The Truth Movement: Finally, Lost in Space

Childlike Empress said:
Tsk tsk tsk, what you're doing isn't sciency. I don't expect you to stop the clock at all, as you can read in what is now the OP of the thread in AAH. Enjoy the funeral.
Click to expand...

Doesn't "OP" mean "Original Post"?

As in the first post in the thread? Uh, it's still here, not in AAH.


At any rate, I applaud Mackey for giving 60 days, personally I think you could give them 60 YEARS and they'd still not come up with anything new or relevant.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You didn't acknowledge the error you made regarding Mr. Peacenik, Mackey. He's alive and kicking, not some figure from 2002 as you claimed. Why doesn't he reset the timer?
Click to expand...



Seems Dr. Steve Pieczenik may not be quite what he claims to be. HERE.....interesting.


Compus
 
Last edited:
Interesting indeed. The typical wikipedia effect with information which challenges the lowest common denominator. Seems like they have a serious SPA problem (in other words the disinfo creeps are in full swing) with that article. Bottom line:

STRONG KEEP: This is absolutely ridiculous. I fear someone's narrow world view is being challenged and they want to shut out opposing information. Forget Alex Jones for a moment, Steve Pieczenik served as Deputy Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker. I haven't heard a single one of these hysterical, Wikipedia "vanguards" challenge this information. It's plainly obvious someone here is deathly concerned that having Dr. Pieczenik mentioned on Wikipedia allows his recent commentary on world events to become just a little "too accessible" to the mainstream. Honestly, stop the charade. Alex Jones also interviewed Hamid Gul, Noam Chomsky and Charlie Sheen; are we going to delete their articles too? What is this BS? Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
timhau said:
And to put the point more succinctly, the ME protersters are protesting even though they know theyre putting their own well-being and possibly even their life at risk, because their governments can and do put down peaceful demonstrations with violence. American and European Truthers, on the other hand, would not be at any risk from the authorities as long as they themselves refrain from violence.
Click to expand...

Which is one of big red flags I find whenever the movement cites that other professionals silently support their cause out of fears that they could be run out of business. Compared with the reprisals protests have seen elsewhere, the kinds that truthers describe are little more than a wrist slap in comparison even if they could claim credibility there. In a serious movement that would have absolutely no effect.
 
I'm curious, CE, as to why this thread upsets you so much.

It isn't a personal insult, it isn't a call to action, and it doesn't provide any harmfully misleading information.

So if this really is irrelevant, if this really is just a "circle jerk of a subforum" getting its kicks, there's absolutely no logical reason any of this should upset you. Yet you seem oddly peeved.
 
1337m4n said:
I'm curious, CE, as to why this thread upsets you so much.

It isn't a personal insult, it isn't a call to action, and it doesn't provide any harmfully misleading information.

So if this really is irrelevant, if this really is just a "circle jerk of a subforum" getting its kicks, there's absolutely no logical reason any of this should upset you. Yet you seem oddly peeved.
Click to expand...

C'mon dude. This week truthers found out that Bin Laden wasn't living in a cave, and was killed finally.

A big chunk of their mythology just got wiped out. That's gotta hurt..then Mackey has to come along and rub salt in the wound.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Big Fat Cherry
Click to expand...



You were very selective in what you quoted about "Dr" Steve Pieczenik. You forget to mention the below (from the same):-

By the by, some sterling work pops up there. One has only to replicate that research to find out if what is claimed is fact :-

(my bolds)

Googling Pieczenik reveals almost nothing -- virtually all references to him are 9/11 tin sites promoting the Wikipedia article and the Alex Jones interview. Yet the claim is made that he's this important government insider with a long list of credentials spanning Vietnam to the Reagan Administration!
Click to expand...


I also suspect his (very brief) IMDB bio-page is similarly fabricated because it contained text passages identical to the now-redacted material here. (UTC)

It seems that no information on his page can be independently verified, the claims to hold a PhD from Harvard can only be verified by viewing his own site and reading what he wrote about himself. I actually checked and looking to see if he's written a dissertation and found nothing, and found no verifiable proof that he ever had any involvement with the US Government. I vote delete.
Click to expand...


There are zero search-returns for "Pieczenik" in the National Archives or National Security Archives. I have increasing reason to disbelieve he was a "Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and/or Senior Policy Planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker" over the course of three presidential administrations, and have added an [non-primary source needed] to the Wiki entry after that specific claim. Most 1st-page Google returns for the specific employment phraseology (""Deputy Assistant Secretary of State") are in fact Pieczenik references on conspiracy blogs which reference the Wikipedia article as proof of his bona-fides. (It'd be richly ironic if he met required notability by being exposed as a fraud.)
Click to expand...


Ironic indeeed.

Compus
 
R.Mackey said:
You want a real laugh, check out the Wiki discussion page for thermite. :rolleyes:

Even those attempts at revisionism seem to have tailed off after 2009.
Click to expand...
The whole thermite thing was always funny to me. Just the fact that their stance was so bankrupt that they had to, out of thin air, INVENT a source of demolition.

The controlled demolition claim was always the weakest part of their stance for the simple fact you can't just claim demolition without backing it up because explosives leave forensic evidence behind. The number of volunteers that were allowed to sift through the wreckage makes it implausible that such evidence could be covered up.
 
1337m4n said:
I'm curious, CE, as to why this thread upsets you so much.

It isn't a personal insult, it isn't a call to action, and it doesn't provide any harmfully misleading information.

So if this really is irrelevant, if this really is just a "circle jerk of a subforum" getting its kicks, there's absolutely no logical reason any of this should upset you. Yet you seem oddly peeved.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden is toast,that could have something to do with it.
 
1337m4n said:
I'm curious, CE, as to why this thread upsets you so much.

It isn't a personal insult, it isn't a call to action, and it doesn't provide any harmfully misleading information.

So if this really is irrelevant, if this really is just a "circle jerk of a subforum" getting its kicks, there's absolutely no logical reason any of this should upset you. Yet you seem oddly peeved.
Click to expand...


I'm not upset. I'm just using pointed language to poke holes into Mackey's sand castles.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I'm not upset. I'm just using pointed language to poke holes into Mackey's sand castles.
Click to expand...

And you are more qualified than he to speak on the subject? The sandcastle analogy would be better applied to the theories of truthers,whatever they may be. No truther here has ever told me exactly what they think happened on 911. Do you have a full theory?
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
And you are more qualified than he to speak on the subject? The sandcastle analogy would be better applied to the theories of truthers,whatever they may be. No truther here has ever told me exactly what they think happened on 911. Do you have a full theory?
Click to expand...

That certainly would qualify as something new....
 
dafydd said:
And you are more qualified than he to speak on the subject? The sandcastle analogy would be better applied to the theories of truthers,whatever they may be. No truther here has ever told me exactly what they think happened on 911. Do you have a full theory?
Click to expand...


On the "truth movement" and new developments? I'm certainly more qualified than him on that subject. 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. :)
 
How about any of the following then?

R.Mackey said:
Say something insightful. It could be anything. It could be a new result or uncovering new evidence. It could be a well-formed hypothesis. It could be acknowledgement of some established but long-resisted fact, demonstrating that the Truth Movement still has some capability to learn or reason. It could even be "Just Asking a Question," provided the question is well-considered and sparks some thought to answer.
Click to expand...


Respectfully,
Myriad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom