It may well be the thing that helps me get through the day.
Oh, man. I have to email this to my students.
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 29th, 2011 at 11:10 am and is filed under 9/11 conspiracy theories, conspiracy theory, fun, mass media, The Big Lie. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
… as if even you couldn’t figure out that Al Qaeda would want to take credit whether they did the attack or not.
Ask any police detective whether innocent people ever falsely confess to having committed horrific crimes.
You dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. You are not the least bit interested in even-handed skepticism but only one-sided skepticism in service of your denial of the only conclusion supported by the physical and video evidence.
And the conclusion Research Guy is talking about, is the one that 19 men with box cutters are NOT responsible for. This conclusion being the controlled demolition hypothisis due to these key facts of evidence:
1. Free fall acceleration of WTC 7
2. Molten metal
3. Iron rich previuosly molten micro spheres found by USGS and RJ Lee Group.
4.Active thermitic material present in all samples of WTC dust taken from that day.
Please visit http://www.ae911truth.org for all REAL CREDIBLE infromation our media is not reporting.
“You are not the least bit interested in even-handed skepticism but only one-sided skepticism in service of your denial of the only conclusion supported by the physical and video evidence.”
Yes. I think the Truthers are wrong. As wrong as wrong can possibly be. And maybe a little bit more wrong than that. I’ve looked at your evidence, and it’s tiny, badly sourced, and badly fits what was observed. You could have been right. I was open to the possibility that you were. But you weren’t right, and I moved on. Why would I wallow in wrong?
Each point, briefly in turn. Briefly because each one has been roundly thumped.
1) Free fall acceleration. The collapse of WTC7 took place in 3 stages. There was the part of the collapse that included the penthouse. The damage caused by that collapse sapped weakened the building severely. (Think of putting pressure on an intact, out of the wrapping McDonalds straw. Now think if the resistance of that straw when you have bent it, even slightly. All resistance gone. No nanothermite needed.)
2) So? Some metals burn at the temps we see in the WTC. Neither you nor the experts on site can truthfully say that they saw molten steel at the WTC site because you can’t identify a molten steel visually, you need to analyze it in a lab
3) Microspheres. So which of those microspheres came from a thermite reaction? Which came from laser printer toner (which has iron microspheres, for lack of a better term, in it) and things printed on a laserprinter and then burned? Which came from the original welds when the building went up? Where are those distinctions made in 9/11 Truth literature?
4) a) All samples? b) “thermitic” material that is chemically identical to primer applied to the steel.
There. All of this is consistent with the evidence. No demolition needed. You’re welcome.
It’s like magic. Bob, I think you have proved spontaneous generation. You make a factually backed statement, and like maggots in a piece of meat left in a beaker, mind-boggling levels of stupidity appear from the aether. Which i have probably also contributed to now.
The first sentence summarizes it better than i ever could…
Al Qaeda bashing “truthers” for denying that Al Qaeda did 9/11 is like something out of a Kubrick movie i.e., Doctor Stangelove. It’s funny in a black, truly sick way.
Once again the world as things happenning in them that are weird, absurd and frankly insane.
I don’t know if anyone saw that “9/11 conspiracy roadtrip,” but the annoying blonde girl really summed up the mind-set of the typical conspiracy theorist; obviously, this applies to all conspiracies, not just 9/11.
When one of her compatriots was thinking about the evidence, and how it did seem to explain what they saw, she looked at him like he was betraying her. Like “how dare you look at the evidence.”
Very enlightening. And very sad.
And one of the girls said she didn’t think they could have flown the planes into the buildings without loads of flying experience. So they put her in a plane with an instructor, and she landed the plane only with his instruction. She was pretty amazed by that. Even so, she was still all “yeah, well, I don’t think they could have done it.”
It was very sigh inducing. They’re not interested in the truth. They “know” the truth, and only consider evidence that confirms that truth.It’s a mind-set very similar to a religious one. Conclusions come first.
Oh wait, there was another really annoying bit, when they were exploring if it were possible for current technology to simulate a phonecall from a woman’s son and make it believable. Although voices can be replicated to say anything, it was clear that it couldn’t realistically be done on-the-fly. The vocal simulation expert was quite clear on this. Afterwards, the guy who was really into that theory said how they’d just seen how it was possible to do it. “I could probably do it,” he said.
I think the most amazing thing about the truthers, is that they bequeath the government with such amazing powers of organisation, planning, control, leak-control, and in the same breath say things like “yeah, the reporter reported the building had collapsed before it had collapsed, because she’d been told the headline in advance.”
With all those qualities and power the government supposedly has, they forgot to wait until the building had actually collapsed before reporting it to the media? Why would they even tell the media, at all, when they can just look out the smegging window? It makes absolutely no sense whatever. The truthers don’t even think about this stuff; it’s like they’re totally blind to it.
Old post, but I could help but comment.
One reason I have no faith in what the truthers say is because they change their theories so much.
At first all they wanted to prove was that there were more to the collapses than the plane crash. Then, when non-truthers suggested that al quida could have easily planted explosives in there, the truthers changed their threory to that of Marvin Bush overseeing the whole project for financial gain.
However, one need only take a stroll over to yahoo finance to realize HCC didn’t gain at all from 9/11. Nor did Securicom. In fact, it was delisted shortly after the attacks from inability to stay profitable. After realizing this, I’m sure truthers will change their theory yet again. After all, they’re method is to form a theory and select only facts and figures that point to a matching conclusion rather than examine all facts and figures to come up with a feasable conclusion.