Manny Badilo Comments on Mythbsters

[Scott Sommers]

Yes...thank you Dave.

But am I wrong in noting the applause for the 9/11-related statement was somewhat less enthusiastic than for Adam's other points? I really get the feeling from Facebooking and JREFing with Truthers that a lot of them think they are the 'real' skeptics. I don't quite know what to make of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Mythbuster fans question the scientific understanding of the WTC collapses.

 

[R.Mackey]

That's one possible interpretation.

Another is that the crowd was thinking, "huh, I wonder what he meant by that? Does anybody actually doubt that?"

Not real concerned about it either way.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I noted the lack of applause. I'm confident it was due to the fact that no-one wanted to clap the statement because it would be clapping the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, not at all due to the fact that the crowd disagreed with it.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Of the 4800 friends of my now infamous dummy Facebook account, 180 have given a FB 'like' to the Mythbusters page. This including Harry Link, who runs the Death to the New World Order, Michelle Foy who says she is a general at Death to the NWO, Wearechange Alaska, Ryan D Hall from WAC Kansas City, David Occupy Wallstreet Arcaine, and others from Global Paradigm Shift, Zeitgeist, etc.

Maybe Ryan's right and we can just brush this off as another one of those conspiracy theories that's failed and doesn't matter any more. I'm less certain there isn't a sizable number of nut bars who think that conspiracy theory is the real the descendant of Aristotle.

 

[carlitos]

This is why they fail. They don't understand what real, rigorous analysis is, choosing instead to believe that ersatz research is somehow comparable to the real thing.

I agree with this. Even the most dedicated and earnest truthers simply couldn't believe the collective knowledge of science, materials testing, video analysis, etc. etc. etc. They have to do it all for themselves or it's not real.

I noted the lack of applause. I'm confident it was due to the fact that no-one wanted to clap the statement because it would be clapping the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, not at all due to the fact that the crowd disagreed with it.

That's one possible interpretation.

Another is that the crowd was thinking, "huh, I wonder what he meant by that? Does anybody actually doubt that?"

Not real concerned about it either way.

I'd agree with both of the above. And Savage's comments on how a plane gets built remind me of the cargo cult science thing too. Truthers are the aeronautical engineering equivalent of the Red Bull Flugtag guys.

Oh, and Scott, I'm 99% sure it's Badillo, not Badilo. Though I'm not sure that Mr. Badillo is in the school of 'there's no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell my name right' given his legal troubles.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Oh, and Scott, I'm 99% sure it's Badillo, not Badilo. Though I'm not sure that Mr. Badillo is in the school of 'there's no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell my name right' given his legal troubles.

I'm a Truther when it comes to spelling. I have to try it all over again right from the start. Until Manny tells me that it's wrong, I don't believe it. And any evidence to the contrary has been faked.

I've made this point over and over, but I most Truthers are Truthers because they are confused. I doubt they are more confused than most people, but then most people have never tried to make sense out of this thermite stuff. I can't. I don't even try.

 

[Oz1976]

This is quite recent (March 24th, 2012), at the Reason Rally.

The money quote is at 5:00

Thanks for the vid link Dave. Enjoyed it.

 

[ozeco41]

...I've made this point over and over, but I [think?] most Truthers are Truthers because they are confused....

Did you mean the "think" where I inserted it. If so you are on a parallel track with me. I suggested a reason for this "confusion" in another thread with a recent post. Take this as a brief summary:

Understanding 9/11 WTC collapses requires an ability to think about multiple issues and arrange them by relevance and their interrelationship to form a coherent whole explanation. Most truthers cannot do that mental process. Therefore they consistently raise single issues. No relationship to other issues. No linkages forming an overall hypothesis. Does that sound familiar -- it fits.

Contrast with the better debunker explanations which take all the relevant issues, arrange them in order and present a coherent overall picture.

Most truthers appear incapable of doing those mental reasoning processes. The leading thinkers on the debunker side do it well. And those debunkers who don't do it as well have the advantage of being on the winning side so they don't need to worry.

So it is another example of asymmetric warfare. That aspect of unequal reasoning skills added to the fact that the debunkers side happens to be right and the truther side wrong on most claims. Hard to argue from the losing side. Especially if you cannot think clearly.

In my post I actually went a quantum leap further and suggested that the reason people become truthers could well be their inability to think clearly through multiple faceted problems. (And the converse for the thinking debunkers) But I will leave that bold step there for now.

...but then most people have never tried to make sense out of this thermite stuff. I can't. I don't even try.

You don't need to unless you want to play the game to the truthers script - that is by arguing whether or not there was thermXte. You don't need to come at the problem from the thermXte detail. The two real reasons for the truthers raising thermXte are (1) They want to argue for CD; AND (2) They know they cannot prove CD so second choice is troll the discussion in ever decreasing circles to prevent it going anywhere. Therefore keep discussion circling over thermXte. For another example of a troll keeping discussion circling to prevent progress look to the "Col79-Col44 Girder walk off thread" It is also going nowhere.

So, back on thermXte - I suggest take the stand that there was no CD therefore thermXte is irrelevant. Wouldn't matter if there was 100tonnes stockpile on site it wasn't used.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Did you mean the "think" where I inserted it. If so you are on a parallel track with me.

Yes, I did. Thank you for the correction

I suggested a reason for this "confusion" in another thread with a recent post. Take this as a brief summary:

Understanding 9/11 WTC collapses requires an ability to think about multiple issues and arrange them by relevance and their interrelationship to form a coherent whole explanation. Most truthers cannot do that mental process. Therefore they consistently raise single issues. No relationship to other issues. No linkages forming an overall hypothesis. Does that sound familiar -- it fits. [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]

Contrast with the better debunker explanations which take all the relevant issues, arrange them in order and present a coherent overall picture.

Most truthers appear incapable of doing those mental reasoning processes. The leading thinkers on the debunker side do it well. And those debunkers who don't do it as well have the advantage of being on the winning side so they don't need to worry.

So it is another example of asymmetric warfare. That aspect of unequal reasoning skills added to the fact that the debunkers side happens to be right and the truther side wrong on most claims. Hard to argue from the losing side. Especially if you cannot think clearly.

In my post I actually went a quantum leap further and suggested that the reason people become truthers could well be their inability to think clearly through multiple faceted problems. (And the converse for the thinking debunkers) But I will leave that bold step there for now.

I agree with you. This is the point I was trying to make, only your elaboration is better thought out.

You don't need to unless you want to play the game to the truthers script - that is by arguing whether or not there was thermXte. You don't need to come at the problem from the thermXte detail. The two real reasons for the truthers raising thermXte are (1) They want to argue for CD; AND (2) They know they cannot prove CD so second choice is troll the discussion in ever decreasing circles to prevent it going anywhere. Therefore keep discussion circling over thermXte. For another example of a troll keeping discussion circling to prevent progress look to the "Col79-Col44 Girder walk off thread" It is also going nowhere.

So, back on thermXte - I suggest take the stand that there was no CD therefore thermXte is irrelevant. Wouldn't matter if there was 100tonnes stockpile on site it wasn't used.

This is a more complex problem. The whole idea of thermite is retarded. The stupidity of it was immediately evident to me, if only because, as you point out, it was made up to save a sinking ship. This is not to say I can't understand how someone could believe in it. I think it's gibberish because I know the history of the debate that gave rise to the suggestion, and more significantly, I have an understanding of how academic research works. But if you didn't have this knowledge and had to rely on complex arguments about the chemistry of thermite, I can certainly understand how it might get so confusing it could be convincing - or at least be so confusing as to leave doubts.

This all leads back to the question of what kind of person would have enough interest in 9/11 to get caught up in these arguments without noticing that thermite is just this made up argument to keep the 'inside job' alive, but that's another issue.

Fortunately for most observers of 9/11 Truth, the advocates of the conspiracy have such little credibility there's no need to think about anything they say.

 

[grandmastershek]

I did here Adam make reference to scaling, but I think he should have taken a few moments to talk about it in more detail. Its been my experience that truthers think if you build a scale model no matter the size it will behave identical to the original. And as we have all seen some seem to think snow, paper racks, & wire mesh are good enough as well.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I did here Adam make reference to scaling, but I think he should have taken a few moments to talk about it in more detail. Its been my experience that truthers think if you build a scale model no matter the size it will behave identical to the original. And as we have all seen some seem to think snow, paper racks, & wire mesh are good enough as well.

You mean it's not? You make it sound like building models of things is like rocket science. It couldn't possibly be that hard, could it?

 

[BravesFan]

I did here Adam make reference to scaling, but I think he should have taken a few moments to talk about it in more detail. Its been my experience that truthers think if you build a scale model no matter the size it will behave identical to the original. And as we have all seen some seem to think snow, paper racks, & wire mesh are good enough as well.

Facts: Each building was roughly 500,000 tons and 1300 feet tall

a scale model will never work anyway due to the Square-Cube Law

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw


If you double a structure's scale it weight goes up by 8 but it's load capacity only goes up by 4 . So if you made a scale model 1/100th the size of the towers they would have roughly 100 times the load capacity relative to their weight than the towers do.

 

[excaza]

Given Mythbusters' propensity to blow up at least one thing an episode with explosives, I think it could get taken the wrong way on a 9/11 episode.

No wonder truthers want them to do it.

 

[Oystein]

...
This is a more complex problem. The whole idea of thermite is retarded. The stupidity of it was immediately evident to me, if only because, as you point out, it was made up to save a sinking ship. This is not to say I can't understand how someone could believe in it. I think it's gibberish because I know the history of the debate that gave rise to the suggestion, and more significantly, I have an understanding of how academic research works. But if you didn't have this knowledge and had to rely on complex arguments about the chemistry of thermite, I can certainly understand how it might get so confusing it could be convincing - or at least be so confusing as to leave doubts.
...

While I agree with you too that "red-gray chips" is a red herring from the get go, several steps removed from being part of any actual theory about what might alternatively happened on 9/11, it seems (or seemed) to have a couple of advantages over other issues:

• It is not nearly as complex as building collapse. The main document that purports to support the nanothermite claim is a mere 25 pages, as opposed to 10,000+ pages of the NIST reports, with few additional documention (Harrit's letter: 9 pages; Basile's presentation of how he confirmed the nature of these chips: about 15 minutes on youtube; Henry-Couannier's single-chip non-confirnation: a dozend pages perhaps)
• It was effectively debunked only days after it was published
• We have a pretty clear idea of the history of that meme
• The main proponents are well defined group of people with fairly uniform claims and arguments
• The claims can be experimentally tested, as James Millette is currently doing
• Due to the low complexity of the issue, the scientific methods and concepts needed to fully see through it are few, and surmountable even for a non-expert (with a good high-school-level understanding of physics and chemistry, no more) like myself.

It is for these reasons that I think (or thought) this would make for a good case study to shed light on the intellectual processes within segments of the truth movement, and to seperate the frauds from the gullible and those from the merely stupid.

At this intermediate stage, I find the task to be harder than I had hoped for:

• It is very difficult to get information across the canyon to the other side:; Truthers very effectively shield themselves from evidenbce contrary to their believes by means of
  • Administrativ measures (dissenting opinions and posters are very strictly kept away from their message platforms)
  • Group dynamics where anyone opening up a bit towards the other side is soon reigned back in by showers of repetition of the old memes
  • Prejudice
• The issue is still much too complex for almost all of the followers - they still single out one sub-issue (DSC being the current favorite), and think that's smart
• The leaders who might be informed and learned enough to understand have perfected their habits of slick ignorance

Even those few truthers who already understand that Jones and Ryan are frauds cannot be made to learn just HOW much fraud there is in the issue, They still would believe a known fraudulent truther sooner than any debunker.


What it boild down to: No debunking is likely to ever sway a believer from his core belief, this being that somehow the US government or some other western cabal must be guilty.

 

[Horatius]

I agree but to be fair, the did defend the Moon landings

Yeah, but to be equally fair, debunking the Moon landing hoax let Adam wear his home made space suit on the zero gee Vomit Comet plane, which I'm sure he's been looking for an excuse to do for years now.

There's no similar "super fun" thing to do related to 9/11.

 

[dudalb]

I also think that the Mythbusters gang just do not want to deal with all the pain that is going to come with having to deal with a crowd of obnoxious,militant nuts like the Truthers.
They were willing to risk the Moon Hoaxers being mad because the Hoaxers are a less militant group of nutjobs. But the Mythbusters know the problems they are in for with the Truthers,and just do not want all the grief.Who can blame them?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But the Mythbusters know the problems they are in for with the Truthers,and just do not want all the grief.Who can blame them?

Not me.....

but it would be interesting to strap a section of WTC outer column onto that rocket sledge and drive it at 500 mph into a section of a planes wing (or vice versa since no doubt some twoofer would claim it made a difference)

It would silence the "it should have bounced off" ^&*%. (well it wouldn't but it should!)

 

[Horatius]

(well it wouldn't but it should!)

I think the most important thing we learned from their Moon Hoax episode was that they'll never silence the Troo Bleevers. Heck, one of them traveled all the way from Australia to Las Vegas for TAM, just so he could tell Adam Savage how he completely screwed up because they didn't address his exact claims. Any slight difference between what they show and any given CTist's personal set of beliefs will be used to dismiss everything they demonstrate.

 

[Scott Sommers]

It is for these reasons that I think (or thought) this would make for a good case study to shed light on the intellectual processes within segments of the truth movement

This sums up the reasons that I study 9/11 conspiracy. I have little interest or relevant knowledge to deal with scientific or engineering claims. My interests are more related to how conspiracy theorists think about the world and how they go about creating knowledge.

Their attachment to this thermite idea, as opposed to a space ray idea or nuclear bombs, is quite interesting to me. The idea that it 'seems' more believable says quite a bit about what the conspiracy crowd think about how things work. The fact that event with the single biggest impact on advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy beliefs has been the election of a Democratic POTUS points to the real nature of the problem. The idea that this belief system needs to be tested with the most modern of investigative techniques is silly, although I can understand that it could be a lot of fun.

 

[fourtoe]

I believe the the Mythbusters have commented on doing 9/11 stuff and basically said that they don't want to get involved with it because there's nothing there to bust. Fire will soften steel? Confirmed! Airplane crashes cause fires? Confirmed! Offices are filled with fuel for fires? Confirmed! Firemen running up 70+ flights of stairs carrying 50lbs of gear will take at least an hour? Confirmed!

It would make for a boring show and just attract the loons that they don't want to deal with.

This is quite recent (March 24th, 2012), at the Reason Rally.

The money quote is at 5:00

I think if I was there and heard his shout out to 911 I would have cheered really loudly and then immediately wonder if that was probably done in poor taste.