• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

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

In discussing the allegedly symmetrical collapse of Building 7 on 9/11 a Truther told me after I had pointed out how decidedly non-symmetrical the collapse was:

"All you need is symmetry from one angle. Makes no difference."

Any straight line will do apparently.
 
Anyone taking bets on how long it will take for CT's to start banging on abut the fire at Trump Tower today and how it didn't cause the building to collapse into its own footprint at freefall speed?
 
Oh yeah, the comments on Youtube about the Trump fire are filled with 9/11 morons.
 
heymatto70 said:
Why would a grand jury, which will be made up of common folks (i.e., morons) be able to do anything? Do people know what a grand jury is for?
Click to expand...

The truthers already tried something like this in 2004; they set up a "Citizen Grand Jury," a body with no official standing, where being a moron is less a common feature and more a condition of service of the members. IIRC they ended up bickering so much about which of the myriad conspiracy theories they were trying to support that they couldn't come up with anything even resembling a specific indictment.

(As far as I can see, the usual official response to Citizen Grand Jury indictments is to refer them to Arkell v. Pressdram.)

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
The truthers already tried something like this in 2004; they set up a "Citizen Grand Jury," a body with no official standing, where being a moron is less a common feature and more a condition of service of the members. IIRC they ended up bickering so much about which of the myriad conspiracy theories they were trying to support that they couldn't come up with anything even resembling a specific indictment.

(As far as I can see, the usual official response to Citizen Grand Jury indictments is to refer them to Arkell v. Pressdram.)

Dave
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's akin to the Freeman on the Land concepts of justice. The Truthers have some notion that Grand Juries have some magical power to investigate literally anything, and then compel actions based on their conclusions.
 
tinribmancer said:
This post in AAH from manifesto:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12255414&postcount=4

Apparently believing in the official story, makes you a tinfoiler.
Click to expand...

I love how truthers always invoke the "19 Muslims/cave dwellers/Arabs hijacked airliners all in one day" as if airline hijackings from Arabs is supposed to be some unfathomable task (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). There's racism there for sure, or at least racial prejudice, as well as historical ignorance.

But sure, stuff like engineering, physics, going to university didn't happen in those Arab, cave littered, dry desert regions in the Middle East. :rolleyes:

Just pathetic.
 
This recent CT comment in a different venue tickled my funny bone:

Buildings do not fall in "free-fall" unless the internal structure below is taken out first.
Click to expand...

I could not help but point out that the building would not be falling at all if the structure below was not "taken out" so how the structure is taken out must not matter then.
 
Mark F said:
This recent CT comment in a different venue tickled my funny bone:



I could not help but point out that the building would not be falling at all if the structure below was not "taken out" so how the structure is taken out must not matter then.
Click to expand...
And - correct me if I'm wrong - BUT isn't "all the structure taken out" near enough to what defines "free fall"?
 
Last edited:
taken out is a loose term... in the case of 7 wtc the alleged FF was for about 7 story heights.. which happens to be the top of the transfers which were from floor 5 to top of floor 7. The FF occured when the transfers failed ... from whatever cause.... and destroyed the axial paths coupled to the foundation. It should be noted as well as above floor 7 there was 57 perimeter columns in the moment frame and below floor 5 there were only 26 IIRC. The "bridge structure" over the con ed was very robust... but not too robust to fail catastrophically.
 
The latest gem I have come across, on Youtube of course:

The energy that was actually used by the falling building parts, acted upon by gravity alone, to cause the demolition and destruction of World Trade Center One or Two was, according to calculations done by Professor Zdenek Bazant, much less than the energy needed to pulverize the concrete in the World Trade Center buildings.
Click to expand...

Not even sure where to start - so many choices. Or better yet, why bother?
 
Mark F said:
Not even sure where to start - so many choices. Or better yet, why bother?
Click to expand...
Unless I'm getting old and senile - this part of the assertion is TRUE.
The energy that was actually used by the falling building parts, acted upon by gravity alone, to cause the demolition and destruction of World Trade Center One or Two was, much less than the energy needed to pulverize the concrete in the World Trade Center buildings.
Click to expand...
.....

... I cannot remember if Bazant got it right
 
Last edited:
Mosy idiotic thing I heard was yesterday, when someone said that the NIST report was written by just 1 guy.
 
ozeco41 said:
Unless I'm getting old and senile - this part of the assertion is TRUE.
The energy that was actually used by the falling building parts, acted upon by gravity alone, to cause the demolition and destruction of World Trade Center One or Two was, much less than the energy needed to pulverize the concrete in the World Trade Center buildings.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, it's not right because 'pulverize' does not specify the dust size. I think it's safe to say that regardless of how off Bazant's estimation of required energy was, the energy required to pulverize the concrete into 10m particles was less than that.
 
pgimeno said:
No, it's not right because 'pulverize' does not specify the dust size.
Click to expand...
Remember I was commenting in fun on a bit of You Tube "Truther stupidity" referenced by Mark F. And it referred to energy "needed" which is ambiguous as to whether it meant actually expended or would be required in some undefined hypothetical scenario. i.e. the "how fine" aspect you correctly identify....

pgimeno said:
...I think it's safe to say that regardless of how off Bazant's estimation of required energy was, the energy required to pulverize the concrete into 10m particles was less than that.
Click to expand...
You could well be right but it was not the comparison I commented on. In fact if my comment is correct - given that I removed the reference to Bazant and left ONLY the reference to "actually used" - then your comparison of the Bazant estimate must be correct. Because the Bazant estimate was higher than energy actually needed - that was close enough to the central point of that limit case.

Then my throw-away comment "...I cannot remember if Bazant got it right" was also a bit of fun. As far as I am aware no one has ever addressed or falsified the claim by Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns(??) that Bazant's numbers were wrong - over-estimated. But in a fun thread we don't need to revisit that whole stack of issues and ironies around the NIST assertion that "global collapse was inevitable". ;)
 
pgimeno said:
No, it's not right because 'pulverize' does not specify the dust size. I think it's safe to say that regardless of how off Bazant's estimation of required energy was, the energy required to pulverize the concrete into 10m particles was less than that.
Click to expand...

Out of morbid curiosity I decided to give it a go and I asked the poster in question a simple enough questions; Exactly which concrete was he referring to and why did it need to be "pulverized" (whatever that means)?

24 hours of silence later and still counting,... :confused:
 
Mark F said:
Out of morbid curiosity I decided to give it a go and I asked the poster in question a simple enough questions; Exactly which concrete was he referring to and why did it need to be "pulverized" (whatever that means)?

24 hours of silence later and still counting,... :confused:
Click to expand...

All that had to happen was for the slabs to lose their connections to the steel frame and their integrity, break in to sections to be free to drop and impact the slab below. This process repeated for 100 stories... massive weight crashing into the same 4" slabs like a vertical avalanche. Sure there was energy a plenty for grinding and abrading the no stone aggregate to dust. As there was no gravel or stone in the concrete what would remain would be chunks of slabs and the dust. No panes of glass survived either/
 
Mark F said:
The latest gem I have come across, on Youtube of course:

"The energy that was actually used by the falling building parts, acted upon by gravity alone, to cause the demolition and destruction of World Trade Center One or Two was, according to calculations done by Professor Zdenek Bazant, much less than the energy needed to pulverize the concrete in the World Trade Center buildings."

Not even sure where to start - so many choices. Or better yet, why bother?
Click to expand...

A back of the envelope calculation shows that the gravitational potential energy of the Twin Towers was the equivalent of 200 tons of TNT.
 
Redwood said:
A back of the envelope calculation shows that the gravitational potential energy of the Twin Towers was the equivalent of 200 tons of TNT.
Click to expand...

Back of envelope - ok.

I usually go with roughly 125 tons of TNT per tower. This follows Gregory Urich's calculations, who found that total mass per tower was 280,000 metric tons, and Center of Gravity was at about 41% of the tower's height (on account of columns being beefier in the lower levels).
 
In case anyone was curious I did ask what concrete and why did it need to be pulverized and,... no surprise the only replies I got avoided the question completely while comparing me to Ted Bundy and casting aspersions on my mother.

And people wonder why the 9/11 Truth Movement failed.
 
CTer listed his argument for inside job and listed both AE911T and Judy Woods as compelling references. When I pointed out that both contradict each other and have given arguments debunking the other this made no difference to him. He decided to make up on the spot that the WTC Towers were destroyed using explosives/thermite (he wasn't clear) and then dustified to hide the evidence.

That neither of his references claim this occurred made no difference to him.
 
Best example recently is in this very forum.

Lamp post firing cannons towed behind pickup trucks and 'stand in' taxi cabs at the Pentagon.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Best example recently is in this very forum.
Lamp post firing cannons towed behind pickup trucks and 'stand in' taxi cabs at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...


From the same source, our resident "professional image analyst" declares:-

Ruby Gray said:
I just came across this video again, which I believe is the one I was referring to with what appears to be the silhouette of a man sitting in a window of the South Tower engulfed in flames, just to the right of where the molten metal streams out.
Click to expand...


344915d1e80a9456b7.jpg


(My crop)

OP HERE Let's Roll Forum Post #15

!!!

Compus
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Best example recently is in this very forum.

Lamp post firing cannons towed behind pickup trucks and 'stand in' taxi cabs at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

One thing I have learnt from reading the conspiracy parts of the wider forum (many years a'lurking) is that in conspiracy land "not totally impossible" means the same as "so it definitely happened".

Bringing the E into JREF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom