Schisms

[Oystein]

We all know the Great Schisms within Trutherdom:

The Unholy Trinity of WTC destruction theories: Thermite - Nukes - DEW
LIHOP - MIHOP
I recently reported on the recent and developing schism over the "28 pages" issue (which may be the last LIHOP hurray)

And then there is the Great Schism over plane or no-plane at the Pentagon. T'aint exactly new, CIT's North-of-Citgo tales, and the stupidity of PffffT911 was debunked before I even arrived here - and of course they still live, and seem to represent a stronger majority of Truthers than ever.

Craig McKee now fires a delightful salvo to rekindle the war - or, you might say, David Chandler did. Anyway, McKee blogged four days ago:
Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story

The warring parties are:
*) David Chandler (yes-plane, probably even AA77) and his minions
Frank Legge
Jonathan Cole
John Wyndham
Jim Hoffman
Ken Jenkins
Kevin Ryan
John Farmer

*) Craig McKee (no-plane) and his minions
Ken Freeland
Adam Ruff
Adam Syed
Massimo Mazzucco
James Hufferd
Paul Zarembka

I offer no quotes from the article or the comments - too much to rejoice over. Take a chunk of time, with a glass of wine, and read the entire thing, especially the comments!

You will find, uncomfortably wedged between the camps, Dan Noel, who sports as leader of AE911Truth's "Presenter Team" who suggests that the best way forward is to ignore the Pentagon altogether, in order not to appear split, unconvincing and silly

Which raises the question of where Richard Gage is standing - after all, he builds his position about WTC very much on what the Chandler/Cole have claimed; yet Craig McKee has been one of AE911T's most frugal writing contributors this and last year. Should we ask the architects and engineers?

And as an aside, the group is very much struggling with David Ray Griffin. DRG is of course the God figure of Trutherdom, and he seems to historically have leaned "yes plane". No one dares declaring that DRG is wrong, that would be blasphemy, but they are slowly getting there.

McKee claims that "no-plane at the Pentagon" is easily the majority position among truthers today, and he MAY be right. I started a poll at a new European AE911truth spin-off group at Facebook recently, and before it was deleted and I was kicked out, a solid majority voted "no plane". A little poll on the blog of Ken Doc about what happened at tjhe Pentagon on 9/11, started last december and answered by 68 so far, has 38% "missile" and 15% "fly-over" for a combined 53% "no plane impact", while 31% assume some plane hit. Ken Doc is the main guy at 9/11 Truth Movement, which is, to my knowledge, the largest Truther group on Facebook with currently over 38,000 members.


So, where else is the dirty laundry of schisms?

 

[JSanderO]

We all know the Great Schisms within Trutherdom:

The Unholy Trinity of WTC destruction theories: Thermite - Nukes - DEW
LIHOP - MIHOP
I recently reported on the recent and developing schism over the "28 pages" issue (which may be the last LIHOP hurray)

And then there is the Great Schism over plane or no-plane at the Pentagon. T'aint exactly new, CIT's North-of-Citgo tales, and the stupidity of PffffT911 was debunked before I even arrived here - and of course they still live, and seem to represent a stronger majority of Truthers than ever.

Craig McKee now fires a delightful salvo to rekindle the war - or, you might say, David Chandler did. Anyway, McKee blogged four days ago:
Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story

The warring parties are:
*) David Chandler (yes-plane, probably even AA77) and his minions
Frank Legge
Jonathan Cole
John Wyndham
Jim Hoffman
Ken Jenkins
Kevin Ryan
John Farmer

*) Craig McKee (no-plane) and his minions
Ken Freeland
Adam Ruff
Adam Syed
Massimo Mazzucco
James Hufferd
Paul Zarembka

I offer no quotes from the article or the comments - too much to rejoice over. Take a chunk of time, with a glass of wine, and read the entire thing, especially the comments!

You will find, uncomfortably wedged between the camps, Dan Noel, who sports as leader of AE911Truth's "Presenter Team" who suggests that the best way forward is to ignore the Pentagon altogether, in order not to appear split, unconvincing and silly

Which raises the question of where Richard Gage is standing - after all, he builds his position about WTC very much on what the Chandler/Cole have claimed; yet Craig McKee has been one of AE911T's most frugal writing contributors this and last year. Should we ask the architects and engineers?

And as an aside, the group is very much struggling with David Ray Griffin. DRG is of course the God figure of Trutherdom, and he seems to historically have leaned "yes plane". No one dares declaring that DRG is wrong, that would be blasphemy, but they are slowly getting there.

McKee claims that "no-plane at the Pentagon" is easily the majority position among truthers today, and he MAY be right. I started a poll at a new European AE911truth spin-off group at Facebook recently, and before it was deleted and I was kicked out, a solid majority voted "no plane". A little poll on the blog of Ken Doc about what happened at tjhe Pentagon on 9/11, started last december and answered by 68 so far, has 38% "missile" and 15% "fly-over" for a combined 53% "no plane impact", while 31% assume some plane hit. Ken Doc is the main guy at 9/11 Truth Movement, which is, to my knowledge, the largest Truther group on Facebook with currently over 38,000 members.

So, where else is the dirty laundry of schisms?

Hasn't these people gotten enough attention from the "debunker community"? It's clear that they are not reading the arguments or participating in "debate' or discussion with the debunker community... It's a sort of willful ignorance which shows no signs of changing. Their thinking is flawed and it's been demonstrated many times. They offer no cohesive scenario, no mechanisms of the mechanical events, they operate from a position of naivete and ignorance of engineering, physics and science. They appear increasingly like a cult... with politically disgruntled followers who see everything through their political prism which distorts reality.

Really.... who cares? I find them sad or laughable but not worth the time. Who cares if they are self deluded? There is good information out there if people want to be informed.

++++

Yet there remains some level of fog about the actual mechanical mechanism "details" of these building collapses. This may be unimportant in the scheme of things or not. I suppose it would depend on the details.

And the truther community is not interested in that at all. The world is a cartoon to them... a Hollywood fx media event... all brought to us by an incredibly powerful cabal.

++++

Ignore them...

 

[WilliamSeger]

I think one "truther" schism is between those who sieve through the available evidence hunting for evidence confirming their conspiracy conclusions, and those who can easily tell themselves that any evidence that contradicts their conspiracy conclusions must be fake.

ETA: Maybe a better way to describe it is that the schism is between pseudo-scientists and mystics.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think one "truther" schism is between those who sieve through the available evidence hunting for evidence confirming their conspiracy conclusions, and those who can easily tell themselves that any evidence that contradicts their conspiracy conclusions must be fake.

ETA: Maybe a better way to describe it is that the schism is between pseudo-scientists and mystics.

I think that's more a matter of taxonomy than schisms, up to the point where they start arguing with each other. There are plenty of varieties of truther - one that I've only recently become aware of is the Progressive Collapse Denier - Jonathan Cole is the type specimen - whose irreducible delusion is that any form of disproportionate collapse is impossible; and yet, that particular sub-group seems perfectly comfortable with the Missing Jolt hypothesis, despite the contradiction inherent between, on the one hand, any progressive collapse being impossible, and, on the other, needing to look at the fine detail of a progressive collapse to know that particular mechanism was impossible. It's only when they're sufficiently self-aware to realise their positions contradict each other that they start to schism (is that a verb?), and the lack of critical thinking shown by most truthers seems to mean they can adopt two contradictory positions with ease - take, for example, the relative lack of conflict between explosive and thermite believers.

Jim Hoffman has always been pro-plane. I've mentioned it many times before (sorry if I'm getting boring) but his Scenario 404, in suggesting that a secret missile launcher under the Pentagon lawn fired a missile at flight 77 that blew its tail off just before impact for no other reason than to make the impact look less like a 757, thus fooling conspiracy theorists into thinking there wasn't a plane involved so that they could be discredited further down the line, is one of the most spectacular pieces of paranoid doublethink I've ever seen. No wonder he's joining the battle lines.

Dave

 

[JSanderO]

I think that's more a matter of taxonomy than schisms, up to the point where they start arguing with each other. There are plenty of varieties of truther - one that I've only recently become aware of is the Progressive Collapse Denier - Jonathan Cole is the type specimen - whose irreducible delusion is that any form of disproportionate collapse is impossible; and yet, that particular sub-group seems perfectly comfortable with the Missing Jolt hypothesis, despite the contradiction inherent between, on the one hand, any progressive collapse being impossible, and, on the other, needing to look at the fine detail of a progressive collapse to know that particular mechanism was impossible. It's only when they're sufficiently self-aware to realise their positions contradict each other that they start to schism (is that a verb?), and the lack of critical thinking shown by most truthers seems to mean they can adopt two contradictory positions with ease - take, for example, the relative lack of conflict between explosive and thermite believers.

Jim Hoffman has always been pro-plane. I've mentioned it many times before (sorry if I'm getting boring) but his Scenario 404, in suggesting that a secret missile launcher under the Pentagon lawn fired a missile at flight 77 that blew its tail off just before impact for no other reason than to make the impact look less like a 757, thus fooling conspiracy theorists into thinking there wasn't a plane involved so that they could be discredited further down the line, is one of the most spectacular pieces of paranoid doublethink I've ever seen. No wonder he's joining the battle lines.

Dave

This is why I say they are a waste of time and energy and sad and laughable... How is that for cognitive dissonance!

They think... they are intelligent but they lack critical thinking skills and and can't see contradiction when it's convenient to their science denial.

Again... why waste time with this crowd? It's like shooting fish in a barrel almost... The schism is in their thinking... it's broken.

 

[spooky24]

It's hard to criticize for myself as these guys are just trying to make a buck. It's just impossible in the present day literary world to support yourself. In today's world if you can score some dollars-by all means go for it. No one is going to complain about how you did it.

Too me it's a beast that feeds on it's self. If by what ever means it takes to get to the trough or have a big enough umbrella when it starts raining money then just go for it.

Like the O'Reilly dude on FOX-He buys the rights of certain media then in a lawerly magic move he ends up up with the property rights as well. Then using computer wizardly he simply changes the tome to present himself as the author.

shazzam!!! He never writes a word in books like 'Killing Lincoln' but sells 20 million copies in 60 days!!!!It's great-There is not an author in the world that would not go for this if he could-it's all about the money and all I can say is 'good for you old man'. And well 'how much did the property rights cost?

I think you view these people in the truther club as trying to pull something over on you when in reality they are just trying to pay for the soup.

I have always wondered if it an illusion or delusion that keeps sites like this trying to debate with people who could care less if they are debunked or not.
Griffin makes no bones about why he sticks with this it is to make money and as long as there are people like the ones here that waste days and years trying to debate nothing he will keep making money.

Good for him-just like O'Reilly

 

[beachnut]

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/
Clocks? Okay, McKee does not spend much time on clocks, but when I see the clock stuff used by 911 truth as some anomaly, I wonder how they are able to function, drive cars, walk and talk, etc... why are 911 truth followers and "experts" competing to be the top nuts and dolts.

Have no clue how clocks can be an issue when Radar and FDR are presented; which makes the no plane claims, insanity. We have a plane crash, and because various clocks stopped at different times, the event could not happen? I could see three year olds debating time, but ...

Then super stupidity steps in with, so much stupid. McKee is not a researcher, he repeats lies.

Chandler ignored evidence that the radar data is fraudulent, (among other things, C-130 pilot Steve O’Brien’s description of the flight path he took contradicts the radar data as does his description of the path of the plane believed to be Flight 77). Chandler prefers to take government controlled evidence as valid even when it was released years after the fact.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also revealed evidence that the 9/11 flights were still airborne after they are supposed to have crashed and that the plane depicted in the FDR data could not have descended rapidly enough to level out and hit the building at ground level.

O'Brien's flight path description is perfect, match Radar exactly. And when he uses Balsamo's delusions no theory BS, he is lost in woo.

McKee collects some of the most idiotic claims; must be his love of Cheney or the money; McKee is selling soap. And a fringe few are exposing their gullibility in the comment section...


What? Is this McKee?

The first thing I read from McGowan was his series on the Apollo Moon missions called “Wagging the Moondoggie.” This amazing 14-part series is what finally convinced me that the Moon landings never took place. What struck me was not only his insight but his wit. Very dry, which is the best kind

Anti-reason...

 

[Oystein]

I think one "truther" schism is between those who sieve through the available evidence hunting for evidence confirming their conspiracy conclusions, and those who can easily tell themselves that any evidence that contradicts their conspiracy conclusions must be fake.

ETA: Maybe a better way to describe it is that the schism is between pseudo-scientists and mystics.

I think that's more a matter of taxonomy than schisms, up to the point where they start arguing with each other.

I agree with Dave - a schism is a conscious parting of ways, a split of groups or affiliation along differences of confession, dogma or loyalty.

The taxonomic groups are not organisations or bands of people with a common cause - no one confesses to confirmation bias or handwaving as a matter of principle.

 

[jaydeehess]

You will find, uncomfortably wedged between the camps, Dan Noel, who sports as leader of AE911Truth's "Presenter Team" who suggests that the best way forward is to ignore the Pentagon altogether, in order not to appear split, unconvincing and silly

That there is funny, I don't care who you are - Larry the Cable Guy


Sure, inconvenient to have a 9/11 event that sparks plane/no-plane debates, so best just ignore it and hope it goes away.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Obviously the Disinformationists are had at work trying to discredit those who know the TRVTH.

But which side is it?

 

[Allen773]

They all agree that "the gubmint is lying about 9/11", they just part ways on everything else. Some "movement."

Is there a Truther Bible? DRG's New Pearl Harbor?

 

[jaydeehess]

comments

James Hufferd
October 7, 2015 at 1:23 pm
Oystein jumps disputaciously on every established or generally accepted point I cite on my blog, 911grassroots.org, and argues endlessly, using every known of argument and a few others,posing endless implausible claims as supposedly logical alternative possibilities, such as Bush didn’t immediately leave the school because he knew that a one-story school wouldn’t be vulnerable a Kamikaze airliner and it would be safer not to leave the building. Once he starts in, he’s hard to get rid of.

Gee Oystein, stop being a fuddy-duddy and acknowledge that Hufferd's speculations are as good as yours.

Hmmm, three ENORMOUS structures, positively identifiable from the air, get targeted by aircraft and he expects that the same level of identifiability is possible for a one story school in a suburban setting. Three buildings representing American power and wealth get targeted and he expects that the plan was also to attack ONE person several hundred miles from the NE seaboard location of the other targets.

In fact, if they had wanted to target Bush it would have been easier to target Air Force 1 on the tarmac at the airport. Just hijack a plane inbound to the same or a near by airport. Even if you hit the wrong 747 you still kill all on your plane and those on the other as well.

As for being targeted by other means, such as a shooter in the vicinity, then YES, he is safer inside until the Secret Service clears the area.
To truthers, Bush and SS team should have run willy nilly out of the school like their hair was on fire, right to a parked 747 in the middle of an open airfield. Kamikazee air attack aside, just put a sniper in the weeds on the edge of the airport.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I agree with Dave - a schism is a conscious parting of ways, a split of groups or affiliation along differences of confession, dogma or loyalty.

The taxonomic groups are not organisations or bands of people with a common cause - no one confesses to confirmation bias or handwaving as a matter of principle.

Well, I was thinking of a "schism" along epistemological lines: something like, those who prefer to "torture the evidence into confessing" (e.g. thermite and "missing jolt" hunters) vs. those who don't seem to actually have much use for evidence-based reasoning (e.g. no-planers).

 

[Oystein]

comments


Gee Oystein, stop being a fuddy-duddy and acknowledge that Hufferd's speculations are as good as yours.
...

Oh James...
Yes, I bug him now and then.

The uszual run is when he makes (or quotes favorably) claims of fact on his blog that are untrue, or unproven an implausible. I then ask him if he is ready and able to defend the claim with evidence - and sure enough, he never presents evidence.

To his credit, he doesn't censor me, and remains largely polite, and so I don't treat him overly harsh.

 

[JSanderO]

Oh James...
Yes, I bug him now and then.

The uszual run is when he makes (or quotes favorably) claims of fact on his blog that are untrue, or unproven an implausible. I then ask him if he is ready and able to defend the claim with evidence - and sure enough, he never presents evidence.

To his credit, he doesn't censor me, and remains largely polite, and so I don't treat him overly harsh.

James is totally immersed in a bubble and is incapable of seeing outside... And he doesn't want to see anything but. These guys are willy "tripping" on their own nonsense... which they think is reality... Oh Boy!

 

[AsbjornAndersen]

"No plane at the Pentagon" is alive in Denmark, on Facebook at least. I saw someone call "nearly as suspicious as the moon landing" .

 

[GlennB]

Schisms in the 9/11 CT world happen when "eat a worm" to enter the little boys' treehouse club leads to too many entrants. Then it becomes "eat a live frog", and so on...

 

[WilliamSeger]

Or, it could mirror preferences for movie plots. Some might think that secret government scientists designing a silent explosive called thermyth is too cerebral and geeky, and just prefer the action sequences of fake airplane crashes.

 

[jaydeehess]

"No plane at the Pentagon" is alive in Denmark, on Facebook at least. I saw someone call "nearly as suspicious as the moon landing" .

Hmmm, I would agree. The suicide crash into the Pentagon is indeed as suspicious as the Moon landing. The level of suspicion for both is about even at zero.

 

[AsbjornAndersen]

Hmmm, I would agree. The suicide crash into the Pentagon is indeed as suspicious as the Moon landing. The level of suspicion for both is about even at zero.

Well put