ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 9th July 2010, 03:50 AM   #1
Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
 
Tinfoil Hater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,383
What are the finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that you've ever encountered?

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?

Last edited by Tinfoil Hater; 9th July 2010 at 03:54 AM.
Tinfoil Hater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 04:19 AM   #2
Fourbrick
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 465
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
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.

Last edited by Fourbrick; 9th July 2010 at 04:23 AM.
Fourbrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 04:34 AM   #3
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
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.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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...19#post6032219

__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 04:55 AM   #4
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
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.

Last edited by Oystein; 9th July 2010 at 04:56 AM.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 05:09 AM   #5
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,556
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.
__________________
"All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: Freedom, Justice, Honor, Duty, Mercy, Hope."-Winston Churchill
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do"-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 05:11 AM   #6
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
 
CompusMentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,571
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
__________________
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit
CompusMentus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 05:34 AM   #7
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
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.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 05:44 AM   #8
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,112
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 06:12 AM   #9
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,967
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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?????
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 11:33 AM   #10
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
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.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2010, 11:39 AM   #11
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
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.

Last edited by Thunder; 9th July 2010 at 11:41 AM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 02:51 AM   #12
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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.

Quote:
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?
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 03:09 AM   #13
240-185
Muse
 
240-185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
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.
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh*

My 9/11 Crackpot Index
240-185 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 06:26 AM   #14
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
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.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 06:44 AM   #15
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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...rmo/thexp.html
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 10th July 2010 at 06:49 AM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 07:17 AM   #16
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
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...rmo/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.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 07:44 AM   #17
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,313
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'm questioning whether or not NIST has proven that it did occur, .

Never mind.... (it's not worth it)
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 10th July 2010 at 07:45 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 08:37 AM   #18
ScottyMate
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 73
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.
ScottyMate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 08:38 AM   #19
djlunacee
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
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.

Last edited by djlunacee; 10th July 2010 at 08:39 AM.
djlunacee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 08:41 AM   #20
djlunacee
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by ScottyMate View Post
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...d.php?t=171498

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

Last edited by djlunacee; 10th July 2010 at 08:44 AM.
djlunacee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 08:55 AM   #21
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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?
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 04:54 PM   #22
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,112
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 06:13 PM   #23
BaaBaa
Semi-literate hench-person
 
BaaBaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,457
What rhymes with 'babonnius'?
__________________
"Damn, i think you are illeterate"
BaaBaa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 06:53 PM   #24
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,570
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.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 07:02 PM   #25
Woody-
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 145
My favorite example of stupidity is "concrete core" Christophera.
Woody- is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 07:05 PM   #26
Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
 
Tinfoil Hater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,383
Originally Posted by Woody- View Post
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?
Tinfoil Hater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 07:06 PM   #27
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Woody- View Post
My favorite example of stupidity is "concrete core" Christophera.
That's not stupidity, it's insanity.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 07:07 PM   #28
Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
 
Tinfoil Hater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,383
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
That's not stupidity, it's insanity.
Many of the Truthers fancy themselves to be engineers...
Tinfoil Hater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2010, 07:11 PM   #29
Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
 
Tinfoil Hater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,383
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
Tinfoil Hater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2010, 03:42 PM   #30
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,056
Originally Posted by CompusMentus View Post
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.....
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2010, 04:03 PM   #31
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by njslim View Post
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.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2010, 04:17 PM   #32
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 24,930
Anyone remember "net force = zero"?
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2010, 04:10 AM   #33
Harpo
Graduate Poster
 
Harpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,236
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
Many of the Truthers fancy themselves to be engineers intelligent...
They're wrong!
__________________
"This statement cannot be proved" Kurt Gödel (paraphrased)
Harpo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2010, 12:00 PM   #34
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,363
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2010, 07:28 PM   #35
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,851
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.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2010, 08:26 AM   #36
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
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.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2010, 08:34 AM   #37
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,112
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2010, 09:11 AM   #38
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
...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.

Last edited by Oystein; 14th July 2010 at 09:13 AM.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2010, 11:39 AM   #39
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,363
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2010, 11:49 AM   #40
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,363
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I suspect that in nearly every fire in a steel framed building, some thermal expansion occurs.
ftfy.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.