# An angle of the WTC collapse I'd never seen
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 19, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182 "2010-07-19T01:39:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 30
### Author:  [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/581 "2010-07-27T19:51:07Z")
You seem upset that those who share your position are considered to be complete cranks, to have no grasp of logical thinking, to be unable to distinguish between truth and lie, and so on. Fine, be upset about this. But that’s an entirely separate matter from whether they are referred to as “truthers” or “questioners” or what have you. The name is just a neutral term for referring to such a position; pick a different name and the same connotations would attach to that instead. Choosing a different name doesn’t change anything relevant to the manner in which your position is regarded. What you would have to address is the reasons those who share your position are considered to be complete cranks, to have no grasp of logical thinking, etc.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/582 "2010-07-27T19:58:43Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> > [@Indistinguishable](#):
> >
> > That’s not the common understanding of the term “truther”; that’s just a common understanding of people who take the position you are taking. It has nothing to do with what one calls them.
>
> I suppose you’ll be telling me it’s a backhanded compliment next? :dubious:
>
> Anyway, I await your common understanding of the term eagerly.
What are you "awaiting’ for?!? **Indistinguishable’s** definition is in the paragraph _you_ just quoted.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/583 "2010-07-27T20:02:00Z")
No, read it again and pay attention to the way the words are ordered. He doesn’t actually define what a “truther” is. Do you want to have a crack at it while he’s thinking?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/584 "2010-07-27T20:02:02Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> I’ll type a little slower so the mentally-challenged can follow along.
My confidence level remains at zero.
> [@](#):
>
> If the conditions involved in the collapse of WTC7 occurred without anything having happened to towers 1 and 2… I mean all the conditions: a big chunk taken out of part of the building, raging fires, and no water to fight them with, what would have caused any firefighters on the scene to believe it was going to come down so dramatically? It’s obvious normal firefighters on the ground didn’t think it was going to come tumbling down, otherwise they wouldn’t have needed to be told to clear the area.
I fail to see the relevance. There may have been dozens or hundreds of firefighters running in and around WTC7, but to spot how badly the building was beginning to sag could easily require someone standing well back who could see the building as a whole. Those observers (some of whom may be experienced firefighters with some expertise in building engineering, trained to look for signs of inevitable structural failure) conclude the building is a lost cause and send out a general order to clear the area. I wouldn’t expect every firefighter on the scene, scattered as they were, to simultaneously draw the same conclusion, hence I’m unclear on what point you seem to think you are trying to make and I stand by my earlier assessment pending another attempt at clarification.
I suppose it’s remotely possible the fires could have burned themselves out and the husk of WTC7 remained (barely) standing, thus the order to clear the area would have been unnecessary. I’m not sure what purpose is served by this kind of hypothetical hindsight - firefighters make judgement calls like this all the time, including when to abandon a burning building when firefighting efforts are deemed too risky.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/585 "2010-07-27T20:05:20Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> Saying that though, the reality that 2 buildings had already fallen killing many members of the emergency services, everyone had been evacuated from WTC7 anyway, and there was no water to fight the fires with, makes me wonder why there were firefighters still hanging around near there?
Using what little water that was to keep the fire from _spreading to other buildings_ perhaps?
---
### Author:  [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/586 "2010-07-27T20:06:37Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> No, read it again and pay attention to the way the words are ordered. He doesn’t actually define what a “truther” is. Do you want to have a crack at it while he’s thinking?
A “truther” is anyone who feels strongly that the truth about the September 11 attacks is radically different from the mainstream account. Major strains within this position include the belief that there was an inside plot by the United States government to engineer the attacks themselves, and that the building collapses which occurred were due to controlled demolition rather than the effects of the plane crashes.
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/587 "2010-07-27T20:09:53Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#):
>
> A “truther” is
It’s very Orwellian. They are lying so bad that they had to actually name themselves “the truth.”
---
### Author:  [@sparky\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sparky_1)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/588 "2010-07-27T20:13:49Z")
> [@Cisco](#):
>
> > [@Indistinguishable](#):
> >
> > A “truther” is
>
> It’s very Orwellian. They are lying so bad that they had to actually name themselves “the truth.”
If a truther falls in the woods, does anyone believe him?
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/589 "2010-07-27T20:15:06Z")
I wouldn’t mind this resistance to considering anything but the official rubber-stamped account if it was just me who had this bee in the bonnet, but there are a lot of seemingly intelligent people who have doubts.
[Criticisms Of The 9/11 Commision Report](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report)
> [@](#):
>
> Limited scope
>
> Critics are arguing that the 9/11 Commission, although tasked with providing the fullest possible account of the September 11 attacks, did not investigate for explosives and did not include the collapse of a third building of the World Trade Center complex, 7 World Trade Center, in its account.
> [@](#):
>
> “Set up” to fail
>
> The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission” describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. “So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.”
> [@](#):
>
> The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, consisting of former FBI, NSA and other federal intelligence experts, claim the 9/11 Commission report was fundamentally flawed because the Commission refused to hear, ignored, or censored testimony about the many pre-September 11 warnings given to the FBI and US intelligence agencies. These federal whistleblowers claim that in an effort to avoid having to hold any individual accountable, the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye on FBI agent-provided evidence before September 11 regarding the 9/11 plot
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/590 "2010-07-27T20:17:21Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#):
>
> > [@ivan\_astikov](#):
> >
> > No, read it again and pay attention to the way the words are ordered. He doesn’t actually define what a “truther” is. Do you want to have a crack at it while he’s thinking?
>
> A “truther” is anyone who feels strongly that the truth about the September 11 attacks is radically different from the mainstream account. Major strains within this position include the belief that there was an inside plot by the United States government to engineer the attacks themselves, and that the building collapses which occurred were due to controlled demolition rather than the effects of the plane crashes.
And it isn’t ever used as an insult? Got it.
What’s a “Twoofer” then; are they the same thing? Maybe I’ve mixed the 2 up?
---
### Author:  [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/591 "2010-07-27T20:19:58Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> And it isn’t ever used as an insult? Got it.
>
> What’s a “Twoofer” then; are they the same thing? Maybe I’ve mixed the 2 up?
A “twoofer” is a mocking term for a “truther”. “Truther” itself can be used disparagingly, in the same way as “People who strongly feel the truth about the September 11 attacks radically diverges from the mainstream account” can be used disparagingly: it can be used as an insult precisely to the extent that one feels such a position is not worthy of respect. It has nothing to do with what the position is called and everything to do with how such a position is viewed. No matter what you call this position, it can be treated with disrespect.
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/592 "2010-07-27T20:22:45Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> ps. I don’t mind anybody calling me a “Questioner”.
I think “questioner” necessarily implies that you’re looking for answers. You’ve demonstrated literally hundreds - if not thousands - of times that you’re not. Unless you mean it in some ironic postmodern sense of asking the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, even though you get an answer each time, and occasionally even pretend to accept it.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/593 "2010-07-27T20:23:00Z")
I gather one uses “twoofer” to describe (in the speaker’s view) a truther burdened not only with stubborn paranoia and obstinacy and illogic, but immaturity as well.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/594 "2010-07-27T20:23:25Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> [Criticisms Of The 9/11 Commision Report](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report)
The Commission was not charged with determining _what_ happened but rather _how to prevent it from happening again_.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/595 "2010-07-27T20:27:46Z")
So, the question is, does it have negative connotations comparable to calling somebody mentally challenged, and the answer appears to be “Yes”
Do we agree?
The next question is, is it being used disparagingly against me, or is it being used to describe a positive attribute of mine?
If it is the latter, can you clarify exactly what it is you find positive, I could do with a bit of a boost.
---
### Author:  [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/596 "2010-07-27T20:28:51Z")
It’s not the term “truther” that provides the negative connotations; it’s your position that has those negative connotations. To rid yourself of the negative connotations, it’s not the name “truther” you must shed; you would have to actually change your position.
We are claiming that you feel strongly that the truth about the September 11 attacks diverges radically from the mainstream account, including elements of belief that the United States government engineered the attacks and that the buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition by explosives rather than the effects of the plane crashes. I assume you would agree that this fairly characterizes your position? Furthermore, we feel that this is an illogical, nonsensical, and, yes, downright stupid position to take. You may be offended by that if you like, but note that I didn’t use the word “truther” there once; it has nothing to do with that term. What’s being used disparagingly against you is not any particular name, but simply the position you aver.
---
### Author:  [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/597 "2010-07-27T20:32:00Z")
Woah, how meta is this? “Just asking questions” about what “truther” means. Far out.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/598 "2010-07-27T20:33:57Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#):
>
> It’s not the term “truther” that provides the negative connotations; it’s your position that has those negative connotations. To rid yourself of the negative connotations, it’s not the name “truther” you must shed; you would have to actually change your position.
Indeed. If we were discussing a building that collapsed after a natural disaster, with a battery of engineers advancing a plausible theory of cascade failure, I don’t think it particularly wrong to look askance at the person who ignores most or all of this “official account”, expresses disparaging remarks at those who do believe it, and suggests alternate (and far-fetched) hypotheses for which no evidence is known to exist.
---
### Author:  [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/599 "2010-07-27T20:34:23Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> I wouldn’t mind this resistance to considering anything but the official rubber-stamped account if it was just me who had this bee in the bonnet, but there are a lot of seemingly intelligent people who have doubts.
Huh?
Ok, I know little enough about this whole thing to make any kind of arguments on the science, but I really don’t get your point here. It would be perfectly fine if people accepted the official account - a practice of not questioning authority you seem to disagree with quite strongly - except there are other authorities who agree with you?
It seems odd to condemn following an authority by pointing out that another authority disagrees.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/600 "2010-07-27T20:34:59Z")
Of course it has negative connotations. It’s discussing something that if true would turn all the skeptic’s worldviews upside down and would likely divide your country irreparably. I understand why it might be upsetting to even contemplate, so leave it to people who don’t mind facing such a nightmare scenario and carry on in your WOW threads.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=29)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=31)