The Truth Movement: Finally, Lost in Space

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




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

OK, so you said "I have a working hypothesis about what happened on 9/11".

I said "you have something that no other truther has been able to come up with".

A working hypothesis about what happened on 9/11 IS something that no other truther has been able to come up with.

Are you upset that I didn't use your exact words?

Or do you disagree that no truther has been able to come up with a working hypothesis?

If the latter, please tell us what the hypothesis is.
 
OK, so you said "I have a working hypothesis about what happened on 9/11".

I said "you have something that no other truther has been able to come up with".

A working hypothesis about what happened on 9/11 IS something that no other truther has been able to come up with.

Are you upset that I didn't use your exact words?

Or do you disagree that no truther has been able to come up with a working hypothesis?

If the latter, please tell us what the hypothesis is.


You were shown by me AND Mackey that it was done before. Learn reading and stop barking.
 
So no apology from you? Just moving on as if nothing has happened? Like I predicted.

Sorry - had to go back to figure out what you were talking about....

How about that. ONE. I stand corrected. Although it still doesn't satisfy the purposes of this thread, (3 years old) it seems one truther slipped through the cracks and actually had an entire theory.

He'll be submitting that to the authorities for investigation?

I apologize for ever doubting a truther....

pfft
 
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.

This thread is about NEW insightful information.

NEW.
 
You were shown by me AND Mackey that it was done before. Learn reading and stop barking.

OK, I think I've found what you're talking about. Is it this?

It was a masterly plot, carried out by a handfull of Israelis and dual passport 'Americans'. Larry Silverstein leases a nearly worthless WTC building complex (worthless due to the asbest the buildings were stuffed with) weeks before 9/11, makes sure it is over-ensured against terrorist acts, tellingly with a german ensurer, next hires an israeli security firm and in the 2-3 weekends before 9/11 cuts off power in all the WTC buildings with 'maintenance' as an excuse, so the buildings are virtually empty and the demolition experts can work undisturbed. At that moment the coast is clear to let a team of demolition experts from the israeli army led by Peer Segalovitz into the WTC buildings. These charges plus detonators had been prepared at the premises of the Urban Moving Systems company, a Mossad front. During these weekends these prepared charges were loaded into vans, driven into the basement of WTC next to the elevator shaft, unloaded into the elevator, and lifted onto the roof of the elevator through the openening in the elevator ceiling. Next the elevator moved from floor to floor while charges where being attached to the columns as displayed in this video from 0:22 onwards. The detonators of these charges were radiographic controlled and finally detonated from WTC7 on the day of 9/11.

Now we need to get rid of Atta and the other Arabs in order to keep our narrative alive. Although a number of hijackers have been reported to be alive after 9/11 there is no doubt about the existence of a real Mohammed Atta who lived in Hamburg and who disappeared in the summer of 2000. Let's speculate to see how far we can get (there is no proof for this whatsoever)...

Fast backward, Hamburg 54 Marienstrasse, july 2000, 22:40. Mohamed Atta, Al Shehhi and Jarrah, who share the apartment hear the ringing of the door bell. Jarrah opens the door, 5 masked men make their way into the apartment with drawn pistols. The 3 Arabs are forced to lay on the ground. Their passports are confiscated, next the 3 men are made unconscious with some liquid and strangled to death afterwards. The bodies are carried out of the apartment into a van and driven off towards a desolate spot at the boarding of the Elbe river outside Hamburg and disposed of into the river with a bag filled with stones tied to their feet. The 3 passports are now in the possession of the agents of the Mossad, who carried out the raid on the apartment and 3 Arabs have vanished without anybody knowing that they are dead. Not long after the raid the 3 passports are given to 3 israeli agents who were selected on having some resemblance with the 3 Arabs just killed. They make for America soon afterwards in the summer of 2000 and start laying a trail at flight schools, posing with the stolen identities from the 3 Arabs killed.

[as an aside: many other scenarios are possible. For instance that the real Atta did indeed make it to America and took up flying courses. What speaks against the real Atta showing up at the flight school though is that the rather boorish behaviour of Atta in America does not match with his polite and shy behaviour in Hamburg. Also there is the incident with dutch flight school owner Rudy Deckers, who learnes that Atta is from Hamburg and starts talking to Atta in german. The real Atta is fluent in german, however this Atta seems to be unpleasantly surprised and walkes away without saying anything. Let's stick with the Elbe river scenario for the moment until something better comes up.]

Meanwhile the israeli Michael Goff working for PTech, using his secure channel with Amit Yoran somehow manages to give israeli army computer programmers access to critical computer code. It was due to this manipulation that the hijackings on 9/11 remained unnoticed by the flight controller of Norad. Once this was in place the planes could be taken over by remote control and flown into the World Trade Center.

As an aside Dick Eastman comes with the interesting suggestion that this idea of electronic hijacking of planes has been tested before 9/11 on the Air Egypt 990 machine that crashed ino the Atlantic on october 31, 1999.

Now everything was in place to commit the crime of the century. On the day of 9/11 the israeli stand-ins for the 'arab hijackers' showed up at the predestined departure airports to make sure they were captured on surveillance camera's. The crucial point here is that the security at both the departure airports was in hands of an israeli firm, a subsidiary of the dutch based but israeli owned ICTS led by a fellow named Menahem Atzmon. And this is crucial: Atzmon used to be a collegue with Olmert in 1998. So there you have the link between the 9/11 operative level (an airport security firm) and the highest level of israeli politics. What happened on the morning of 9/11 was that after the israeli stand-ins were captured on camera, they left the airport via a side entrance and the show could begin. Minutes after the planes became airborn somebody somehow was able to send a signal to the planes via the transponders, causing the control panels to be disabled and the flight destination altered. What happened was that an anti-hijack system was activated (code word 'home run') and the regular pilot was put out of control. This pilot will probably have tried frantically te regain control of his aircraft. It is not very likely he will have told his passengers about the new situation since that would only cause panic. The passengers probably suspected nothing and hence had no reason to make any phone calls to the relatives (the reported phones calls were all fake; more on that later), though they probably were very puzzled to discern the New York sky line all over sudden, but then it was too late. BANG!!

Meanwhile on the other side of the Hudson river the members of the israeli team that planted the demolition charges were waiting for things to happen. And while the rest of New York experienced in horror the events that were unfolding that day, the demoliton experts were celebrating and high-fiving. The plot had worked out according to plan beautifully.

Here ends the overview of an alternative hypothesis concerning the events of 9/11. The remainder of this blog will be used to discussing material of isolated parts of this integral story, like remote control, the fake phone calls, bin Laden, security firms, demolition, etc.

Compare it to this:

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.

So, there is a theory (sort of), but it fails on parsimony alone.

Don't get me started about the "postulates" on which the whole thing is based.

ETA: I know I shouldn't copy and paste such a large block of test, but it's important to show relative parsimony.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, CE, I do believe that you have a working hypothesis. I think that you realize how silly you would look if you actually presented it here.

On this assumption, I will quit demanding that you post it. You should have the freedom to look silly according to your own timeframe.
 
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.

Actually, all you end up pointing out is that the timer won't stop because truthers are incapable of stopping it. Not due to any biases you lay at Ryan's feet or any supposedly unfair setup of the challenge, but because you yourself are functioning as a real-time testiment to the fact that they've done nothing for years but repeat well worn myths. Your own highlighting of Pieczenik is a perfect example of that. You're trying to catch Ryan out on a mistake about when Pieczenik was interviewed but are utterly ignoring the age of the claim he's making. That completely ignores the fact that an offhand statement about when the person appeared is not the same as refuting the fact that the date of his appearance is irrelevant to the date of the claim itself. It is still a 2002 claim no matter how you cut it. The fact it was repeated in 2011 doesn't change that, and even if Ryan comes out and says "You're right, he was indeed interviewed recently", it still doesn't change anything. The claim is the same in '11 as it was in '02, and merely repeating it doesn't mean it was reborn, it means it's been reheated.

And that's been my whole point. Corpse animation is the farthest thing from genuine signs of life, and resurrecting the Bin Laden dead myth now makes it no more current than bringing up luminiferous aether and claiming it's modern.

And that's another reason I asked you to stop. It's so blasted obvious what the real point is, and you've done your best to ignore it. What makes the thread absurd isn't Ryan's claim or his supposed stacking of the deck, it's your behavior. You think you're calling BS on him, but as I said, all you're doing is demonstrating exactly what he was getting at. The absurdity is with you, CE. If you really believed what you were saying, you wouldn't have posted at all. You would've just let the absurdity manifest and then hopped on it. Instead, you've beaten to death an attempt to make date-of-appearance mean the same thing as proof-of-progress. And shown that the only BS to be seen is what the conspiracy advocates bring.

So again, please stop. You're just digging your own hole deeper.
 
... Your own highlighting of Pieczenik is a perfect example of that. You're trying to catch Ryan out on a mistake about when Pieczenik was interviewed but are utterly ignoring the age of the claim he's making. That completely ignores the fact that an offhand statement about when the person appeared is not the same as refuting the fact that the date of his appearance is irrelevant to the date of the claim itself. It is still a 2002 claim no matter how you cut it. The fact it was repeated in 2011 doesn't change that, and even if Ryan comes out and says "You're right, he was indeed interviewed recently", it still doesn't change anything. ...


Oh, it would. Remember, I was not the one who brought up Pieczenik and I was not the one who corrected Mackey on his mistake. I only asked him to acknowledge the error. His refusal to do so - to this day - shows his intellectual dishonesty. That's useful for people who can't understand the nonsensical nature of Mackey's OP in the first place. I tried to explain it and told you why I don't intent to participate on the first page of this thread. It's not because I couldn't come up with something other than Pieczenik.
 
Sorry - had to go back to figure out what you were talking about....

How about that. ONE. I stand corrected. Although it still doesn't satisfy the purposes of this thread, (3 years old) it seems one truther slipped through the cracks and actually had an entire theory.

He'll be submitting that to the authorities for investigation?

I apologize for ever doubting a truther....

pfft


I wanted you to apologize for calling me a serial liar, ranting about something you have no clue about. I gave you two, not one example out of my head, proving you wrong. There are plenty of others. The demand to present "a complete theory" was always nonsensical and as you should now understand, if I would do it (after making one up) it wouldn't be something new and wouldn't meet Mackey's challenge.
 
All things considered since there's not a shred of new material I could propose a few things that might count as "new" only because it hasn't occured to the group in the last ten years to actually elaborate many of their claims. For example;

Truthers have always cited freefall acceleration of the collapses as evidence that the "resistance" AKA structural integrity was "removed." They could submit something new by explaining what aspects of the said claim actually does anything to identify or eliminate readily known collapse mechanisms...

Or

They always claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, and examples X, Y, and Z prove that the WTC cannot have collapsed. They could provide something "new" by explaining the how examples that are built differently from the towers are relevant and where, rather than making broad, sweeping statements that are DOA anyway..

or

They always claim that since the "first time in history collapse due to fire"TM happening three times on the same day is indicative of impossibility. They could explain why the standard exists for a fire induced collapse, but not for a proposed "therm*te" induced demolition...

or

They always claim that reports of explosions always = bombs. They could provide something new by explaining how the fires were ruled out from their "equations" along with grammatical word usage such as simile and metaphor.

et. etc...

Most seem interested in making broad, sweeping accusations while expecting to somehow not be obligated to support their claims with real technical evidence...

Just laying out a few ideas, but then again, any time these and similar have been suggested, the movement has always shunned their responsibility to prove their cases...
 
Last edited:
I wanted you to apologize for calling me a serial liar, ranting about something you have no clue about. I gave you two, not one example out of my head, proving you wrong. There are plenty of others. The demand to present "a complete theory" was always nonsensical and as you should now understand, if I would do it (after making one up) it wouldn't be something new and wouldn't meet Mackey's challenge.

Java Man said he was working on a draft and would present it here. He was lying and I strongly suspect that you are being a trifle mendacious about your 'hypothesis'. If you don't believe the official story then presumably you think something else happened. What is that something else? There is nothing nonsensical about asking a truther that,but they all react like you. I wonder why that is? Big up,and admit you have no clue about the 'alternative' 911.
 
but they all react like you


You are wrong. Don't you people read? Why don't you tell me why it is important to you? Is it something other than what I suspect?

I asked dafydd why it is important to him (and you?), because I suspect that the answer is what aggle-rithm so ostensively described in his demand to me. He wants me to say something stupid, ill-formulated or plain false so he can "debunk" it and sort me into one of the little cupboards "truthers" belong into. Preferably "kook" or "liar". It's not malice, it's a psychological self-defense mechanism.

I'm not going to feed it.
 
Yep.

The demand for a complete hypothesis isn't a dodge at all. It's how science works. If you can't even figure out how something could have happened, then it's next to impossible to know what to look for. Furthermore, since those of us who aren't garbed in tinfoil already have an incredibly detailed hypothesis (actually theory, since it's been tested and found consistent with evidence), then in order to compete -- to prove we're all wrong -- you must provide an alternative, and a means of hypothesis testing to show yours is superior.

There have been others who tried. One Truther I actually respect was Sizzler, who understood the above. Long ago he promised to come up with a hypothesis, and he tried, and he ultimately admitted that he could not. This takes some guts to admit.

Guts that, apparently, are about as rare as Bugatti 57's among the Truth Movement.
 
We've poked so many holes in your "detailed hypothesis" that it is nothing more than a laughing stock, Mackey. The LIHOP part (protecting the patsys) is proven by now, the Pentagon deception is proven, the NIST pseudo-science is free-falling like a house of cards. As you well know.

Nobody must provide an alternative hypothesis. The unsolved crime has to be investigated properly and you have to stop this pathetic charade.
 
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.

Upset you failed to find something new?

911 truth has no evidence, and this is the 10th year of failure. You never have supported your claims, let alone made them clear.

Oops...
We've poked so many holes in your "detailed hypothesis" that it is nothing more than a laughing stock, Mackey. The LIHOP part (protecting the patsys) is proven by now, the Pentagon deception is proven, the NIST pseudo-science is free-falling like a house of cards. As you well know.

Nobody must provide an alternative hypothesis. The unsolved crime has to be investigated properly and you have to stop this pathetic charade.

... Pieczenik is a perfect example of that. ...

Poor Pieczenik repeats UBL was dead 9 or 10 years ago, he is delusional, typical of 911 truth insane claims. Total nonsense, like CIT. This is not the best 911 truth has, it is the worse, a fictional delusion; UBL died when? I could see how CE thinks this is the best 911 truth has. He made a mistake.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom