[Merged]How long since you heard something new from the Truth Movement?

How long since you heard something new from the Truth Movement?

  • Total voters
    122
  • Poll closed .

R.Mackey

Philosopher
R
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
7,854
This question is partially motivated by gravy's recent decision, totally justified in my opinion, to retire from the field of argument with the Truth Movement.

In my experience, the other side hasn't contributed anything useful for a long, long time, essentially forfeiting the contest. You might recall my victory thread, from about fifteen months ago, wherein I attempted to find the very best among the Truth Movement, rather than being bogged down in fruitless repetitive arguments with those who were merely repeating what they had read. This in turn helped lead to my whitepaper on Dr. Griffin, thereby addressing one of the acknowledged leaders as well as numerous other Truth Movement luminaries who he quoted as sources. That paper has circulated since September, and apart from the usual sniping, remains largely unchallenged. No one, Truth Movement or otherwise, has found a single significant error, or defended a single claim of Dr. Griffin's.

In my view, the Movement has ground to an utter standstill. I honestly think we're done.

Maybe I'm wrong. I can't look everywhere, and I have my biases just like everyone else. Therefore, please give some thought to the poll. I ask for participation from debunkers, fence-sitters, Truth Movement supporters, and watchers of every stripe.

If you are aware of a significant recent development, please follow up with additional information:
  • A quick summary of the information and/or claims,
  • Who and where this information came from,
  • When it was produced,
  • Where it can be found.
In this thread I only wish to compile a survey, but I encourage follow-up discussions in their own threads.

I believe this experiment will justify dropping the Truth Movement altogether, and explain the nature of discussions here over the last few months. But, as a scientist, I know not to take any experiment for granted.

Thanks for your time.
 
If there are any new arguments for teh trooth, I haven't seen them.

ETA: I just noticed my post count- 2911. Two Nine Eleven!!!!! Maybe this will launch a whole new raft of Truther theories.... or maybe not.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the thermite chips thingy counts. It's just one twoofer's woo compounded on earlier woo.

So, in my experience, it's been years.
 
Um... New as in "Honest question/theory I haven't heard before?" Or new as in "So crazy the average sitcom writer would say 'yeah right'?"
 
Granted, I only heard about the twoofers last summer, but everything that I have heard in the last six months was on the table already...and had been thoroughly disproved, explained, critically analyzed and debunked. I did, however, learn a lot about the details of 9-11 that I had never thought about, and got a great lesson in sceptical thinking.
I just hung around to further my study of the clinically insane, moderately delusional or just plain obtuse population that prowls teh interwebzzz.
(and to make fun of the "chimps in the cage"):p
 
I had to respond within a month or so.

Last month Richard Gage announced, that he would be joining forces with Steven Jones and his Scholars for Truth and Justice, in order to begin their own forensic based investigation.

I know this is all doomed to fail. But this is the first time I see them actually announcing a new actual investigation of their own. So that was news to me.
 
I heard about the "truthers" around last winter, so there are at times some things that I hear that are "new" to me.

Beyond that I would say no. There is nothing new from the "truth" movement, except new ways of acting gittish.
 
ref said:
I had to respond within a month or so.

Last month Richard Gage announced, that he would be joining forces with Steven Jones and his Scholars for Truth and Justice, in order to begin their own forensic based investigation.

I know this is all doomed to fail. But this is the first time I see them actually announcing a new actual investigation of their own. So that was news to me.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much they know about Forensic Science? And considering their viewpoint would they even accept following the chain of custody procedures?
 
I voted "it's been years", but I'm not sure. One of you will know.... I just went to MikeW's site to get the FBI timeline and didn't know he'd changed to wiki format, but I seem to recall him mentioning that he was going to do so in a post quite some time ago.

Mike's work has always been my first stop when I want to look up some new claim or angle, so for whatever it's worth, that's the indication that I haven't come across anything in need of extra work in quite some time.

(I'm excluding delusional fantasies as not being "new", otherwise you get Maxie the Photon, but I still think he's doing street theatre.)
 
I honestly don't know. I must confess that combating the "Truth Movement" has never been a goal of mine. I initially became interested in 9/11 solely to satisfy my own curiosity, which is probably partially why I latched onto NORAD and then the FAA - I'm an Air Force brat and I have always had a keen interest in the military and aviation.

Once I found I had compiled for myself a modest amount of knowledge I found myself enjoying the task of educating others about the topic. I guess I don't think in terms of "Truthers" I think in terms of people who are ignorant of 9/11, and those who are not. Hence why I'm always happy to explain what I know to anyone once. If they fail to learn I give up at that point.

So for me it's not a case of "Have they presented anything new?" and if they haven't it's time to stop. For me it's a case of "Have you met anyone recently who was ignorant of the aspects of 9/11 which you know a bit about?" The answer is yes. Edx is a new arrival who is ignorant of NORAD and FAA activities on 9/11 and I was imparting what knowledge I had to him, but he seems to have vanished into a puff of smoke.

However once my "Air War" project is finished I don't think I'll need to engage in much discussion any more. If someone's ignorant I'll just direct them to read that. Once "Air War" is done (which could still be months away, as I intend to make it as comprehensive and accurate as possible and I still have a lot of NORAD audio to listen too) I can't see myself being much involved in 9/11 research anymore (although I'd like to finish "Distortion Of Fact" at some point too) simply because I would have exhausted research on the topic that most interests me. After that my activities would probably slow to simply updating "Air War" any time some new information was uncovered about the FAA and NORAD and what they do (I would love, for example, to get my hands on audio tapes like the NEADS ones from the FAA).

Lastly (and perhaps because I've never taken much notice of their claims) I found I was actually unable to recall the last time I heard of a new Truth Movement claim.

Anyway. I chose the Planet X option for the above reasons.
 
It's been AGES. Which probably explains why we're STILL hearing about 'Pull It', 'Faster than freefall', 'standown' etc etc to this day.
 
This was just about a month ago I think...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

Now did I miss the release of the final WTC7 report? I read here somewhere that it should be coming out soon but it's been ages hasn't it? I also heard there might be a possibility that when it does come out a certain recently departed JREF debunker might have to make a major overhaul to his precious google pages. LOL that’s not why he bailed is it?

Maybe you should start a new poll. When will the official investigation be complete and unobstructed? Ever? When will debunkers have to stop rehashing their twoof?
 
Mackey there's a flaw in the wording of your OP. You wish to elicit information about the Truth Movement. Why don't you ask, what news have you heard about 9/11 research?

For one, Shenon's book, The Commission, absolutely lays to waste whatever shred of credibility that whitewash ever had in the first place.

Secondly, when the final WTC 7 report finally comes out, according to Shyam Sunder, NIST will reject diesel fuel as the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.

Now that we have no reliable central account, from the organizations best funded and resourced to provide one, I for one, am not all that surprised that one of the leading "debunkers" chose now to bail.

The job was hard before, it's only going to get tougher.
 
LastChild said:
This was just about a month ago I think...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

Now did I miss the release of the final WTC7 report? I read here somewhere that it should be coming out soon but it's been ages hasn't it? I also heard there might be a possibility that when it does come out a certain recently departed JREF debunker might have to make a major overhaul to his precious google pages. LOL that’s not why he bailed is it?

Maybe you should start a new poll. When will the official investigation be complete and unobstructed? Ever? When will debunkers have to stop rehashing their twoof?
Click to expand...

Good lord, are you in my computer? Sorry, I started replying before you posted yours.
 
RedIbis said:
Mackey there's a flaw in the wording of your OP. You wish to elicit information about the Truth Movement. Why don't you ask, what news have you heard about 9/11 research?

For one, Shenon's book, The Commission, absolutely lays to waste whatever shred of credibility that whitewash ever had in the first place.

Secondly, when the final WTC 7 report finally comes out, according to Shyam Sunder, NIST will reject diesel fuel as the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.

Now that we have no reliable central account, from the organizations best funded and resourced to provide one, I for one, am not all that surprised that one of the leading "debunkers" chose now to bail.

The job was hard before, it's only going to get tougher.
Click to expand...
I missed the physical (or audio) evidence for controled demolition. Can you provide it for me?
 
RedIbis said:
For one, Shenon's book, The Commission, absolutely lays to waste whatever shred of credibility that whitewash ever had in the first place.
Click to expand...

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...book,+The+Commission&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Here's some excerpts (the "juicy" parts) from the book. There seems to be some political infighting and many attempts by the Bush administration to cover their *sses.

Can you get from that, which is hardly surprising, to something which is surprising?
 
Last edited:
What's new in the Truth Movement? Demolition by heat-weakening.

R.Mackey,

How long since you heard something new from the Truth Movement?

Well, it is clear that in 2007 a new concept appeared - demolition by heat-weakening.

Greening's ammonium perchlorate model (AP-MIHOP), and my thermite model (MAX-MIHOP), were independently derived, yet struck upon some remarkably similar ideas.

Demolition by heat-weakening solves many of the problems demolition by cutting was facing.

Demolition by heat-weakening only needed to cause impact storeys to fail, and gravity would have done the rest, making the task a lot simpler than rigging the entire buildings.

Demolition by heat-weakening fits WTC7 like a glove.

Demolition by heat-weakening has not been studied, because ambiguity-reducing deception made deception targets (like you) blind to even the concept.

Demolition by heat-weakening has in no way been debunked.


Enjoy your victory lap.


P.S. I didn't want to start a new thread on this because I'd get harassed and threatened if I did.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Where in my post do you see the words "controled(sic) demolition"?
Click to expand...


Why “sic” something that will never undergo third-party proof-reading or copy editing? (Answer: To criticise someone for their typographical errors whilst trying to evade the stigma of criticising someone for their typographical errors.)
 
Par said:
Why “sic” something that will never undergo third-party proof-reading or copy editing? (Answer: To criticise someone for their typographical errors whilst trying to evade the stigma of criticising someone for their typographical errors.)
Click to expand...

Does it only bother you when a twoofy twoofer does it, or do you whine about it when one of your fellow "skeptics" does it, as well? It's done all the time here to indicate that the quoter is aware of the spelling error and will not be held responsible for it.
 
RedIbis said:
Does it only bother you when a twoofy twoofer does it, or do you whine about it when one of your fellow "skeptics" does it, as well? It's done all the time here to indicate that the quoter is aware of the spelling error and will not be held responsible for it.
Click to expand...
Have I ever criticized you for a typo?

Now back to your post. You questioned NIST's delay in the WTC 7 report. I asked you for the evidence for controlled demolition.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Does it only bother you when a twoofy twoofer does it, or do you whine about it when one of your fellow "skeptics" does it, as well?
Click to expand...


I would be slightly more inclined to express irritation when a truther does it. However, it still irritates me when anyone does it.
 
RedIbis said:
It's done all the time here to indicate that the quoter is aware of the spelling error and will not be held responsible for it.
Click to expand...


Given that the quotation in question was already ensconced in QUOTE tags, that scarcely seems like a compelling justification.
 
Last edited:
You are getting sidetracked on a minor matter. Please remember the topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Max Photon said:
Demolition by heat-weakening has in no way been debunked.
Click to expand...

I never considered this when voting, as a result I went with 6 months. Greg's WTC mass calculation being the only thing new having any basis in reality.

Max has proven his imagination is undebunkable, I'll give him that.
 
There's nothing new under the sun, and certainly not in the truth movement. I find myself nostalgic for the good old days when we'd only debunked each of their points a few times. It was like a cat playing with a mouse. Now, the mouse is dead and playing with it just isn't fun anymore.
 
3bodyproblem said:
I never considered this when voting, as a result I went with 6 months. Greg's WTC mass calculation being the only thing new having any basis in reality.

Max has proven his imagination is undebunkable, I'll give him that.
Click to expand...

But we all know that the only way to heat weaken steel is to use thermite! Fire can't do it. Rosie said so.
(and that, may friends, is the newest ting from the twoofers--and it is YEARS old. She just parroted it--and THAT parrot is "pinin' for the fjords")
 
LastChild said:
This was just about a month ago I think...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

Now did I miss the release of the final WTC7 report? I read here somewhere that it should be coming out soon but it's been ages hasn't it? I also heard there might be a possibility that when it does come out a certain recently departed JREF debunker might have to make a major overhaul to his precious google pages. LOL that’s not why he bailed is it?

Maybe you should start a new poll. When will the official investigation be complete and unobstructed? Ever? When will debunkers have to stop rehashing their twoof?
Click to expand...

 
Red:

"Secondly, when the final WTC 7 report finally comes out, according to Shyam Sunder, NIST will reject diesel fuel as the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.

Now that we have no reliable central account, from the organizations best funded and resourced to provide one, I for one, am not all that surprised that one of the leading "debunkers" chose now to bail.

The job was hard before, it's only going to get tougher."

Red, please, the OP asked what the Truth movement has brought to the table, not what the freely disclosed, and publically available update from NIST itself has brought to the table. I mean, are you Twoofers taking credit for a NIST interim update report now?

Anyway, two points: 1. you are once again grossly misreading and therefore misrepresenting the importance of diesel fuel in Gravy's paper; 2. I agree with you, friend, when the NIST report is released in a couple of months, it is going to be damn hard on you Twoofers. Perhaps, however, you will be like AETWoofers and not read or understand the report.
 
I think years is right, I put 6 months for the dolt chips of Jones. The other books and junk about the commission or other topic on 9/11 are as good as fiction, and political tripe; most will be put in the political section of the library. If 9/11 truth believers ever mature to understand the world, they will not be 9/11 truth believers. Maturity is needed. I may not have enough, but most of you do.
 
RedIbis said:
Mackey there's a flaw in the wording of your OP. You wish to elicit information about the Truth Movement. Why don't you ask, what news have you heard about 9/11 research?
Click to expand...

That's not a flaw, it's a feature. I know there are legitimate avenues of research being followed -- heck, I summarize several of them in the 2.0 version of my whitepaper. This surprises no one, and it doesn't even belong in the Conspiracy Theories subforum; it's a matter for Science.

Science has, in my estimation, nothing at all in common with the Truth Movement. Scientists formulate hypotheses and change them, update them, abandon them all the time. The Truth Movement doesn't appear to, except as a means of consolidating its base. You guys would still be going on about pods and holograms if that had any traction with the public, admit it.

My poll is, therefore, not flawed at all. I'm getting the responses I wanted.

RedIbis said:
For one, Shenon's book, The Commission, absolutely lays to waste whatever shred of credibility that whitewash ever had in the first place.
Click to expand...

I disagree, as I explained to you in your thread. This is at best circular reasoning, e.g. "there was a coverup, so something must have been important enough to cover up." Not interesting to me.

RedIbis said:
Secondly, when the final WTC 7 report finally comes out, according to Shyam Sunder, NIST will reject diesel fuel as the cause of the collapse of WTC 7.

Now that we have no reliable central account, from the organizations best funded and resourced to provide one, I for one, am not all that surprised that one of the leading "debunkers" chose now to bail.
Click to expand...

The diesel fuel as cause notion has been downgraded for some time. Your idea that "there's no reliable central account" is rubbish -- NIST has reaffirmed that its preliminary working hypothesis remains its best candidate. And I've already promised to go over the WTC 7 report. Probably in the Science forum, though.

But back to my OP, it looks like you don't have anything new from the Truth Movement either. Please feel free to clarify if this is not the case.

Max Photon said:
R.Mackey,

How long since you heard something new from the Truth Movement?

Well, it is clear that in 2007 a new concept appeared - demolition by heat-weakening.

Greening's ammonium perchlorate model (AP-MIHOP), and my thermite model (MAX-MIHOP), were independently derived, yet struck upon some remarkably similar ideas.
Click to expand...

I heard of Dr. Greening's model, without the silly acronym, in March 2007, not in the last six months. This and your own variety is materially similar to the theory of Dr. Jones, which is archaic. You've been pushing your brand since July, adding only details like "thermite fuse" and ignition via "lasers" from WTC 7. While I understand why you think this is something new, I don't find it so.

Max Photon said:
Demolition by heat-weakening has in no way been debunked.

Enjoy your victory lap.

P.S. I didn't want to start a new thread on this because I'd get harassed and threatened if I did.
Click to expand...

Phrased like that, NIST could also be considered "Demolition by heat weakening," so I'd have to agree with you there.

This isn't so much a "victory lap" as an assessment of the state of the discussion. I want to tease out the new ideas, things I might have missed, to see if there's anything left worth examining. Otherwise all we're doing is repeating ourselves.

It's also not my intent to harrass or threaten you -- your post is well within the spirit of my OP, and I thank you for your contribution.
 
RMackey - Silly Logical Fallacy

R.Mackey said:
In my experience, the other side hasn't contributed anything useful for a long, long time, essentially forfeiting the contest.
Click to expand...

LOL. Copernicus, Galileo and Newton haven't contributed anything useful for a long, long time. Did they essentially forfeit the contest to the alchemists, the astrologers, and the Flat Earth Society?

What a silly logical fallacy, RMackey.
 
mrwronggt13 said:
LOL. Copernicus, Galileo and Newton haven't contributed anything useful for a long, long time. Did they essentially forfeit the contest to the alchemists, the astrologers, and the Flat Earth Society?

What a silly logical fallacy, RMackey.
Click to expand...

 
mrwronggt13 said:
LOL. Copernicus, Galileo and Newton haven't contributed anything useful for a long, long time. Did they essentially forfeit the contest to the alchemists, the astrologers, and the Flat Earth Society? What a silly logical fallacy, RMackey.
Click to expand...


Ironically enough, you’re committing the straw man fallacy.
 
RMackey is saying that because an argument is old, that the contest is forfeited. That's perhaps the weakest most idiotic thing ever offered by a 9/11 denier.
 
mrwronggt13 said:
RMackey is saying that because an argument is old, that the contest is forfeited. That's perhaps the weakest most idiotic thing ever offered by a 9/11 denier.
Click to expand...
No he isn't. I have to agree with Par. Alex Jones would admire your strawman building ability if he only had a brain...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom