The Truth Movement: Finally, Lost in Space

dafydd said:
Odd that,the use of the word forced. If they had any new evidence or proof you would think that they would be shouting it from the rooftops. The thought processes of truthers are a dark mystery.
Click to expand...


"Forced" is the right word, though, strange as it seems. For some, in their minds, R.Mackey's test is just a ploy to ruin it all for them. A mistake they'd never make if not forced to.

Myriad said:
I think some of them just like to keep their alternative narratives of 9/11 secret, to preserve the freshness.

So that one day, when everyone suddenly realizes "hey wait a minute, small oxygen starved jet fuel fires can't melt steel into its own footprint at freefall speed!" and then we're all "oh noes, all our journalists and scientists and engineers and judges and prosecutors and historians have failed us, we're confused and lost" and pretty soon all of society is paralyzed and despondent and everyone starts pleading, "please, someone tell us what really happened on 9/11, it doesn't need to make logical sense or have any evidence, it just needs to be a story we haven't heard before so we can believe you and follow you and elect you our new chancellor for life," and won't they be in the catbird seat then! -- because they were patient and didn't reveal their goods too soon.
Click to expand...


There is a measure of dark mystery involved; since I can't read minds I can only hypothesize the least implausible thought processes that would be consistent with the observed behavior. I could be wrong, but if it's not that one, it's something stupider.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
I have virtually all Truthers on Ignore, yes. For purposes of this thread, however, if the discussion seems to indicate one of them may actually have something to say, I'll go back and check their posts. That hasn't happened, and after nearly two weeks, I have little expectation that it will.

My silence doesn't mean that I don't know what you've said. It means that what you've said is unresponsive. Just read the thread. I've missed nothing of any substance or import.
 
9/11 Conspriacy movements willl never be completly dead. What is happening is they are being reduced to a small,fringe,group like the Moon Hoaxers or the UFO Conspiracy theorists: A small group of crackpots that very few take seriously.
They had a small amount of influence during the Dubya years when some people were suffering so badly from Bush Derangement Syndorme that they would embrace anybody who hated Bush, but now that Dubya is history, their influence has dropped like a stone. They will soon be just a small group of crackpots without the small amount of influence they had a few years ago.
I suspect the same thing will happen to the Birthers,which sort of replaced the Truthers as the Conspriacy De Jour.
 
Childlike Empress said:
So what's the point?
Click to expand...

Peruse the title of this thread.The point is that your movement is moribund. Deceased,gone to the great conspiracy graveyard in the sky,unless you have anything new in your hypothesis that you refuse to discuss. Have you anything new? Or just the same old regurgitated lies?
 
I think the truther movement deserves all the criticism it gets for not coming up with anything new but it drives me crazy when a thread with a rather legit purpose starts to become a festival of hitting the pinata to intentionally stir up the people it's aimed at. I have my own doubts about the TM actually presenting much in the way of convincing material but inciting them doesn't exactly promote it either. The whole "make fun of" thing really gets stale after a while... just my opinion.

"Truth movement" supporters can doubt the motivations of the thread all they want, but it's without debate that the main thrust of their claims haven't changed over the last ten years. Free fall speed, fire can't melt steel, CIT's 13 witnesses fiasco, the entire premise that they supported since 2001. I've been into the conspiracy stuff for three years and it's at a point that I can tell where a claim comes from just by hearing it or looking at the context... <ost of these hold barely any "science" in them, and attempts to get them to go more in-depth in my personal experience have been met with little reaction...
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
it's without debate that the main thrust of their claims haven't changed over the last ten years. Free fall speed, fire can't melt steel, CIT's 13 witnesses fiasco, the entire premise that they supported since 2001.
Click to expand...


That's not "without debate", it's plain false. This subforum was started in mid 2006 after a homemade video by a bunch of kids went viral on the internet and raised some awareness about the open questions (flawed as it has been). Before that, there isn't much skepticism about 9/11 on this forum. The controlled demolition research got traction from late 2005 on with Jones and the Scholars, and CIT's research started only in 2007 (announced here) and reached its current state in 2009.

What you are lacking are the basics.

Go watch "Mohamed Atta & the Venice Flying Circus", "Press for Truth" and "Everybody's gotta learn sometime".
 
Childlike Empress said:
That's not "without debate", it's plain false. This subforum was started in mid 2006 after a homemade video by a bunch of kids went viral on the internet and raised some awareness about the open questions (flawed as it has been). Before that, there isn't much skepticism about 9/11 on this forum. The controlled demolition research got traction from late 2005 on with Jones and the Scholars, and CIT's research started only in 2007 (announced here) and reached its current state in 2009.

What you are lacking are the basics.

Go watch "Mohamed Atta & the Venice Flying Circus", "Press for Truth" and "Everybody's gotta learn sometime".
Click to expand...

Awesome Joke!
 
Childlike Empress said:
That's not "without debate", it's plain false. This subforum was started in mid 2006 after a homemade video by a bunch of kids went viral on the internet and raised some awareness about the open questions (flawed as it has been). Before that, there isn't much skepticism about 9/11 on this forum. The controlled demolition research got traction from late 2005 on with Jones and the Scholars, and CIT's research started only in 2007 (announced here) and reached its current state in 2009.

What you are lacking are the basics.

Go watch "Mohamed Atta & the Venice Flying Circus", "Press for Truth" and "Everybody's gotta learn sometime".
Click to expand...
Loose Change was fiction. All the sources you posted are moronic nonsense. The rise of anti-intellectual claptrap on the web, 911 truth.

There are no open question, there are people who lack knowledge. Control Demolition is insanity, along with thermite, it has reached a super low of delusional junk.
How do you find this nonsense? The videos you posted push for a new definition of super stupid, CIT like.

Do you believe the fictional nonsense you posted?
 
Childlike Empress said:
That's not "without debate", it's plain false. This subforum was started in mid 2006 after a homemade video by a bunch of kids went viral on the internet and raised some awareness about the open questions (flawed as it has been). Before that, there isn't much skepticism about 9/11 on this forum. The controlled demolition research got traction from late 2005 on with Jones and the Scholars, and CIT's research started only in 2007 (announced here) and reached its current state in 2009.
Click to expand...
<Der Ewige Jude sequels snipped>

That's not true. CIT's started ripping off Dick Eastman's nutcase ideas in 2006 when they wanted to cash in on the 9/11 CT craze. Eastman came up with the two plane/flyover "theory" in 2003 -- adding further stupidity to the idea that a small plane (such as a Raytheon) hit the pentagon. Waldo and Craig simply got rid of the second plane and added the "Hollywood effects."
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
That's not "without debate", it's plain false. This subforum was started in mid 2006 after a homemade video by a bunch of kids went viral on the internet and raised some awareness about the open questions (flawed as it has been). Before that, there isn't much skepticism about 9/11 on this forum. The controlled demolition research got traction from late 2005 on with Jones and the Scholars, and CIT's research started only in 2007 (announced here) and reached its current state in 2009.
Click to expand...

One of the very first speculations about the controlled demolition issue originated the same day as the attacks; September 11, 2001. by David Rostcheck.

Peter Meyer wrote an article 2 days after the attacks suggesting the controlled demolition argument and also suggested some of the same arguments you cite for the Pentagon.

Loose Change didn't really bring much new material to the table when it came out, it mainly spread the 9/11 conspiracies through viral networks online; the core beliefs of most of this stuff originate from just days after the attacks which makes about 10 years of coverage for the same content.

ETA: I'm aware this section wasn't created until later, but that's not the point I was making. Also not everything the originals put out was adopted by today's group of 9/11 truth proponents, though there are some small factions that still peddle the WTC no-planes theory - some of whom post here
 
Last edited:
UNLoVedRebel said:
<Der Ewige Jude sequels snipped>

That's not true. CIT's started ripping off Dick Eastman's nutcase ideas in 2006 when they wanted to cash in on the 9/11 CT craze. Eastman came up with the two plane/flyover "theory" in 2003 -- adding further stupidity to the idea that a small plane (such as a Raytheon) hit the pentagon. Waldo and Craig simply got rid of the second plane and added the "Hollywood effects."
Click to expand...

What's a Raytheon?
 
Childlike Empress said:
That's not "without debate", it's plain false. This subforum was started in mid 2006 after a homemade video by a bunch of kids went viral on the internet and raised some awareness about the open questions (flawed as it has been). Before that, there isn't much skepticism about 9/11 on this forum. The controlled demolition research got traction from late 2005 on with Jones and the Scholars, and CIT's research started only in 2007 (announced here) and reached its current state in 2009.

What you are lacking are the basics.

Go watch "Mohamed Atta & the Venice Flying Circus", "Press for Truth" and "Everybody's gotta learn sometime".
Click to expand...

Very funny.
 
beachnut said:
Loose Change was fiction. All the sources you posted are moronic nonsense. The rise of anti-intellectual claptrap on the web, 911 truth.

There are no open question, there are people who lack knowledge. Control Demolition is insanity, along with thermite, it has reached a super low of delusional junk.
How do you find this nonsense? The videos you posted push for a new definition of super stupid, CIT like.

Do you believe the fictional nonsense you posted?
Click to expand...

I believe that the answer to that question is yes. Very sad.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
That's not true. CIT's started ripping off Dick Eastman's nutcase ideas in 2006 when they wanted to cash in on the 9/11 CT craze. Eastman came up with the two plane/flyover "theory" in 2003 -- adding further stupidity to the idea that a small plane (such as a Raytheon) hit the pentagon. Waldo and Craig simply got rid of the second plane and added the "Hollywood effects."
Click to expand...


Nonsense. CIT is not about a theory, it's about an investigation (hence CIT and not CTT). You know (yes you do), interviewing witnesses n' stuff.

Grizzly, I know that some people proposed CD from the very beginning. I said it "got traction" in 2005. And my point was that you are lacking the basics. Watch the videos if you want to learn them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom