• 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?

The past two or three days, I had a lot of fun with a maximally stupid and dishonest debunker!

His name on Facebook is Daniel Grant Wilks.

And he had claimed that Oystein got comic relief from my misrepresentation of the Oystein quote, and my inability to identify Oystein, and that I was too stupid to understand the context of what Oystein had written.

:D

Man, what a hoot I had!
You were not the only ISF and Metabunk member who enjoyed the "hoot".

Another FaceBook member - user initials EC - followed the whole farce from the initial "false global negative claim" through the identification of this anonymous "Oystein".

You should by now know from FaceBook PM that Daniel has deleted all the sub-threads he started. (The great advantage of forums over FaceBook - once the edit window closes those who lost an argument cannot delete the evidence of their failure.)

That other member "EC" kept a full record of the thread... As you say - it was a hoot. This was where the "fun" started:
FaceBook said:
E M: "Aww come on, Daniel Grant Wilks, why did you quote Oystein, and why did you not say that you quoted Oystein?
Did you think that Oystein wrote something smart? Do you think that the Oystein quote supports you in your debate against me? Do you think Oyst…"

E C: "I'll watch this debate with interest."

... given that E C was fully aware that E M == "Oystein". :):boggled:
 
Last edited:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0304375419898334?journalCode=alta

A paper which appears to be woo on 9/11, and then support for woo from someone appears to be clueless on 9/11 issues.

https://timhayward.wordpress.com/20...ItqhdmbWjY9dmk22eX-shxy87erFO4QGLT0rBWxswNMdg

It appears people are too lazy to figure out 9/11 was done by 19 failed nuts mislead by UBL, and thus support the intellectual clap trap of woo.

One can only read the abstract for free... the actual article costs about $40 and I wouldn't spend the money.

I sense that some of the main "intellectual issues" are that many truthers demonstrate fundamental flaws in thinking.

All things that collapse, by definition are "brought down" by gravity... including "CDs". Structures stand because they have a structure which resists gravity... and in the case of buildings engineered for that purpose.

Engineers understand the strength and performance of structural materials in different conditions... such as altered superimposed load, changes in ambient temperatures, impact of corrosive substances and so on. Engineering has nothing to do with politics.

Thought 7wtc was not struct by a plane, it was impacted by the planes which hit 2wtc. Explosions were triggered in the ConEd which led to extensive fires in 7wtc. Debris falling from 1WTC damaged part of the structure of 7wtc. There sprinkler system in 7wtc failed with the collapse of 1wtc which destroyed the city water mains. There was no means to fight the fires which were "free" to burn until the structure had been fatally compromised 8 hours after the building began to burn. FDNY surveyed 7wtc as the fires raged and determined in the early afternoon that the structure was warping and in danger of failing. Steel buildings are not expected to survive fires exceeding 3 or 4 hrs (rating of the fire protection). WT7's strucutre was overwhelemed after 8 hrs of unfought fires after 5pm.

In trying to explain the SEQUENCE of progression of the weakening and eventual failure of the structure engineers had to use "models" because extensive and sufficient data from the structure was unavailable.

Complex structures such as building structural systems are subject to catastrophic progressive runaway failures as non performing elements and nodes transfer loads to remaining performing elements and nodes. These become overloaded and non performing and may not isolate the damage.

We may never know the exact sequence and/or location of the structural failure(s), but models can and do show how a runaway progressive failure can lead to the total gravity driven collapse we witnessed. The structural design itself will influence its performance under extreme stress.

++++

YES 3 buildings collapsed because 2 were struck by jumbos... and multiple other buildings on the WTC campus collapsed as well as there being extensive damage to buildings adjacent to the campus.

YES by definition 9/11 was a conspiracy because multiple people "conspired" and carried out the hijackings.

There will always be people who will speculate that military response... right or wrong... was what drove interests who "profited" from that military response to stage the attack and pin it on "someone(s)" else... the so called "false flag".
 
Last edited:
Yes -



i would ! Is the "full " paper publicly available ?

It is available online. I can PM you a link if you wish.

Are you sure you wish?

It starts with "jet fuel cant melt steel" and gets worse.

ETA: Lincoln University is hosting the full load of BS if you are worried abut provenance.

ETA2: And he extensively cites DRG of all people.
 
Last edited:
Nope David A. Hughes the 911 wingnut.
Thanks, good to know. It was already bad when I saw A.K.Dewdney fall for the conspiracy nonsense.

Guess what? Fonebone has not requested the link or the pdf. I wonder why not?
I'd say it's most likely because he hasn't read your offer yet. A second possibility is because he has found it on the interwebs by himself as I did (the information you provided was quite helpful, thanks!)

I've archived the document in web.archive.org. The article is a good example of how lazy people can be when it comes to research both sides of the claims. For example:

World Trade Centre 7 was a 47-story building not hit by a plane on 9/11, yet at 5:20 pm that day it spontaneously descended, at freefall speed for the first 2.25 seconds [11], straight down into its own footprint, its roofline remaining near horizontal throughout, not damaging adjacent buildings.
The highlighted portions are demonstrably false; I've let pass the "footprint" claim. The rest is basically the well-known truther talk peddled mainly by Gage, and copied one from another including the here famous misuse of the word "speed".
 
Last edited:
Thanks, good to know. It was already bad when I saw A.K.Dewdney fall for the conspiracy nonsense.


I'd say it's most likely because he hasn't read your offer yet. A second possibility is because he has found it on the interwebs by himself as I did (the information you provided was quite helpful, thanks!)

I've archived the document in web.archive.org. The article is a good example of how lazy people can be when it comes to research both sides of the claims. For example:

World Trade Centre 7 was a 47-story building not hit by a plane on 9/11, yet at 5:20 pm that day it spontaneously descended, at freefall speed for the first 2.25 seconds [11], straight down into its own footprint, its roofline remaining near horizontal throughout, not damaging adjacent buildings.
The highlighted portions are demonstrably false; I've let pass the "footprint" claim. The rest is basically the well-known truther talk peddled mainly by Gage, and copied one from another including the here famous misuse of the word "speed".
Yup. It is merely a stream of every truther claim ever made. And WTF is "freefall speed"?
 
Yup. It is merely a stream of every truther claim ever made.

Yep. I especially liked:
Why were all nominally independent mainstream news channels (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC) broadcasting footage interchangeably from the same feeds? Why were they collectively unable to provide high quality footage of the second plane impacting upon the South Tower? Why were none of them able to get a camera crew in place at ground level in the middle of New York City to capture that impact?

Apparently this guy is considered smart enough to be Senior Lecturer in International Relations by the University of Lincoln.
 
The past two or three days, I had a lot of fun with a maximally stupid and dishonest debunker!

His name on Facebook is Daniel Grant Wilks.

He is a debunker, as I said, who likes to post against CD at WTC, Pentagon no-planers, nanothermite fans etc, so just my piece of cake.
Problem is, he doesn't understand the evidence, misrepresents it, and draws invalid conclusions. I frequently call him ion his errors, which makes him think I am a Truther, and he responds with insults and by throwing YouTubes and wildly copy&pasted stuff at me that barely ever addresses what I wrote.
In short, a guy with the mindset of a Truther, he is accidentally on the right side of history, but for all the wrong reasons.

The other day, he write a series of three or four comments at Facebook against me, where I recognized some of the text as copied from Steven Jones, some from someone arguing with Steven Jones, and some words apparently Daniel Grant Wilks' own commentary - but the lot without any credits, links or even just quote marks.
Simple googling revealed that he has lifted some of that stuff from a discussion at Metabunk:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/in...d-in-dust-from-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.9485/

Then he wrote a comment that was unusually clear, correct and well-written - implausible that it was his post. He had not marked it as a quote, but it had to be one:


Again, I suspected immediately he had stolen this, so Google was my friend, and I found the author:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/in...om-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.9485/#post-220424

Yep, that's true: Wilks had plagiarized me, yours truly, Oystein! :D


So I asked him why he quoted Oystein, and why he didn't attribute the quote to Oystein, and whether this Oystein is an expert, an authority. Indeed, who is this Oystein?

He first gave evasive answers, babbling something about a good friend of his who was "a WTC7 building engineer", and the Port Authority, and he frequently said things like "both are correct" or "both quotes confirm...", without ever making the context clear - which "both" did he mean?

Anyway, I kept pressing on, inquiring about this Oystein, and today, he cleared things up:

Oystein, he claimed, is not his friend, the WTC7 building engineer, but Oystein is another WTC7 building engineer who had worked there prior to and during 9/11.

And he had claimed that Oystein got comic relief from my misrepresentation of the Oystein quote, and my inability to identify Oystein, and that I was too stupid to understand the context of what Oystein had written.

:D

Man, what a hoot I had!

So today, about one and a half hours ago, I revealed to him (on Facebook) that I (Facebook name initials E.M.) am Oystein.
To prove it, I logged in at Metabunk and wrote a short message to Daniel Grant Wilks, identifying myself as E.M.


Now, you all get to guess who has put me on his block list :D

Does Cognitive Dissonance go away when you block list it? :confused:
 
It is available online. I can PM you a link if you wish.

Are you sure you wish?

It starts with "jet fuel cant melt steel" and gets worse.

ETA: Lincoln University is hosting the full load of BS if you are worried abut provenance.

ETA2: And he extensively cites DRG of all people.


Yes please PM the link to the paper PDF of David Hughes
Thank you -Steve
PS

I did attempt to locate the paper online but the closest link I found goes nowhere because :

[FONT=&quot](PDF) 9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline | David A Hughes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]academia.edu/420940...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Social Science[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/science.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Moderators remove[/FONT][FONT=&quot] posts from feeds for a variety of reasons,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.[/FONT]
 
Yes please PM the link to the paper PDF of David Hughes
Thank you -Steve
PS

I did attempt to locate the paper online but the closest link I found goes nowhere because :

[FONT=&quot](PDF) 9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline | David A Hughes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]academia.edu/420940...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Social Science[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/science.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Moderators remove[/FONT][FONT=&quot] posts from feeds for a variety of reasons,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.[/FONT]


Update : The link as been restored and a PDF of the paper is now downloadable . 5:10 PM EDT



https://www.academia.edu/42094058/9_11_Truth_and_the_Silence_of_the_IR_Discipline
 
Yes please PM the link to the paper PDF of David Hughes
Thank you -Steve
PS

I did attempt to locate the paper online but the closest link I found goes nowhere because :

[FONT=&quot](PDF) 9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline | David A Hughes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]academia.edu/420940...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Social Science[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/science.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Moderators remove[/FONT][FONT=&quot] posts from feeds for a variety of reasons,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.[/FONT]

So somehow, you are unable to locate Lincoln University? Why might that be?

No matter, I will PM you a link that you could easily have found on your own.

Although it begs the question of how good are your research skills. It ain't exactly hard to find.
 
Update : The link as been restored and a PDF of the paper is now downloadable . 5:10 PM EDT



https://www.academia.edu/42094058/9_11_Truth_and_the_Silence_of_the_IR_Discipline

Your entry into the fine example of stupid from 9/11 truth.

David A. Hughes's research has found David A. Hughes's research skills are BS.

David A. Hughes's research is based on David A. Hughes's gullibility.

David A. Hughes's research claims WTC1 is mostly turned to dust in mid air. Thus David A. Hughes is an idiot.

Where do you find the idiots of 9/11 truth Fonebone?

The best part of 9/11 truth idiots like David A. Hughes, he cites Avery, Dylan (2015) Loose Change 9/11. Microcinema International, for his work. Now that is pure stupid.
 
Last edited:
What are the finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that you've ever encountered?

Simple! It’s everything that’s ever come out of their mouths.
 
Yup. It is merely a stream of every truther claim ever made. And WTF is "freefall speed"?

Free Fallin was released in 1989. So anywhere between 33 1/3 revolutions per minute, to 500 RPMs, to 1.875 inches per second.
 
Does this count?

Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation

Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11

I have spoken to several architects who believe that the building collapse in Surfside was not an act of nature. Many are saying this was "domestic terrorism"
 
Not sure where else to ask this. Would it be possible for a small nuclear-powered device to make a thick steel column red hot in less than a second?
 
Not sure where else to ask this. Would it be possible for a small nuclear-powered device to make a thick steel column red hot in less than a second?
Sure it can. Not even a problem. Just strap one of these onto it.
shutterstock_114036436-800x450.jpg
 
patriotsquestion911.com - a cult of gullible -

This website exposes the gullibility of many 9/11 truth nuts/"experts",

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Why do we/people mess up, falling for fraud/lies?


Why is the woo website still up? How do people who figured out 9/11 get off the list of woo?
 
Not sure where else to ask this. Would it be possible for a small nuclear-powered device to make a thick steel column red hot in less than a second?
Yes. Because those four undefined terms leave the door open - these four "possible", "small", "thick" and "less than". "red hot" is defined.
 
Last edited:
Not sure where else to ask this. Would it be possible for a small nuclear-powered device to make a thick steel column red hot in less than a second?
A small tac nuke can do it... however the red hot steel would be a short event.

51808303243_eaa2e7de79_o.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom