Tag(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (44 comments)

Truther Reasoning "Explained"

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)      
Become a Fan Become a Fan

opednews.com

What does a Truther's thought process and a Rubik's Cube have in common? Actually, a lot more than you might think! We'll see how a Truther thinks not just "outside the box" (bad pun, I know), but they actually rearrange the box!

::::::::

I'd like to try and explain the Truther approach to the process by which they conclude that the events of 9/11 were an "inside job". To do this, you need to picture a Rubik's Cube sitting before you.

Steps to Solving a Rubik's Cube:

(1) The six sides of the cube show a jumble of colored squares because it's been intentionally scrambled by your irksome sibling, father, co-worker - whoever. The important thing is that you want to make the cube's sides unified in color again much like they were when you first got it.

(2) Now, as you sit there looking at the colored squares, you wonder how you're going to reconstruct the colors so that the colored sides are once again obtained.

(3)(a) A puzzle solver will methodically work with the colored squares, turning and twisting them, until they arrive at a reproducible and workable solution where all sides reflect a different yet solid color. Now, this might take awhile but reflects a consistent and thorough approach toward solving the puzzle.

(3)(b) However, a more "inspired" person will pop out a corner square of any color, pull apart the cube's squares from its swiveling core, and rearrange the squares to ultimately reflect not the colored sides (necessarily) but more so the manufacturer's stamps on the inside of the squares.


Steps to Proving 9/11 Was an Inside Job:

(1) The jumble of colored squares could represent the aftermath of an al Qaeda-financed terrorist plot that resulted in the events witnessed by millions on 9/11. However, the irksome sibling is too simple an explanation for the observed and jumbled colors. Therefore, additional research is needed to see how this configuration was created.

(2) The colored squares represent the population of available evidence that should be analyzed and ultimately arranged so that (1) all six sides have a uniform color (i.e., the hypothesis that makes the most sense and is not unnecessarily complex) and (2) others can review your moves or analysis and arrive at the same or similar uniform color or hypothesis.

(3)(a) A puzzle solver (i.e., non-Truther) will methodically work with the colored squares to arrive at a reproducible and workable solution. The neat thing about solving the Rubik's Cube this way is that:

(i) the solver works within the constraints of the puzzle without the need to add an artificiality (e.g., deconstruction of the squares) to it (i.e., this reflects the acceptance and application of the scientific method to the available evidence); and

(ii) the solver can communicate their moves or process to another puzzle solver so that they may confirm or deny the validity of the solver's solution (i.e., this process uses the available evidence to suggest a solution without the need to include speculation).

(3)(b) An "inspired" person will look at the colored squares, conclude that they are so random there's no way an irksome sibling or manufacturer could have created the observed configuration (i.e., here is the initial spark of faith into something far more complex than just six colored surfaces). Another means of solving the puzzle, then, must exist because trying the puzzle solver's way doesn't address the cube's questionable configuration and takes far too long (i.e., intellectual laziness). By accepting these unsupported presumptions (i.e., the government lies to us constantly, 9/11 is no different), the following reasoning results:

(i) the inspired person thinks the colored squares are essentially a distraction because why should they conform to making all the sides a uniform color? That's what the manufacturer (i.e., government) wants them to do so that the inspired ones would not question the more important issue of why are the squares configured as observed (i.e., why take the government-issued soma when the truth is so tantilizingly close)?

(ii) the inspired person abandons the puzzle's constraints to probe deeper (i.e., enter the rabbit hole) and look at the Rubik's Cube swiveling core (i.e., six degrees of separation yet clearly linked through the cube's structure). The quickest way to the core is to pop out a corner square (i.e., The Truther starts to use speculation and conjecture to explain the squares' configuration, which only deepens as the rabbit hole is revealed and probed more fully), realizing that once one square is removed the cube begins to fall apart into many individual squares (i.e., now, the Truthers know they're on to something; otherwise, why would it fall apart so easily?).

(iii) the inspired person looks at the internal workings and begins to rearrange the cube using only the central squares because they all bear the same markings (i.e., the Truther searches out the "common thread" from not just the available evidence – the colored surface of the squares – but also its associated conjectures and six degrees of separation – the unseen sides of the square, central posts, and core).

(iv) the inspired person discards the corner and perimeter squares because they don't bear the same markings. In fact, they bear several markings - how odious to actually analyze them when the Truther already has the squares they want. Obviously, the manufacturer placed those squares into the cube to distract or misinform the inspired person as to how the "true" arrangement of the cube is set (i.e., COINTELPRO is working hard to confuse and distract those in the know).

(v) the inspired person then holds up their completed... polygon... of sorts that... kind of... is... falling apart and is held loosely together, looks over at the puzzle solver, and... scoffs! Clearly, the puzzle solver doesn't "get it" because they're either a total idiot who can't solve the "real" puzzle or they're a manufacturer's representative trying to dupe the "others" (i.e., sheeple) into believing that a Rubik's Cube has six sides with all of them colored differently (i.e., the Truther "knows" the truth now and can walk away and show his friends the loosely held... mass... and say proudly, "Here is the "real" Rubik's Cube!")

As I've written to Truthers in another post, "Get a life!" and solve the Rubik's Cube the way in which it was meant to be solved; no cheaters need enter here - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6837 .

 

Back in the saddle again. In accordance with the new guidelines, I've dumped my infant pseudonym and have resumed the annoying name (to some members) of Tom Murphy. I have some catching up to do on the articles but look forward to playing (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
44 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Where's the grey? by mikel paul on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:41:59 PM
honestly, Tom by Better World Order on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:43:09 PM
A good question... by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:35:35 PM
RE; A good question... by mikel paul on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:02:18 PM
At the end of the day on 9/11 we are handed a jumbled Rubik' by David Watts on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:29:21 PM
Pretzel Logic! by Bia Winter on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:45:14 AM
Our country is on the precipice of a total collapse by Munich on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:31:56 PM
9/11 is a complex puzzle by CasaZaza on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:24:36 PM
Casazaza by Bob Gormley on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:20:33 PM
Boycotts and buycotts by Better World Order on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:03:18 PM
Tommy has already proven 9/11 was an inside job. by David Watts on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:58:02 PM
Re: "Tommy has already proven 9/11 was an inside job." by Munich on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:19:38 PM
as building seven begins it's free-fall decent. by David Watts on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:48:05 PM
Tommy toons is so absolutely cretin. What a bozo ! by meremark on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:02:49 PM
Re: "as building seven begins it's free-fall decent" by Munich on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:47:08 PM
You say you don't like Larry King. by David Watts on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:31:08 PM
Hey Tom :) by Scott Ledger on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:21:58 PM
Stupid Tommytoons is proving G. Hitler Worker Bush did it by meremark on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:40:36 PM
Does this add another color to Tommy's Rubik's Cube? by David Watts on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:23:40 AM
You make me chuckle - thanks! by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:22:17 AM
Obviously noting the absent comments of so many wise ones by meremark on Friday, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:01:44 PM
he did it again! by Tony Forest on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 6:35:56 AM
Tommy Provides PROOF 9/11 INSIDE JOB! by David Watts on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:16:56 AM
Sorry, Tom... by Stephen Demetriou on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:40:15 AM
No need to be sorry - you're entitled to your opnion by Tom Murphy on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:49:39 AM
Ok... by Stephen Demetriou on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM
Just what is it going to take anyway? by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:51:59 AM
No one need WASTE(!) any more time arguing with Tommie by David Watts on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM
Truther? Who woulda thunk? by Drew Terry on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:18:52 PM
With a loaded gun to their head.... by James Strait on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:52:43 PM
WTF? by Drew Terry on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM
Let's pry it from their cold dead fingers! by Bia Winter on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:51:49 AM
Dictate meant to solve? by Drew Terry on Friday, Apr 4, 2008 at 9:14:55 AM
No... puzzle meant to be solved within constraints by Tom Murphy on Friday, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:19:40 PM
Does the word offend Tom? by Drew Terry on Friday, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:02:22 PM
The word does not offend... should it? by Tom Murphy on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:51:32 PM
Worry, or Worry Not? by Drew Terry on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:43:13 AM
Thanks! by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:45:20 AM
Worry, worry, everywhere by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:49:50 AM
I disagree by Drew Terry on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:56:42 PM
The mystery is, why are they still called "mysteries?" by Drew Terry on Friday, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:04:46 PM
When "mysteries" aren't that mysterious by Tom Murphy on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:28:12 PM
Why waste time on a troll? by Cinderfella on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:54:07 AM
Trolls are people toos by Tom Murphy on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:47:54 PM