Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The Only Claim I Saw More Than Once During Our Hiatus

CrNU hasn't been updating for a few months as its authors all decided to enter the working world of adulthood all at once (and yet we've still held a better record than the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" blog). Now that we've started to settle into new jobs, schools, etc., we'll have more time to talk about ridiculous claims... like this one. Warning, link will cause crappy music to ensue, but that'll be the least of your headache.

The claim is thus: Someone interviewed on 9/11 by a Fox affiliate spoke really articulately, therefore the government did 9/11. No, really.



And so, because of the witness' precise claims - such as "the plane came from nowhere," and "the towers fell, one after the other" - 9/11 deniers engaged in a six-month search for the identity of this mystery man, dubbed "Harley Guy" by the deniers.

This claim bears a little thinking through. Someone at Fox News hired an actor to start spouting lines that mostly-kinda-sorta ended up accurately describing what happened; that actor was, in turn, somehow kept quiet, by someone, on behalf of Fox News and/or "The Government." As was the reporter. And the camera crew. And the person who hired the paid actor. And that person's secretary. And the secretary's friends. And so on.

One of the reasons why we've been remiss in updating this blog is because the 9/11 deniers never give us anything new to work with. My thoughts on this issue pertain entirely to the same type of analysis I provided for Loose Change:



This claim just adds a few dozen more people to this list.

The sheer bizarreness of the claim only dawned on me as I started on this post. The sole reasoning behind 9/11 deniers leaping in so typically gullible fashion onto this claim seems to be because the guy spoke clearly and articulately, even though he only said some pretty obvious things. The claim that a guy who speaks clearly and slowly must be a paid actor says more about the fantasy-world paranoia of 9/11 denial than any novel accusations I could level against them.

So it looks like their first official guess was that The Daily Show's Rob Riggle was, in fact, the "Harley Guy."


If any of you are familiar with the John Stewart show "The daily show" on that show named Rob Riggle.

I believe that is who this man is. A paid actor who in 2001 was unknown.


What an awkward IMDB profile that would be. Obviously did great things for his career. Sure, the guy is too short by about two feet, they sound nothing alike and any Daily Show actor would probably take the chance to bring down the Bush government after the fact, for God's sake, but it's probably better than who the kids finally settled on:

Actor Mark Humphrey. No, really. That's who they think it is. And how do they know? Well, allow me to demonstrate what appears to be the sole analysis done to date demonstrating the argument:





According to the blog where the claim broke, that's it. Come on, I can't be the only one thinking, "ummm... they look nothing alike..."

Apparently not, because debate has gotten started over whether this claim is correct. Truthaction disagrees, as do 9/11 Blogger and some ATS users. Here's the CrNU prediction: In six months, the people who believe the government recruits C-list television actors and trusts them with case-making tasks will have the same sort of obscurity as those in the faith who believe Judy Wood's theory about space laser beams. They'll be as "obscure" as one can be in a movement where refutation is impossible because science doesn't matter. None of these theories can actually be refuted because 9/11 deniers aren't in the habit of ruling out absurdities. However, they'll reach as close to that state as pseudo-scientists can imitate, and the faith will bleed a few more members.

7 comments:

Neighborhood Rationalist said...

Appreciate the comment. Here is her stated theory.

"I have used the terms "beam weapons" and "directed energy weapons" to refer to unconventional weapons (exotic weapons) that are energy weapons. I broadly define DEW as Energy that is Directed and is used as a Weapon. The full range of these weapons is classified information, so I make no limits or distinction of categories within the realm of energy weapons, as doing so would imply specific knowledge of all that is available. In the following paragraph, I have listed some of the possibilities we are aware of.

My critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet I make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do I make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it involved HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do I claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).

What I do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed."

As someone who has advocated demonstrably-false theories ad nauseum to offer her own view of what happened on 9/11, Dr. Wood is in fact someone who I would identify with "9/11 Truth," even if the "Movement" has expelled her for her overt absurdity. That term is behaviorally useful in that it helps characterize what she's up to in a way that contextualizes her claims for our readers.

PookztA said...

Apparently the author of this article cannot stand to see mature criticism of their work, for my comment was deleted and replaced with the comment by 'Neighborhood Rationalist' above within a few hours of posting.

Censorship will not bring us to the truth, so why do it?

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

Neighborhood Rationalist said...

Abe, it is quite obvious that you deleted your comment or that something else has happened - if you scroll down to the rest of our posts you will clearly see that we don't censor comments, no matter how offensive (and yours was not offensive). We still have the text of the comment in our e-mail logs so please let me know if you would like me to forward you the text so that you may re-post it.

PookztA said...

Thanks for replying.

There must be some mistake, because I most certainly did not delete my comment. This is why I posted my follow up comment demonstrating my concern that my post had been deleted, after seeing that someone had removed my original comment.

If you could forward me the text of the comment so I can repost it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks for offering to do so. Also, I apologize for assuming you deleted my comment, even though I feel that it was a natural and logical assumption. My email is pookztagmailcom, so thanks in advance for sending me the text so that I can repost it.

I imagine that you can understand that it came as quite a shock to me to see that my comment was deleted yet your reply to my comment was there.

Thanks for your help and understanding.

See ya,

-Abe

Neighborhood Rationalist said...

E-mail sent. Godspeed.

-the mgmt

PookztA said...

Here is my original comment (big thanks to the author for helping resolve our misunderstanding and recover my original post):

Wow, more promotion of disinformation about Dr. Judy Wood... What's new?

Those who have thoroughly reviewed the overwhelming sum of easily verifiable physical evidence on her website know that she does not have a "theory about space laser beams", nor has she ever. So, why is this author promoting something that is not true?

Those who have reviewed Dr. Wood's website know that she only presents evidence, and a great deal of evidence at that. Could it be that this is a disinformation campaign to deter peope from looking at the evidence?

By the way, Dr. Wood does not address who is responsible for 9/11 and she is not part of the "truth" movement, nor is she responsible for what this unscientific movement says or does. I too do not claim to be part of the 9/11 "truth" movement, for any 'movement' which thinks explosives of any kind can account for all the physical evidence from that day is severely mistaken.

In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

Muertos said...

This Pooztka loon pops up all over the Internet whenever anybody mentions the space beam nonsense.

He's been spamming our board for months, case in point:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/911-challenge-explain-the-evidence

I doubt he is a medical student. At least I hope not, because I don't want to trust my life or that of my loved ones to someone who believes in space beams.