jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
delete
Last edited:
Best quote from a truther I've seen (by snowcrash)
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
-
- Tags
- truthers
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,766
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Congratulations on making 21 posts without getting banned.
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,766
You guys need to make a new topic over there and start talking about the Millette findings/red gray chips. It seems they're doing their best to avoid that topic..
Oh, they've discussed it. snowcrash alternately does and does not believe in CD, depending on which of his personalities is doing the writing. truebeleaguer claims to be agnostic on the issue while insisting that the evidence for thermite is strong. The rest are ambivalent. I'd give you links but I can't link yet.
You need to understand: truthaction is sort of a Truther recovery group. Most of the guys there freely admit to a past of being duped by CD and no-plane theories. They sit around confessing their transgressions like a bunch of addicts. They still have the 9/11 Truth Disease but they've mostly shifted from thermite and space beams to foreknowledge, knowing assistance, and coverup.
You won't learn anything about 9/11 from them but their behavior makes interesting study. They were at each others' throats until Orphia Nay and Oystein gave them a reason to close ranks.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Interesting observation. Is it just me or does the 911 conspiracy as a whole seems to be shifting away from 'MIHOP' and to 'LIHOP' instead?
Sure there are ardent no-planers (WTC and Pentagon), thermite/explosives CD pushers, but more and more we see concentration on non-technical details, and things like whether or not OBL or AQ even existed.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Makes sense, they shoulda been LIHOP all along. They followed the pied piper and now they just look like loonies shouting on the streetcorners, 10 years too late. Probably all thanks to Avery.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
My gut feeling is similar to yours.
Put it in context:
There have been concerns about 911 events which we can separate into "technical" and "socio-political"
The claims in the technical domain have been the "big three" of "CD at WTC"; "Not that Plane" at Pentagon AND "It was shot down" at Shanksville. Most other technical claims are subsets or subordinate to those three. Despite our willingness for many years to entertain those claims they are all false and most truthers sooner or later will have to deal with the falseness.
Claims in the "socio-political" domain include "MIHOP"; "LIHOP" and "LIHOOI" (Let it happen out of incompetence). Those claims almost always refer to "it" as if "it" was a single homogeneous entity. There is a structural error there - more of that a bit later.
BUT the self evident truths are probably:
- It is (almost??) certain there was no MIHOP in the sense of a deliberate overall plan under Government control;
- Ditto no overall LIHOP plan;
- There was probably a lot of LIHOOI among all the agencies involved;
- There was probably a lot of bits of LIHOP including arse covering among the agencies.
And what I just wrote has pointed to the structural issue. "It", whether made to happen, let happen or just happened by itself through incompetence, "it" was never and never could be one single homogeneous entity. There was not and could not have been one "master plan". It was lots of little bits which added up to the overall setting.
And each of those bits could independent of all the others be made to happen, let happen or happened all by its little self because of incompetence.
So I suggest we are seeing a groundswell or a tide change -- pick your own metaphor.
There is in my opinion little doubt that quite a lot of bits did in fact happen which were not in the overall best community interest. AND again IMNSHO those bits may be worth further investigation and some of them undoubtedly would be worth further investigation.
So the tide change we may be correct in sensing will probably:
A)Abandon loser technical claims like the "big three" (as a side benefit that should see the death of the current trolling interests in thermXte, iron microspheres etc - but don't underestimate the survival instinct of trolls
)B) Abandon non-specific claims as to either MIHOP or LIHOP at the overall level of one "it" which is a single presumed homogeneous entity including a "master plan".
AND
C) A probable shift of interest to legitimate concerns about lesser elements of LIHOP and LIHOOI
Let's see as the trend continues. I've been wrong before.....
PS: We would need new acronyms to change the "it" to "them" LTHOP or similar?
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Somewhere in the last 10 years I told a 911CTist almost the exact same thing and was told in no uncertain terms that 'my' technical arguements would be trashed soon enough.
Where do I claim my Randi prize and would i have to find my long forgotten post on one of several possible forums to prove my prescience?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
My gut feeling is similar to yours.
Put it in context:
There have been concerns about 911 events which we can separate into "technical" and "socio-political"
The claims in the technical domain have been the "big three" of "CD at WTC"; "Not that Plane" at Pentagon AND "It was shot down" at Shanksville. Most other technical claims are subsets or subordinate to those three. Despite our willingness for many years to entertain those claims they are all false and most truthers sooner or later will have to deal with the falseness.
Claims in the "socio-political" domain include "MIHOP"; "LIHOP" and "LIHOOI" (Let it happen out of incompetence). Those claims almost always refer to "it" as if "it" was a single homogeneous entity. There is a structural error there - more of that a bit later.
BUT the self evident truths are probably:
- It is (almost??) certain there was no MIHOP in the sense of a deliberate overall plan under Government control;
- Ditto no overall LIHOP plan;
- There was probably a lot of LIHOOI among all the agencies involved;
- There was probably a lot of bits of LIHOP including arse covering among the agencies.
And what I just wrote has pointed to the structural issue. "It", whether made to happen, let happen or just happened by itself through incompetence, "it" was never and never could be one single homogeneous entity. There was not and could not have been one "master plan". It was lots of little bits which added up to the overall setting.
And each of those bits could independent of all the others be made to happen, let happen or happened all by its little self because of incompetence.
So I suggest we are seeing a groundswell or a tide change -- pick your own metaphor.
There is in my opinion little doubt that quite a lot of bits did in fact happen which were not in the overall best community interest. AND again IMNSHO those bits may be worth further investigation and some of them undoubtedly would be worth further investigation.
So the tide change we may be correct in sensing will probably:
A)Abandon loser technical claims like the "big three" (as a side benefit that should see the death of the current trolling interests in thermXte, iron microspheres etc - but don't underestimate the survival instinct of trolls
B) Abandon non-specific claims as to either MIHOP or LIHOP at the overall level of one "it" which is a single presumed homogeneous entity including a "master plan".
AND
C) A probable shift of interest to legitimate concerns about lesser elements of LIHOP and LIHOOI
Let's see as the trend continues. I've been wrong before.....
PS: We would need new acronyms to change the "it" to "them" LTHOP or similar? [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]
Succinct and to the point
thumbs up
The newer strain of Troof teaches, essentially, that the intelligence failures were not accidental. It theorizes about a) actions and inactions, b) by individuals in the American, Pakistani and Saudi governments, c) leading up to and after the attacks, d) of a deliberate and/or criminally negligent nature, which were undertaken for the purposes of e) permitting the attacks to succeed and/or concealing key information.
Example allegations: The notorious Footnote 44 is a smoking gun of deliberate inaction. Haifa bint Faisal deliberately supplied funds to two of the hijackers. The 9/11 Commission redacted evidence of Saudi complicity in the attacks. The government knew the date and targets of the attacks, and Patty Casazza's roadside whistleblower is the proof.
It's mostly evil-people-behind-desks type of stuff like this. It's definitely more inside the realm of plausibility, and expressly acknowledges the existence of OBL, AQ, and 19 hijackers. None of the specific allegations are supported by strong evidence. Its adherents tend to retreat to "there are just too many coincidences" when confronted with the weakness of any given claim.
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Yes. It's very, very apparent that they're doing their "best" in this way. But I think that it doesn't make sense to open a new thread on Millette's study. It will be very soon transformed again into the chattering about the Life, Universe and Everything.
Even SnowCrash is not able of meaningful discussion on Millette study. It was clear already from his confused, uninformed reactions on The911Forum, Oystein. This bigheaded, extremely arrogant guy still believes in such idiotic nonsenses like "paint cannot be explosive" or "Bentham DSC curves proved nanothermite" etc. No help for him.
It is of course good that he revealed those impudent lies in AE911"Truth" Newsletter but that's all we can expect, at least at the moment
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
Good summary for this "newer strain of Troof". Although I am not sure this lable fits. It's just one more splinter group in the ongoing schisms, and one yoz happen to focus on, right?
And these opinions, too, are at the base informed by an unshakable conviction that it is "obvious" the Bush government acted consciously and criminally - not just in the CYA phase. No matter how many particular beliefs they had to shed, no matter how many proofs they had to abandon as false, no matter that still today they have not one piece of ecidence that they really trust, no matter that they still can't agree to name the crime and the suspect for any one single, concrete allegation, they just know deep deep in their heart that there MUST be this element of Twoof.
When someone comes along and says "wow, that's all very interesting, but I am not convinced. What do you have that would convince me", he (or she) is run off amid a hailstorm of abuse, for not sharing the base belief without accepting the base premise first.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 22,358
Yes, they have each come so far, discarding many "theories" along the way. Back in 2006, Shure called the FBI and demanded that they watch Loose Change so that they could find out who really was behind 9-11. In 2005 or so, Jon Gold was allowed on the Opie and Anthony Show, where he led off with some bizarre revelation about how one of Osama's brothers was running a phony marriage ring. Unfortunately that segment didn't last long enough to reveal how it tied into 9-11. Brian Good (True Beleaguer) used to believe that his silly drawings of Rake on Rake would eventually be used in college-level engineering courses.
And yet, despite discarding these insane premises, the conclusion has never changed. Why? Of course, because it was never a conclusion in the first place; it was a premise. It's inductive reasoning at its worst. If X>Y, and since Y is given, every X must be true, even if dozens of Xs have been discarded along the way.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
Thanks for that bit of history!
Had to correct that. They already found out that not every X is true, and certainly not everx X is as good as the next one.
They induce that some X (or Xs) must be true, so their job is merely to find that X (or those Xs);
- Somebody committed a crime - we just don't know which crime, but we'll soon find out.
- We also can't pinpoint the suspect, but we'll soon find out.
- Just to be save, we assume that everybody is guilty
- ...and that they are guilty of every crime.
- Starting from that premise, we know the evidence is in the 28 blacked-out pages and other withheld documents, in the whistleblowers that never actually blew the whistle and in all the hearings the 911C never held
- All of this is obvious
- If we fail to convince anybody, then we'll start a revolution, and when we have won it, by golly, just wait and see how will we convince y'all!
Well, it's newer in the sense that it's a reaction to the excesses of e.g. David Ray Griffin and Loose Change. But it's not really that new, it's existed for several years now.
I think that's accurate. It's a set of beliefs based on past malevolent thoughts and actions (which, conveniently, cannot be tested or falsified). It presumes honesty on the part of mysterious whistleblowers while presuming dishonesty on the part of most everyone else.
Yes. I was disappointed to see that, but not surprised. Thermite loonies will recite their evidence all day for you. But there's a sense within Truthaction that their evidence is so plain and obvious, that even trying to discuss it is suspicious.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
There's only one thing worse than trying to discuss their evidence, and that is NOT discussing their evidence.
Catch-22
(Actually, that is a false dychotomy. There is a third way, a way "out": Accept their faith without debate.)
(As I write this, it occurs to me that they, with their obsession on long link lists with short quotes, are very much like the young fundamental, bible-literalist christians I have often encountered who are convinced that if only I read enough of the bible, or at least the "right" bible passages, and read them often enough, I will eventually see Da Twoof, and so they throw bible verses at me with no end. It never worked, of course. I read some of those bible passages, but I am smart enough to read other bible verses as well, and I look for corroboration, and find none. So quoting people without making a stringent case doesn't work with me)
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I foresee the only logical evolution for them in the LIHOP direction, should they choose to actually follow rules of evidence and logic, is that their argument will come down to Bush, Cheney and Rice all agreeing in a private conversation to "Let this thing play out and see where it goes", and then they hit a brick wall because they have to prove such a conversation ever took place.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
Oh, it's easy to prove:
1. It's obvious
2. The evidence is in the zillions of Bytes of information that the Cover Up has made state secrets.
q.e.d.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Yes, 1. is their default fallback. However as far as 2, as far as I know, there are still places in the White House where there can still be a private unrecorded conversation between the three critical decision makers (maybe throw in Rumsfeld, but I am not sure if he was present at or informed of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief.