• 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?

MicahJava said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes if you wanted to spread radiation all over Manhattan and make unlivable for a few thousand years maybe.
 
lol, I am "complete" (and I knew it)

The finest examples of 9/11 Truth Stupidity remains online.

Truthers, Retired Truthers are have left a legacy of woo to mislead others until their delusional blogs disappear.

On "fine" example are papers still posted by delusional truthers/retired truthers who know they are "right", so they ignore insults, knowing they have truth, no need to question themselves and their work, they are dead right - smartest people on the blogs. The truthers might, or do, Call people "just complete dicks"... (ironically, truthers seem to dig deeper into woo the more they are ridiculed, as they spew what they call evidence, and back it up with BS.

BS like this, without doing doing the Math/Physics, just make up their own science, based on nothing but hubris.

Unfortunately, it’s not hard to see that these tests actually disproved their findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. However, it is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically.
Click to expand...
Next time do the physics and review all the testimony from survivors near the floors hit.

Flight 11 and 175 would be equal in energy to more than 1,500,000 and 2,600,000 shotgun blasts in energy. Dolts Don't Do Math and Physics... not sure, it is simple stuff, but why use science when they know with their BS evidence it was an inside job. Don't worry, these super smart sleuths have no clue who did 9/11, as they apologize unknowingly for 19 terrorists - and demand a new investigation, yet they claim the building can fall in fire - but left out the math and physics.

John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor must of missed where survivors talked about dislodged wallboard, the wallboard was used to insulate the core and was dislodged by the massive impacts equal in energy to 1400 and 2000 pounds of TNT, like giant bombs, these Kinetic energy impacts did remove insulation, and started the biggest office fires in history...

John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor ignore the fact the fires were not fought.

Uninformed stooges, , years ago, left open loop crazy claims misleading people.

Thus: John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor wrote a paper back in 3/4/2013, which remain a tribute to willful ignorance. One of the many legacy online woo, that keep proving how stupid people can be.

John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor failed to figure out 9/11 after 20 plus years. Adam Taylor has retired and failed to fix all his errors which remain his legacy of woo and fine examples of truther stupidity.

Does this mean John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor will never figure out 9/11, or why the WTC towers collapsed?

John-Michael Talboo, Adam Taylor, 19 terrorists did 9/11...

Adam Taylor's one or many problems is gullibility. He blindly believes things people say, maybe due to their status. For instance, pilots claimed they could not hit the Pentagon, and Adam Taylor thinks that was evidence the terrorists (but he has no clue who did 9/11 anyway, so how can he discuss terrorists... wait, oh, they can't do it, so it had to be... who? Adam has no clue who.) ... okay, since pilots claim they can't hit the Pentagon or WTC towers, Adam has doubt the terrorists, who did not do it maybe, could do it... Then who Adam?

Did Adam Taylor study the FDR for Flt 77? Then he would see the lack of flying skill as soon as the terrorists took over Flt 77. At that point the bank angle was erratic, airspeed sucked, and there was no flying skill shown. Did Adam Taylor go to take a flying lesson intro, or study to learn the terrorist pilots gained FAA licenses? Adam Taylor and other truthers fail to be skeptical enough to see those misleading them were full of BS opinions, not facts and evidence.


People like John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor have left their legacy of woo for all to see and wonder how they failed to use critical thinking skill, and fall for woo. These finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that we will continue to encounter, remain... and John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor have failed to correct their nonsense.

"complete" that was funny - next time take physics and pay attention Adam Taylor. Darn, it only took me > four years to find what I was not looking for...

9/11 truth, a movement looking for what they can't find, "Truth". But full of woo.

John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor religion is 9/11 truth, and they fail to question their faith based on woo and willful ignorance.

John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor spent years unknowingly spreading woo, and leaving in their wake, a legacy of woo.
 
I think one of the attractions of being a truther is having the feeling that you understand maths and physics better than nearly everyone else without knowing any maths or physics.
 
beachnut said:
...
John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor ...
Click to expand...

These two, from what I can see, have gone on completely different paths from there:

While Talboo seems to have devolved more and more deluded and mentally unstable, characteristics that must have a horrible impact on his private life and individual performance in real life, Taylor has found the exit door and seems to have "made it" into adulthood having a real education, stable social network and general sanity - despite not having disabused himself of the 9/11 woo. He rejects the more insane claims, but holds on to "explosives" and even "nanothermite", without being all missionary about it.
 
Oystein said:
These two, from what I can see, have gone on completely different paths from there:

While Talboo seems to have devolved more and more deluded and mentally unstable, characteristics that must have a horrible impact on his private life and individual performance in real life, Taylor has found the exit door ...
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
after 20 years, stupidity, web sites push woo

https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/

wow, a pile of BS, lies, fantasy, hearsay, dumb claims, etc, etc, etc...

A fantasy web site, dumbed down for the gullible conspiracy theorist, void of critical thinking skills, unable to think for themselves...

Sick claims the victims were fake - how sick can a person get?

Petra Liverani spreads lies without thinking twice, mocking the murder of thousands by terrorists on 9/11.

Conclusions based on speculation and no evidence.

Presenting speculation by people, is not evidence. But then this web site makes conclusions based on speculation, not evidence.
 
idiots falling for a pack of lies they have no way of evaluating. AE911T was pretty clever using all the tricks marketers and advertisers use. I don't know the technical background of Stapleton... but I would guess he didn't even take physics in high school. He a naive person from NZ pushing lies he doesn't understand.
 
Last edited:
I had a quick look for "first lie". This is the first one I identified in a quick scan of the presentation report.

It’s not a speed, it’s an acceleration, an object getting fast and faster.
Free fall can only be obtained if there is nothing below a dropped object to slow it down.
More technically, it’s gravitational acceleration at 9.81 meters squared.
Click to expand...
Well they get the first point correct - it is FFA not FF.

The second point they get right but possibly for the wrong reason. Are they confusing Free Fall ACCELERATION with Free Fall.

The third point is even more confused. FFA is 9.81 but 9.81 doesn't prove it is Free fall. << And has anyone ever tried to count how often members from both sides get that one wrong??
 
Last edited:
Here - a couple more false explanations the "Truther Guest Speaker" seems to have fooled the Toastmasters with:
With reference to the above, the refined question being asked is?

What could simultaneous and symmetrical cause the removal of 57 external steel columns and 22 internal columns for lift shafts and fireproof stairwells?
Click to expand...
Obvious strawman. It wasn't "simultaneous". The core failed first.

And:
There are two competing theories:

Fire causing collapse.
Demolition explosives causing collapse.

Q.
How can you evaluate these theories?

A.
By looking at the extent of damage to steel framed buildings after known fires.
By looking at examples of successful and failed demolitions using explosives
Click to expand...
False dichotomy. The real option is: "By understanding the mechanism of the collapse".
 
Artificial Intelligence Software creates very dark humor - seen on the twitter.

FUuYu2lXEAAFpxE
 
The runners up are Jonathan Cole for his claim that "thermal expansion" is a brand new principle. Also Jonathan Cole for his entire understanding of what an "experiment" is.

But the one that made me laugh out loud, literally, was Barbara Honeger's idea of what actually hit the Pentagon (or nearly hit the Pentagon before being blown up in mid air by a helicopter), fooling more than a hundred witnesses that it was a commercial airliner:

[imgw=500]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/image-8.png?w=1024[/imgw]

Yeah, I can see that. That is such a cunning camouflage that it is practically indistinguishable from a 757.
 
Our old friend Rick Shaddock has uploaded a video to the YT alternative "Vimeo" last months, titled "9/11 Debate 2023 Shermer v Fetzer" showing what the video description claims was the "10th Annual 9/11 Debate between PhDs in Science, Dr. Michael Shermer and Dr. James Fetzer. Host: Dr. Kevin Barrett, Sponsor: Rick Shaddock of ANETA.org". It goes on:

"This debate was done asynchronously using Dr. Shermer's debate with CSPAN callers."​

This is an unbearable Euphemism worthy of the most totalitarian states' propaganda, a depsicable piece of doublespeak:

For Michael Shermer did NOT participate in any debate with James Fetzer, did NOT grace Rick's ego with his participation in the 2023 edition of the annual mock charade.

What went down instead is this: Rick cut up an interview Shermer gace C-SPAN in September of 2006 - yes, more than 16 years ago!!! - and allowed that heap of slime Fetzer to comment. That's it. Rick threw Fetzer a few softballs to boot.

When asked on Facebook, Rick at least admitted that Shermer did not participate, although Rick claims that Shermer was contacted with an invitation and details to a Zoom call.
Oh, and Rick admits that had Shermer participated, he would have won against Fetzer :D
Rick Shaddock said:
Yes, Dr. Shermer and his staff knew about it, were given the Zoom info, and he did not show. He probably would have won.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
The runners up are Jonathan Cole for his claim that "thermal expansion" is a brand new principle. Also Jonathan Cole for his entire understanding of what an "experiment" is.

But the one that made me laugh out loud, literally, was Barbara Honeger's idea of what actually hit the Pentagon (or nearly hit the Pentagon before being blown up in mid air by a helicopter), fooling more than a hundred witnesses that it was a commercial airliner:

[imgw=500]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/image-8.png?w=1024[/imgw]

Yeah, I can see that. That is such a cunning camouflage that it is practically indistinguishable from a 757.
Click to expand...
Especially the size. And the shape. And the speed. So, apart from the fact that it is nothing like a 757, it is absolutely identical.
 
Over at the conspiracy section on the political forum, the poster Bob0627, cunningly disguised as Thierry Henry has made the following statement:-
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tc-conclusions.551799/page-11#post-1074167493
"So common sense dictates that if it takes that high a level of explosives to cause such a debris field how is it possible that a gravitational "collapse" could cause such a debris field? If that were true, it seems to me according to this anonymous study, gravitational collapses would cause much more severe damage than demolitions using explosives. Of course that makes zero sense."

If the shoe fits. When the words 'Kinetic energy' are mentioned, he comes out with this classic:-
"For sure, kinetic energy should be used in warfare because it does a lot more damage than explosives and even works better in controlled demolitions, oh wait. Why didn't I think of that? No wonder you don't want me to use common sense."

Common sense not quite coming up to scratch it would appear.
 
Erock said:
When the words 'Kinetic energy' are mentioned, he comes out with this classic:-
"For sure, kinetic energy should be used in warfare because it does a lot more damage than explosives and even works better in controlled demolitions, oh wait. Why didn't I think of that? No wonder you don't want me to use common sense."
Click to expand...

I wonder how he thinks bullets work.

Dave
 
I was thinking of this when someone told me recently that WTC7 couldn't have been destroyed by a gravitational collapse because in a gravitational collapse all the potential energy is converted into movement and is not available to crush anything.
 
Robin said:
I was thinking of this when someone told me recently that WTC7 couldn't have been destroyed by a gravitational collapse because in a gravitational collapse all the potential energy is converted into movement and is not available to crush anything.
Click to expand...

Because WTC7 is moving still, to this day, never stopped moving? Should be beyond the orbit of Mars by now, I reckon.

Or do they think it keeps moving like a micro black hole would that you drop from the surface of the planet? It would fall through the mass of earth, with practically no interaction other than gravity, accelerate towards the center of the planet while getting deflected by the coreolis (sp.?) effect, then get deceleared once it passed the earth's center, make it (about) to the surface somewhere roughly on the otherside, before falling back and repeating the cycle. From time to time it might hit a proton or neutron head-on and swallow it, thereby lose tiny bit of speed, and thus eventually fail to make it to the surface.

I hope I am not giving any Judywoodists funny ideas...
 
Robin said:
I was thinking of this when someone told me recently that WTC7 couldn't have been destroyed by a gravitational collapse because in a gravitational collapse all the potential energy is converted into movement and is not available to crush anything.
Click to expand...

With a free body, yes that is almost true, however a building is not a free body.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom