet that challenge, until you try. So, how about just presenting something new? You can then argue for its insightfulness (if that is a word), but if you can't present anything new, you certainly can't present anything new and insightful.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Btw, don't put words into my mouth. I said I have a "working hypothesis^WP".

Very well, you said you had a working hypothesis.

You could go a long way in winning us over if you just say what it is. It would also reset the timer on the truth movement.

Here's an example of what that would look like:

On September 11, 2001, nineteen Muslim extremists funded by al Qaeda took control of four airliners. Three of them were deliberately crashed into prominent US landmarks, while the fourth crashed in an empty field, apparently after the passengers learned of the hijackers' intent and tried to take back control of the plane.

There. Short, simple, plausible, and fits all the evidence. Until I hear a hypothesis that fits the evidence BETTER, this is what I'm going with.

Now, your turn. According to you, you have something that no other truther has been able to come up with, not even towering intellects like Drs. Fetzer and Jones.

Why would you hesitate to share that? As I said before, it would be groundbreaking!

 

[aggle-rithm]

This statement is utter hoghwash, because Mackey is the self-proclaimed judge on what is "new and insightful" and nothing will ever meet this "challenge" - it's "testable" only by him.

This is exactly the sort of thing that people who claim to be able to read minds or talk to the dead say about Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. "Why should I take the challenge when I don't know for sure if he'll really pay?"

We all know the real reason they won't do it. They can't do what they say they can do.

Just as you don't have the working hypothesis you claim to have.

Notice how he doesn't participate in the Pieczenik thread or especially in femr2's thread (ok, two shallow appeals to authority) where there's data and testiblility as much as you could ask for.

And notice how he doesn't deliberately hit himself in the hand repeatedly with a hammer.

 

[angrysoba]

I think it's pretty clear, however, that Usama simply had satellite TV. It's hardly rare among the wealthy in that part of the world. The dish itself is quite unremarkable with respect to size, placement, feedhorn, or anything else. This is just another made-up mystery. One may as well speculate the walls outside his compound were actually the trillions of dollars of gold stolen from the WTC, cuz', you know, nobody would actually build walls like that.

Thanks for that! I agree that satellite TV is the explanation especially given the videos of him watching himself on a crappy antique telly. I'll go scrounging around for something else now.

Cheers!

 

[Childlike Empress]

You could go a long way in winning us over if you just say what it is. It would also reset the timer on the truth movement.

You are not the authority to decide this. Mackey is. I asked RedWorm to ask Mackey if it would stop the timer and under which conditions. You could ask him as well. He'll ask you if you're kidding, if he doesn't ignore you. Rightfully so, read his post above echoing my words and telling the newbie about Hoffman and 9/11 Investigator. It has been done, you understand that?

Now, your turn. According to you, you have something that no other truther has been able to come up with, not even towering intellects like Drs. Fetzer and Jones.

There you are again, putting words into my mouth. This time completely turning my statement upside down. Here is what I said:

I have a working hypothesis about what happened on 9/11 but you should ask yourself why you think that this is so important to know about. Like all of us I can't know the details, so you're asking me to speculate. And additionally, what you're doing is known as a disinformation tecnique called "demand complete solutions", so it doesn't make you look good and it doesn't make me look bad because I never pretended to know it all. So better drop it.

What's with this utter lack of reading comprehension, aggle-rithm?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Do you claim it would be new? Because earlier you seem to have said that you posted yout theory before. Now which is it - do you already have an old theory, or would a theory by you be new?

No, RedWorm claimed it would be something new. I asked him to ask the Authority™ about it.

 

[Oystein]

No, RedWorm claimed it would be something new. I asked him to ask the Authority™ about it.

So what do you claim?
(Rethorical question. We all know that you are a no-claimer)

 

[ElMondoHummus]

CE, seriously, you should stop. The only thing you're accomplishing here is to show that you're petulant. Whinging on an on about Ryan's "authority" and other absurdities doesn't do anything other than demonstrate the exact point he made in his OP: That the truth movement has nothing new, nothing innovative, and nothing original in the past few years. You're not functioning as the child telling the crowd that the emperor is naked, you're functioning as the living, breathing example of how conspiracy advocates love to digress into minutiae instead of deal with the substantive. The substantive, in this case, is the lack of forward progress by 9/11 "truth" advocates. The minutiae here is pretty much everything you're bringing up. Do you really want to play the fool by continuing on in this vein? Because by doing so, you're demonstrating exactly what Ryan was getting at better than any of us here could.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I asked RedWorm to ask Mackey if it would stop the timer and under which conditions.

There's no complete Truther hypothesis, no. There have been a few bits and pieces, though. Probably the most familiar is the old exploding ceiling tiles fantasy from Jim Hoffman -- in this variant he even goes so far as to claim this answers my challenge (not this thread's challenge, one I threw down years ago), though he actually dreamed it up a long while ago. Another would be the old aggregate How 9/11 Was Done, which is a trite but more detailed than usual version of the "Jews Did It" nonsense.

And of course there is the CIT fragmentary hypothesis, which they have never bothered to state clearly, but must be inferred (this was later confirmed by one of them, posting here as a sockpuppet).

However, no retelling of these meets my criteria, which I invite you to read again. What I am looking for is a Truther to say something new and insightful. Say Hoffman were to revamp his hypothesis above, changing it to something more plausible, consistent with known evidence, etc. Say he produced something testable, and worth testing. I'd be happy with that.

What won't do, of course, is yet another recounting of old Truther lore, or anything totally wild and speculative. A "new" hypothesis centering on nanothermite, hush-a-boom, micronukes, death rays from space, radio-controlled military tankers and columns filled with explosives, not good enough. Similarly, I won't stop the clock for a "new" yet idiotic claim, like the WTC being destroyed by orgone energy, brought low by Jesuit orders calling upon holy fires, or the steel structure turning to rubber due to a shift in Earth's magnetic poles.

It's got to be worth discussion. All the old stuff, everything we've seen before, has gone nowhere and thus has already failed the test. Show me what you've got. So far all I've seen is whinging.

That looks like a very clear and comprehensive answer to your question, CE. So, would you like to tell us your working hypothesis and see whether it's good enough to meet these criteria, or would you rather just stand on the sidelines and tell us how awesomely you'd win the game if it weren't for the fact that the meanies running it refuse to declare you the winner before you take to the field?

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

This statement is utter hoghwash, because Mackey is the self-proclaimed judge on what is "new and insightful" and nothing will ever meet this "challenge" - it's "testable" only by him. Notice how he doesn't participate in the Pieczenik thread or especially in femr2's thread (ok, two shallow appeals to authority) where there's data and testiblility as much as you could ask for.

Why participate in the thread about Pieczenik when it is only discussing his credentials? Why participate in femr's thread when femr will not even explain his purpose?

 

[Sabretooth]

I have a working hypothesis about what happened on 9/11...

OK, but why are you afraid to share it? All you've done with this statement here is essentially sing like a 10 year old, "I have a secret and I'm not tellin'!"

...but you should ask yourself why you think that this is so important to know about.

Because you consistently belittle Ryan, Oystein, and every other debunker on the forum. Whenever one of us present real evidence, all you post is the equivalent of saying, "pshh...ya, right".

We would like to see you, who claims to be intelligent about 9/11, to show off some of that projected intelligence.

As of now, we can only assume that you:
a) are full of crap.
b) know your wrong.

Like all of us I can't know the details, so you're asking me to speculate.

So? There is nothing wrong with a little speculation if the pieces fit. But if you came to us and said that you speculated mini-nukes were used at the WTC, that would be a poor speculation, because the evidence and end result does not point in that direction.

And additionally, what you're doing is known as a disinformation tecnique called "demand complete solutions", so it doesn't make you look good and it doesn't make me look bad because I never pretended to know it all.

Again, so? Then make that a point in your hypothesis. There is no harm/no foul in noting a bit of a disclaimer.

So better drop it.

Seeing that you're the one that brought it up, this comment is rather silly. Look, we got it, you're afraid of being wrong and being told as such. Ego's are pretty fragile. If you'd rather continue to keep the blinders on and enjoy the blissful ignorance that you feel you are right, so be it. But then you will continue to have zero credibility with the posters in this forum. Whether that's a concern to you or not, I don't know, nor do I care...but don't pretend you have anyone fooled. You only look like a troll.

 

[Childlike Empress]

CE, seriously, you should stop. The only thing you're accomplishing here is to show that you're petulant. Whinging on an on about Ryan's "authority" and other absurdities doesn't do anything other than demonstrate the exact point he made in his OP: That the truth movement has nothing new, nothing innovative, and nothing original in the past few years. You're not functioning as the child telling the crowd that the emperor is naked, you're functioning as the living, breathing example of how conspiracy advocates love to digress into minutiae instead of deal with the substantive. The substantive, in this case, is the lack of forward progress by 9/11 "truth" advocates. The minutiae here is pretty much everything you're bringing up. Do you really want to play the fool by continuing on in this vein? Because by doing so, you're demonstrating exactly what Ryan was getting at better than any of us here could.

If you'd really believe what you stated here, you wouldn't ask me to stop it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you'd really believe what you stated here, you wouldn't ask me to stop it.

There comes a point, when someone's making an fool of themself, when it becomes embarrassing to watch however much you might disagree with them.

Dave

 

[Childlike Empress]

There comes a point, when someone's making an fool of themself, when it becomes embarrassing to watch however much you might disagree with them.

Dave

Thanks for your concerns, Dave. Very generous of you.

 

[NoahFence]

This statement is utter hoghwash, because Mackey is the self-proclaimed judge on what is "new and insightful" and nothing will ever meet this "challenge" - it's "testable" only by him. Notice how he doesn't participate in the Pieczenik thread or especially in femr2's thread (ok, two shallow appeals to authority) where there's data and testiblility as much as you could ask for.

The man stands there with his sciency pants down. Enjoy the funeral.

Femr2's thread isn't any groundbreaking stuff. As far as I can see, he's not even in the truther camp. (He won't tell us what camp he's in) He's just got a bone to pick with NIST and their interpretation of WTC 7. Nothing more.

As for Mackey being the judge on 'new and insightful' - he's just typing what the rest of us are thinking. So we're all judges.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Femr2's thread isn't any groundbreaking stuff. As far as I can see, he's not even in the truther camp. (He won't tell us what camp he's in) He's just got a bone to pick with NIST and their interpretation of WTC 7. Nothing more.

As for Mackey being the judge on 'new and insightful' - he's just typing what the rest of us are thinking. So we're all judges.

So no apology from you? Just moving on as if nothing has happened? Like I predicted.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There comes a point, when someone's making an fool of themself, when it becomes embarrassing to watch however much you might disagree with them.

Dave

Pretty much this, yes. You're being tone-deaf in your responses, CE. Your sarcasm is coming off as superciliousness and nothing more. Haughtiness doesn't help highlight the absurdity you're trying to attribute to this thread; instead, it simply makes you look like you're disdainful to anything critical about the truth movement. I've clubbed enough baby seals in my time in this forum, it just disappoints me that someone who's been around as long as you have has done nothing but lay on the ice for the hunter. Both you and RedIbis both, you've been reduced to petulance and opposition for opposition's sake, and act like pale shadows of what you both used to be when you actively argued truther stances. That's almost sad, in a way.

That's why I'm saying "stop". No, it's not that I don't believe what I said; it's "OMG, they're headed straight for the edge of the cliff" reaction.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Notice how he doesn't participate in the Pieczenik thread or especially in femr2's thread (ok, two shallow appeals to authority) where there's data and testiblility as much as you could ask for.

Ryan posted in femr2's thread four days ago. For the context, see my chronology of that fiasco.

And notice how he doesn't deliberately hit himself in the hand repeatedly with a hammer.

But it feels so good when you stop.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Pretty much this, yes. You're being tone-deaf in your responses, CE. Your sarcasm is coming off as superciliousness and nothing more. Haughtiness doesn't help highlight the absurdity you're trying to attribute to this thread; instead, it simply makes you look like you're disdainful to anything critical about the truth movement. I've clubbed enough baby seals in my time in this forum, it just disappoints me that someone who's been around as long as you have has done nothing but lay on the ice for the hunter. Both you and RedIbis both, you've been reduced to petulance and opposition for opposition's sake, and act like pale shadows of what you both used to be when you actively argued truther stances. That's almost sad, in a way.

That's why I'm saying "stop". No, it's not that I don't believe what I said; it's "OMG, they're headed straight for the edge of the cliff" reaction.

This thread IS absurd, completely unscientific chest thumping by someone who wants to impress his followers. I have explained why. He's the judge, he can always say than anything "we" come up with is "not insightful", "totally wild" or "not worth discussing" and he will have "won". Further, if the "truthers" on this forum don't come up with something, that doesn't mean anything for the outside world.

This timer wasn't build to be stopped and i'm pointing it out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

This thread IS absurd, completely unscientific chest thumping by someone who wants to impress his followers.

You want scientific? STATE YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

How many great scientists, or scientists of any kind, for that matter, say "I have this great hypothesis that will change everything, but I won't tell anyone what it is because, why should I?"