What are the finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that you've ever encountered?

[Tinfoil Hater]

Truthers are not exactly the brightest bunch of people- They exhibit a shocking ignorance in elementary physics, as well as chemistry.

There are multiple competing conspiracies within the withering Truther movement- what are some of the most absurd assertions you've ever heard?

Tops on my list is one thing I found on this message board- We do have a resident no-planer, and he thinks no planes hit the WTC, and nobdy in NY or NJ actually saw the planes hit the towers. He also thinks all the videos of the planes hitting the towers are fakes. - and that what did crash were in fact holograms. He also asserts that all the plane wreckage was planted, the phone calls from the planes were fakes, and that no passenger remains were found at Ground Zero. These are typical no-planer beliefs, and are some hardcore tinfoil hat delusions...


Some other strange views I've heard from Truthers is the tiresome chesnut that 'jet fuel can't get hot enough to melt steel, so the towers couldn't have collapsed on their own'. Truthers fail to see the floors wouldn't have to melt- merlely sagging would be enough to pull each floor away from the outer walls, which would lead to an accordian collapse...

I have also noticed Truthers like to talk about thermite- but when pressed, they can't seem to define thermite- Some thought thermite was like plastic explosives...Yeesh....

Truthers also seem to feel that the south tower collapsing right next to Building 7, and a fire that raged all day inside Building 7 wouldn't have seriously damaged the building- so planted explosives caused the collapse!

Ever encounter Truther stupidity or theory that left you with your jaw agape?

What Truther comment or theory is worthy of the tinfoil crown?

 

[Fourbrick]

Truthers are not exactly the brightest bunch of people- They exhibit a shocking ignorance in elementary physics, as well as chemistry.......
Truthers also seem to feel that the south tower collapsing right next to Building 7, and a fire that raged all day inside Building 7 wouldn't have seriously damaged the building- so planted explosives caused the collapse!...

What Truther comment or theory is worthy of the tinfoil crown?

Maybe you are showing a shocking ignorance of what hit WTC7, and should get your owntinfoil hat for saying the South Tower collapsed next to WTC7.

 

[BigAl]

Truthers are not exactly the brightest bunch of people- They exhibit a shocking ignorance in elementary physics, as well as chemistry.

I nominate our own Redibis in the demonstrated ignorance of physics category.

I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members, you might also be able to determine what location in the bldg they came from.

Did they find any of these thermally expanded floor members?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6032219#post6032219

 

[Oystein]

I had one truther in a German social forum who claimed that Larry Silverstein made a huge profit, because he quoted the price he paid for the WTC in the millions and the insurances he received in the billions. Something on the order "WTC cost him 3.9 millions and he got 8 billions from insurances".

I still can't grasp to this day that anyone would think the biggest and most high-profile real estate in New York could be had at less than many a beach mansion in Malibu! 3.9 million is an average lottery win. He earnestly thought, Miss Erna Little, winning the lottery, could have bought the WTC! And that there would be insurance companies in this world that would insure buildings at 2000 times their purchase price!
(Of course he was additionally wrong on the insurance payouts for the Twin Towers, but may be excused for the wrong figure of 8 billion came from Wikipedia, when the true figure is somewhere around 4.7 billion IIRC).

So this dude was wrong by a factor of about 1750.


Same dude thinks a fighter squadron is the same thing as a couple of fighters on alert. We argued about that for about a dozend posts each - he claimed that because Andrews AFB has a fighter squadron or two, they had fighters on alert that could have been scrambled within 5 minutes. When I pointed out to him that fighter squadrons that are not on alert might take a liiiiiiiil longer, he declared ME the fool.

 

[Sabrina]

Nah, 911thology takes the cake with his insistence that mini-nukes were used to destroy the towers. Never mind the fact that no one died of radiation sickness, or that most of downtown Manhattan wasn't in fact obliterated by the blast wave, or that there were SURVIVORS found IN the wreckage... nope, it was mini-nukes.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to his sanity, or lack thereof.

 

[CompusMentus]

Wood and Fetzers grand piano is the first to come to mind for me.

From a Real Deal Radio interview Fetzer hosted way back in 2006.

Judy W. had asked a friend to calculate the drag coefficients and it was reckoned that a Steinway would take 30 seconds to fall the height of one of the towers "because if the lid was open it would act as a parachute."

Monumentally crass.

Compus

 

[RedIbis]

I nominate our own Redibis in the demonstrated ignorance of physics category.

Please forward this doozy to the Stundies thread, but you might want to check that thread where even Dave had to admit that if thermal expansion of floor members occurred it would be discernible.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please forward this doozy to the Stundies thread, but you might want to check that thread where even Dave had to admit that if thermal expansion of floor members occurred it would be discernible.

I see you didn't understand that, either.

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

Please forward this doozy to the Stundies thread, but you might want to check that thread where even Dave had to admit that if thermal expansion of floor members occurred it would be discernible.

There is one truther who claimed that Silverstein "made out like a bandit" but when asked to support that contention appears completely offended that anyone would dare question it.

Isn't that RIDICULOUS RED?????

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Claiming that pouring a billion dollars in rent into an empty non-revenue generating hole over 8 and a half years = "making out like a bandit" is pretty frakking stupid.

Just as stupid in fact as claiming it was mini-nukes or orbital ray guns.

 

[Thunder]

What Truther comment or theory is worthy of the tinfoil crown?

"we don't need facts, we only need doubt".

its either amazingly ignorant...or frightenly calculated.

you choose.

oh..and a few years ago, Truthers used to argue that it was
"highly suspicious" that Silverstein got terrorism insurance for the WTC. As if the WTC was never a target of terrorism before.

 

[BigAl]

Please forward this doozy to the Stundies thread, but you might want to check that thread where even Dave had to admit that if thermal expansion of floor members occurred it would be discernible.

The point isn't that Dave understands it. The point is that you don't.

Originally Posted by RedIbis
Wouldn't how they were affected by heat also help determine what location they came from? I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members, you might also be able to determine what location in the bldg they came from.

Did they find any of these thermally expanded floor members? Did they recover Column 79?

 

[240-185]

Some samples of 9/11 stoopidity:

"Laws of Physics were broken on that day"
"Prove the calculations of the NIST are correct"
"No plane hit the WTC"
"If the Bush government pays the scientists at NIST, that means they are corrupted"
"Free fall speed"
"The bodies were there, not the plane"
Everything that troofers declare "FAKE", without explanation
"When we [troofers] present a global explanation of 9/11, you argue we can't provide evidence for it, that's a circular reasoning!"
Examining some chips of paint that came from the Twin Towers. Just doing this means that you already have your conclusion, independently from the crappiness of the Bentham paper.

 

[RedIbis]

The point isn't that Dave understands it. The point is that you don't.

What's truly stupid is that you don't think there would be any physical evidence of this key factor, namely, thermal expansion of the floor systems, that lead to the collapse of the bldg.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What's truly stupid is that you don't think there would be any physical evidence of this key factor, namely, thermal expansion of the floor systems, that lead to the collapse of the bldg.

Since the changes in volume and linear length of materials is temperature dependent, and the temperature constantly has an effect on materials I think the proof of it "happening" is a no brainer. I think if you're going to show any skepticism about how much a factor it was in a collapse you'd be interested in more specifics than portraying a position where there's a doubt of it happening at all. Here's something to get you started when you want to discuss elsewhere: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thexp.html

 

[RedIbis]

Since the changes in volume and linear length of materials is temperature dependent, and the temperature constantly has an effect on materials I think the proof of it "happening" is a no brainer. I think if you're going to show any skepticism about how much a factor it was in a collapse you'd be interested in more specifics than portraying a position where there's a doubt of it happening at all. Here's something to get you started when you want to discuss elsewhere: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thexp.html

I didn't click your link, but I'm willing to bet you're again attempting to argue something I'm not debating.

What is the "it" that is "happening"? Please answer this specifically. But before you do, please know that I am not debating whether or not thermal expansion can occur. I'm questioning whether or not NIST has proven that it did occur, and that its occurence lead to the collapse of a single column, which in short order, lead to the collapse of the entire building.

I thought this exchange covering old ground would be a derail, but the fact that too many "debunkers" accept this chain of events without expecting any forensic support is truly one of the stupidest things I've encountered here.

 

[DGM]

I'm questioning whether or not NIST has proven that it did occur, .

Never mind.... (it's not worth it)

 

[ScottyMate]

No planers are right up there, but one of the strangest I found was a long vide series on Youtube on the channel "911thology". A man calling himself Dimiri claimed to be "a commissioned officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence for 5 years", and was claiming that the WTC were brought down by nuclear devices in the foundations. The reason for there being nuclear bombs in the foundations was in case they ever needed to be demolished some day - where regular demolition would be impossible.

The plane that hit the Pentagon was in fact a stolen Russian missile launched from offshore. The "planes" that hit the towers were actually carrying nuclear devices. So to prevent a catastrophic airburst detonation over Manhattan, a high level decision was made by the US Government to nuke the towers (from the bombs planted in the foundation remember?) and bring them safely down to the ground. Phew....

Oh yeah, he said this naturally explained the cover up, and that Alex Jones and the regular Truth Movement are in fact also part of the cover up. All this can be found in the book he’s got on sale of course.

I had a few back an forth’s with this guy, and his interview series has since either been removed, or put on private.

 

[djlunacee]

Nah, 911thology takes the cake with his insistence that mini-nukes were used to destroy the towers. Never mind the fact that no one died of radiation sickness, or that most of downtown Manhattan wasn't in fact obliterated by the blast wave, or that there were SURVIVORS found IN the wreckage... nope, it was mini-nukes.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to his sanity, or lack thereof.

We can not forget that because dictionaries world wide changed the definition of ground zero to specifically include WTC that was proof that the government did it, or that the nukes were built in as part of a contingency plan for the self destruction of the towers, they were planted underground, and the concussion wave didn't do much damage to the "bathtub", but was catastrophic at 1000 feet. You know what they say, "ignorance is bliss".


There is craziness in all the different versions of the twoof from every faction of the movement, no planers, CDers, it doesn't really matter they all live in this fantasy world.

Our very own Jammonious is the one you can't resist, I mean anyone who can say, that if you were to say "we saw the plane" as a group that it really does not include you, therefore your statement is invalid is an absolute moron. For someone to argue such things shows a definite break from the reality of the matter. Someone who argues that the sounds of a subway(below ground) or a passing bus, could be mistaken for the sound of jet, has no hold on reality, sanity or anything else that resembles a rational thought. It is rather sad when you think about it.

 

[djlunacee]

No planers are right up there, but one of the strangest I found was a long vide series on Youtube on the channel "911thology". A man calling himself Dimiri claimed to be "a commissioned officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence for 5 years", and was claiming that the WTC were brought down by nuclear devices in the foundations. The reason for there being nuclear bombs in the foundations was in case they ever needed to be demolished some day - where regular demolition would be impossible.

The plane that hit the Pentagon was in fact a stolen Russian missile launched from offshore. The "planes" that hit the towers were actually carrying nuclear devices. So to prevent a catastrophic airburst detonation over Manhattan, a high level decision was made by the US Government to nuke the towers (from the bombs planted in the foundation remember?) and bring them safely down to the ground. Phew....

Oh yeah, he said this naturally explained the cover up, and that Alex Jones and the regular Truth Movement are in fact also part of the cover up. All this can be found in the book he’s got on sale of course.

I had a few back an forth’s with this guy, and his interview series has since either been removed, or put on private.

I know this all to well trust me. It was right after his venture into this forum that his videos went private. The former rooski thread here is an example of classic madness:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171498

Then again he did flirt with my gone fishing avatar, so what does that tell you????

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I didn't click your link, but I'm willing to bet you're again attempting to argue something I'm not debating.

What is the "it" that is "happening"? Please answer this specifically. But before you do, please know that I am not debating whether or not thermal expansion can occur. I'm questioning whether or not NIST has proven that it did occur, and that its occurence lead to the collapse of a single column, which in short order, lead to the collapse of the entire building.

I thought this exchange covering old ground would be a derail, but the fact that too many "debunkers" accept this chain of events without expecting any forensic support is truly one of the stupidest things I've encountered here.

Instead of b****ing about it Red, why don't you conduct your own scientific test to prove NIST wrong. Or are you that lazy not to do tests yourself to prove that you're right?

 

[Dave Rogers]

What's truly stupid is that you don't think there would be any physical evidence of this key factor, namely, thermal expansion of the floor systems, that lead to the collapse of the bldg.

RedIbis, there's no need for this. You've already demonstrated that you're utterly ignorant of what thermal expansion is, to the extent that, when it's explained to you, you hear the complete opposite of the explanation. Since there's nobody new round here, nobody's learning anything new. I explained to you that thermal expansion is reversed when the temperature is reduced, and that only plastic deformation as a result of thermal expansion would be visible. I thought I probably didn't need to explain to you that many, many structural members were seen to have suffered plastic deformation, for which I apologise; I was wrong to underestimate the sheer breadth of your ignorance about the material you claim to be interested in. I also thought I probably didn't need to explain to you that plastic deformation as a result of thermal expansion isn't distinguishable from plastic deformation from any other cause, like for example the collapse of a large building; clearly, I've underestimated your ignorance here too. So, for assuming you're capable of elementary reasoning and have some basic knowledge about the subjects on which you feel the world's experts should defer to you, I apologise unreservedly, and I shall remember never to assume that you're able to understand anything anyone says ever again.

Dave

 

[BaaBaa]

What rhymes with 'babonnius'?

 

[Brainster]

1. Clunkety-clunk!
2. Box Boy Richard Gage's experiment that changed the world.
3. Truthburn
4. The "Week of Truth" where the Troofers sold a grand total of 800 copies of Shell Game.
5. The guy with the stackable office trays.

 

[Woody-]

My favorite example of stupidity is "concrete core" Christophera.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

My favorite example of stupidity is "concrete core" Christophera.

Have you noticed the number of Truthers that really have no understanding of how the Twin Towers were designed and constructed?

 

[Pardalis]

My favorite example of stupidity is "concrete core" Christophera.

That's not stupidity, it's insanity.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

That's not stupidity, it's insanity.

Many of the Truthers fancy themselves to be engineers...

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

The most assinine theory I heard was one of the many anti-semitic chesnuts- the one that all the Jews were that worked at the WTC were told not come into work at the WTC on 9/11 (presumably contacted by Israel, who many Truthers think was behind 9/11)

The fact is MANY Jews (And Christians, atheists, Muslims, etc) were murdered that day in NY

 

[njslim]

Wood and Fetzers grand piano is the first to come to mind for me.

From a Real Deal Radio interview Fetzer hosted way back in 2006.

Judy W. had asked a friend to calculate the drag coefficients and it was reckoned that a Steinway would take 30 seconds to fall the height of one of the towers "because if the lid was open it would act as a parachute."

Monumentally crass.

Compus

Sounds like episode of MYTHBUSTERS

Does a grand piano fall faster with the lid closed ?

Love to see that one.....

 

[Bell]

Sounds like episode of MYTHBUSTERS

Does a grand piano fall faster with the lid closed ?

Love to see that one.....

What is it about pianos and falling? ALWAYS. Every. Single. Freaking. Time.

 

[jhunter1163]

Anyone remember "net force = zero"?

 

[Harpo]

Many of the Truthers fancy themselves to be engineers intelligent...

They're wrong!

 

[CORed]

I didn't click your link, but I'm willing to bet you're again attempting to argue something I'm not debating.

What is the "it" that is "happening"? Please answer this specifically. But before you do, please know that I am not debating whether or not thermal expansion can occur. I'm questioning whether or not NIST has proven that it did occur, and that its occurence lead to the collapse of a single column, which in short order, lead to the collapse of the entire building.

I thought this exchange covering old ground would be a derail, but the fact that too many "debunkers" accept this chain of events without expecting any forensic support is truly one of the stupidest things I've encountered here.

When the steel got hot, it expanded. When it cooled off, it contracted. Thermal expansion isn't some kind of hit-or-miss, sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't phenomenon, it's an inherent property of all materials. So the idea that one has to look for evidence of thermal expansion in a building that was on fire is just plain stupid.

 

[patchbunny]

Dunno. How do you divide statements by the mentally ill from the terminally stupid? And how can you tell? Some people are just so out there.

Anyway, I've always loved the C-4 coated rebar on all the floor concrete.

 

[RedIbis]

When the steel got hot, it expanded. When it cooled off, it contracted. Thermal expansion isn't some kind of hit-or-miss, sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't phenomenon, it's an inherent property of all materials. So the idea that one has to look for evidence of thermal expansion in a building that was on fire is just plain stupid.

Good lord for the tenth time, I'm not arguing the occurence of thermal expansion, I'm questioning how such a common occurence could cause the global collapse of a building.

I suspect that in nearly every fire in a steel framed building, some thermal expansion occurs. But in WTC 7 this leads to global collapse. Not only does NIST have to prove that this is what happened, they also have to prove that the fires got hot enough and burned long enough in the necessary locations.

I'm not saying their hypothesis is impossible, but if you wish to close the case on WTC 7, not requiring some extraordinary physical evidence to back up this hypothesis is just plain stupid.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I suspect that in nearly every fire in a steel framed building, some thermal expansion occurs.

Your tragedy is that you're probably incapable of understanding how, even when you've tried to sound informed and reasonable, you still end up saying something so pathetically stupid as this.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

...Not only does NIST have to prove that this is what happened, they also have to prove that the fires got hot enough and burned long enough in the necessary locations.

I'm not saying their hypothesis is impossible, but if you wish to close the case on WTC 7, not requiring some extraordinary physical evidence to back up this hypothesis is just plain stupid.

Actually, going back to standard scientific method, you can never positively proof a theory.
A theory is good and is/becomes the accepted incumbent, if it explains all the known observations with the least amount of unproven assumptions. In that regard, the NIST-theory is the accepted incumbent.

If you don't like it, you have two ways of bringing it down:

a) make a testable prediction from the theory (from the NIST-theory, not from any arbitrary "just asking questions" or from any ad-hoc truther intuitions), and run the test. If the test fails, you have cast some legitimate doubt on the theory, and it needs to be improved upon. Better yet, make a prediction from a point tha contradicts the theory, and test it; if test is successful, you have falsified the theory, and it needs to be improved.

b) come up with a different theory, show that it explains at least as many of the observed facts, and that it needs not more unproven assumptions. Then defend that new theory by having your opponents try to successfully run a falsifying test.


No theory explains everything, and no theory can hope that all predictions it makes will in practice be tested positive.
In this case, when a building collapses, it is so very likely that evidence gets destroyed or unrecognizable.


If you don't have as much faith in the NIST theory about WTC7 because you feel there are too many assumptions and too little positive proof, that's fine. I happen to take the full narative of the NIST report with a good dash of salt myself. However, it so far is the best theory we have, as it has not been falsified yet, and gets away with countably few assumptions. One of these would involve fire locations, durations and associated heat. None of that has been measured in situ, and precious little forensic evidence has been found, so yeah, we have unproven assumptions there, but none that would predict things we know did not happen.
Any rivalling theory we are aware of to date has introduced assumptions from which we can make falsifiable predictions, and these predictions have in fact been falsified.

 

[CORed]

Actually, going back to standard scientific method, you can never positively proof a theory.
A theory is good and is/becomes the accepted incumbent, if it explains all the known observations with the least amount of unproven assumptions. In that regard, the NIST-theory is the accepted incumbent.

If you don't like it, you have two ways of bringing it down:

a) make a testable prediction from the theory (from the NIST-theory, not from any arbitrary "just asking questions" or from any ad-hoc truther intuitions), and run the test. If the test fails, you have cast some legitimate doubt on the theory, and it needs to be improved upon. Better yet, make a prediction from a point tha contradicts the theory, and test it; if test is successful, you have falsified the theory, and it needs to be improved.

b) come up with a different theory, show that it explains at least as many of the observed facts, and that it needs not more unproven assumptions. Then defend that new theory by having your opponents try to successfully run a falsifying test.


No theory explains everything, and no theory can hope that all predictions it makes will in practice be tested positive.
In this case, when a building collapses, it is so very likely that evidence gets destroyed or unrecognizable.


If you don't have as much faith in the NIST theory about WTC7 because you feel there are too many assumptions and too little positive proof, that's fine. I happen to take the full narative of the NIST report with a good dash of salt myself. However, it so far is the best theory we have, as it has not been falsified yet, and gets away with countably few assumptions. One of these would involve fire locations, durations and associated heat. None of that has been measured in situ, and precious little forensic evidence has been found, so yeah, we have unproven assumptions there, but none that would predict things we know did not happen.
Any rivalling theory we are aware of to date has introduced assumptions from which we can make falsifiable predictions, and these predictions have in fact been falsified.

I'm certainly not a structural engineer, and I lack the expertise to have an informed opinion about the validity of NIST's hypotheses. However, the basic facts about WTC7 are: Building was hit by falling, burning debris from one of the bigger towers hit by a plane (I don't remember which, and I'm too lazy to look it up now), and caught fire as a result. A few hours later, the building collapsed.

Now, to anyone who's not bat guano crazy, the default hypothesis is that the damage from the debris, the fire, or a combination of the two caused the collapse. Even if NIST is wrong about the actual mechanism by which the debris and fire caused the collapse, that does not, absent evidence for some other cause for the collapse, constitute evidence that some diabolical, government-sponsored conspiracy, or Larry Silverstein insurance scam involving thermite planted in the building or a controlled demolition rigged in a few hours in a burning building did cause it.

Nearly 10 years after the disaster, the "truth movement" (if you can call a few hundred internet loons and their hangers-on a movement) can offer nothing more than argument from personal incredulity and a gross misunderstanding of basic physics to support their absurd fantasies.

 

[CORed]

I suspect that in nearly every fire in a steel framed building, some thermal expansion occurs.

ftfy.