### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/141 "2013-12-10T04:23:06Z")
> [@David\_Lango](#):
>
> Your heated steel girder is not the gigantic steel used to construct a skyscraper with. AND you fail to consider how fast the kerosene burned off, AND how all the steel that was at ambient temperature failed to slow it’s decent.
>
> I’ll be your “mythbuster”.
**I** ’ll do the busting of garbage points here, thank you very much.
[http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm](http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> The two major factors in the collapse itself were the fires and the lack of fire proofing around the trusses and some columns. With fireproofing, the floor system was rated for 2 hours of continuous fire. Without it, that time is cut dramatically.
>
> ```
> The below test results are used by conspiracy theorists to suggest the collapse couldn't have happened because, if you note the test under "Failure to support load" there are three asterisks (***) which indicates that failure did not occur. What they don't stress is the fact that all four tests have fire proofing on the trusses. Note the fire rating with 1/2 inch spray on fire proofing is 45 minutes. Some trusses and columns in the towers impact zone had none.
>
> An incredibly detailed account of the fires can be found here
>
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf (56 megs)
>
> Below is evidence from an A&E documentary 'Inside the Twin Towers' that some fireproofing may have been off well BEFORE the planes hit.
>
> Faulty Fireproofing Is Reviewed as Factor in Trade Center Collapse
>
> By JAMES GLANZ with MICHAEL MOSS
>
> Excerpts:
>
> "Large areas of fireproofing are missing from the core columns in some of the photographs, and the architect who took them, Roger G. Morse, a consultant in Troy, N.Y., said his work had shown that the fireproofing did not stick properly. But Mr. Reiss said the problems were caused by the swaying of the buildings in the wind and the impact of elevator cables against the beams. "It was an ongoing maintenance headache," he said. Although measures were repeatedly taken to prevent the problem, he said, "every March and April when you had these windstorms and the building rocked back and forth, you would still knock some of the fireproofing down."
>
> ```
[http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm](http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn’t hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/142 "2013-12-10T10:32:40Z")
> [@David\_Lango](#):
>
> The former CIA insider claiming that remote detonation and wireless explosives brought down the twin towers did get a nod from me as plausible.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why you consider this plausible, given the sheer amount of explosives that would need to have been planted without anyone noticing or saying anything. Why these individuals are credible, is, of course, up for debate. My best guess? Because, as I stated earlier:
> [@](#):
>
> Hold up anything counter to the establishment as reliable because it’s contrary to the establishment; denounce anything supporting the establishment as unreliable because it’s supporting the establishment.
I honestly don’t care that much about 9/11. It’s essentially settled and I’m not about to spend a whole lot of time researching. But it bears repeating that most of the points brought up are either unreliable or have [already](http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm) [been](http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm)debunked. As always, it’s a _lack_ of good information that drives the conspiracy.
> [@](#):
>
> All I know is the official story doesn’t explain what can be reviewed over and over on YouTube.
Well, make a thread about it.
> [@](#):
>
> I don’t know whether most CT’s think Sandy Hook was a hoax or not. I saw the material and refuse to take sides. I hope that’s the average “response”.
No, that’s the only slightly less _crazy_ response, brought on by a knee-jerk rejection of anything the “establishment” has to say:
> [@](#):
>
> But I will say I am sufficiently suspicious of the establishment, after having been lied to, and wouldn’t put it past the establishment to create a hoax as deplorable as that.
Yeah, I wouldn’t put it past them either. But I’m not about to say that there was a shady government conspiracy to shoot up a school. _Especially_ when there’s literally no reason outside of “EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY” lunacy to assume that anything other than the official story - that Adam Lanza became the latest in a long line of people who went crazy and decided the best thing to do was shoot up a school, and did so very successfully - is possible. It’s like if I looked at the bombing of Pearl Harbor and said, “Sure, all the evidence points to a japanese attack, but I am sufficiently suspicious of the establishment to make up my own theory - that someone in the US commissioned japanese planes on the black market to run that raid in an attempt to stage a false flag attack and drag us into the war”. I hope you understand how _completely fucking insane_ that sounds. Because that’s what Sandy Hook conspiracies sound like to me. That’s basically the train of thought you use in saying what you just said. And it’s lunacy, pure and simple. There is nothing to be gained by thinking this way. Without good evidence, there is nothing to distinguish what you describe as your train of thought from _paranoia_.
> [@](#):
>
> Hope that helps with your collective perspective of a typical CT’r.
Not really. See, this is the sad part: we already _know_ that these people are paranoid to the extent that logic doesn’t work the way it should. We already know that their thought process mirrors what I’ve said twice already in this thread: reject authority because, well, authority. It also heavily implies extremely tortured leaps in logic - see also: your response to the Kennedy speech.
> [@](#):
>
> Then the unexplainable happened. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM gone! Both towers! Then eight hours later, a much more conventional looking controlled demolition of Building 7. No black pyroclastic clouds like the twin towers exhibited.
Eight hours after being struck by quite a lot of falling debris from the North Tower and _burning constantly since then_, the building collapsed.
> [@](#):
>
> What happened cannot be explained by a “collapse”. I may only be the sweat and muscle behind hard work, but I’ve got a brain that learned all about the concrete I used a jackhammer on, just does not “go away”-- just because something heavy is pounding on top of it. I may be strong but I’m not stupid.
Hey buddy, what was that you were saying about evolution? Something about a tornado in a junkyard or something? I’m sorry, but if you want to talk about advanced construction and the conditions they are under, you are _definitely_ punching above your weight class, intellectually. Regardless of whether or not you were working with concrete in your life. Did you even examine how WTC7 was built? _Why_ people say that it burning for 8 hours straight might have brought it down? I don’t think you have. At least, not without your blinders on.
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps there are other ‘up close and personal’ things that get a person as suspicious as myself to start questioning everything. 9/11/2001 has floored me with the understanding that my government lies to me and the news isn’t calling them on it.
Of course. :rolleyes: Has it ever occurred to you that you’re being _incredibly paranoid_? Look, here’s a little thought experiment for you. Think of the number of people necessary and “in the know” to make this conspiracy work. Think about the number of people who would need to have been involved. It’s not a small number. At the very least, you need:
- A crew to plant the charges. This is no mean feat - we’re talking about gigantic skyscrapers here. And no, don’t even bother bringing up thermite - there is no known existing tool for thermite to cut horizontally through a thick steel column; you might as well appeal to fairies.
- Someone at the CIA/FBI/whatever to hire that crew
- Someone in accounting of the aforementioned organization to squelch that hiring
- The NIST, whose official report kind of destroys the whole concept quite effectively, unless you assume they’re lying - and given that they’re a scientific organization, you’d need quite a lot of corruption for that to happen.
- Popular Mechanics - same as NIST.
- The people to hijack the planes
…The more elaborate the evidence becomes that this conspiracy exists in the first place, the more the list of people you’d need to execute it rises. The larger the number of people involved becomes. Now look at existing conspiracies that we _have_ revealed. Watergate, for example. The number of actors, the number of moving parts, is _miniscule_. A handful of people can keep a secret. You think over a hundred can? And even if it goes straight to the top, the press still almost always jumps on it. Why? Because being the first to break a story, especially something huge like, say, “US government kills thousands of its own citizens in false flag attack” is incredibly valuable for news organizations - both in terms of sales and in terms of prestige. It makes _no sense_ for the national news to cover it up to protect the administration. It makes _no sense_ for Popular Mechanics to cover it up to protect the administration. And it makes no sense that the dozens to hundreds of people necessary to pull of this conspiracy would all stay quiet 12 years later, even if they were innocent of any crime.
> [@](#):
>
> I read that entire thread about the man who would go bankrupt by going to work at less pay by reason of daycare for his kids adding financial strain too.
>
> I care.
Good. Look, I can understand the idea that you don’t want your taxes to pay for unemployment. Okay. But this becomes a problem when you start suffering from misconceptions about what unemployment means. When you forget that the economy has been in the shitter for something like 6 years now, and that there just aren’t enough jobs for all the job-seekers, even if you could fill every position currently hiring (which is impossible due to things like distance and skillsets). It’s important to remember that a lot of people who are on unemployment are trained professionals who simply cannot find work, and for whom getting a minimum wage job is not an option.
> [@](#):
>
> The illegitimate establishment that would have us all unarmed in public so they can be more comfortable enjoying their double standard of liberty and privacy while the rest of us all turn ourselves in and sign up for obamacare… is LYING.
See, you seemed almost reasonable for a while here, and then this happened. This is completely loony. Nobody is trying to take your guns away, you know. Obamacare is analogous to the type of universal health-care laws that exist literally all over the world. This is hardly some gigantic breach of freedom. Do you even know what it details? Wait, lemme guess - you believe that it will allow the government to barge into your house. Or maybe that it mandates RFID chipping. I don’t know, gimme something here.
> [@](#):
>
> That’s the bottom line. Perhaps the magic bullet did it for others
Oh for _fuck’s sake_. What’s next, gonna tell us the moon landing didn’t happen?
> [@](#):
>
> 9/11/2001 is the lie that riles me and has me questioning everything.
You do realize that asking a question usually is a two-part thing, right? You ask a question, then you _search for an answer_. And the answers are out there, and they’re usually not as insane as CTers think.
On 9/11, two hijacked planes, piloted by terrorists from Al Qaeda, flew into the twin towers of the World Trade center. the fires caused severe instability within the buildings, and due to their revolutionary construction style, which allowed the building to be built far higher and with far more floor space but which was not built to withstand impacts of that type, the building collapsed, spreading debris throughout the surrounding area. Some of this debris fell onto WTC7, causing serious fires throughout the building, which, after something like 8 hours, led to the complete structural collapse of the structure (once again, largely due to the way it was built, which is not analogous to many other buildings of similar height). Essentially every reputable source which has examined the evidence available has come to this same conclusion.
> [@](#):
>
> So from an incurable “conspiracy theorist”, yours truly, I hope I’ve shed some light on what makes a CT’r tick.
It’s nothing new. It’s a load of flaws in how they examine evidence and how they look at the world. But you know what? I’d like to end this on a positive note. You may be a hyperconservative conspiracy theorist who seems to buy into _everything_, at least your lunacy isn’t actively putting people’s lives in danger. This makes you a damn sight better than people who take their ignorance and paranoia one step further and apply the whole “authority bad because authority” thing to medicine, essentially advocating everything except what is proven to work. The antivaccers, the homeopaths, the naturopaths… I may not like conspiracy theorists, but at least you’re not hurting anyone with your crazy beliefs.
---
### Author:  [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/143 "2013-12-11T15:50:28Z")
> [@David\_Lango](#):
>
> And I seriously take issue with the establishment lying to us all.
Yet you seem remarkably sanguine about being lied to by fellow conspiracy theorists. (Like the ones who edited that Kennedy quote for you.)
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/144 "2013-12-11T16:10:37Z")
> [@David\_Lango](#):
>
> . . . how the firemen can’t tell the difference between molten steel. . .
_::: sigh :::_
There was no “molten steel.” The few reports of “molten” steel were third hand reports by people who did not actually see anything, reporting the comments of people who used the word “molten” casually and without knowing what they were talking about. Molten steel produces a very bright light with a pale green color. What was universally reported by people who were actually looking at the wreckage was orange glowing steel–the exact color that is present when a blacksmith has heated steel to the point where it can be worked in temperatures far below the point of melting, (which is the source of the word molten).
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/145 "2013-12-11T16:22:27Z")
> [@MikeF](#):
>
> Is there a common psychological profile for these types? Is there a listing in the DSM for them?
A rather standard feature of DSM diagnoses is a collection of behaviors or beliefs that are summarized. The list of symptoms generally include a notice along the lines of “_The symptoms have caused and continue to cause significant distress or negative consequences in different aspects of the person’s life._”
It is really rare to find a CT whose life has suffered negative consequences for simply holding those beliefs. For some people, various other disorders, (anxiety, personality, or adjustment disorders, etc.), a belief in CTs may be one expression of the disorder, but it would not be accurate to describe a belief in CTs as an actual psychological disorder any more than it would be accurate to describe a desire to drink alcohol as alcoholism.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/146 "2013-12-11T18:20:20Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> _::: sigh :::_
>
> There was no “molten steel.” The few reports of “molten” steel were third hand reports by people who did not actually see anything, reporting the comments of people who used the word “molten” casually and without knowing what they were talking about. Molten steel produces a very bright light with a pale green color. What was universally reported by people who were actually looking at the wreckage was orange glowing steel–the exact color that is present when a blacksmith has heated steel to the point where it can be worked in temperatures far below the point of melting, (which is the source of the word molten).
This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that “it bears repeating that most of the points brought up are either unreliable or have already been debunked”. Molten steel? No, third-hand reports by people who don’t know what molten steel looks like (for people who are such sticklers about what molten aluminium looks like, CTers are surprisingly uncritical of claims of _yellow-orange_ molten steel). Free-fall? No, [not even close](http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm). Controlled demolition? No, it would require a degree of explosive power that would easily be heard not just in the immediate surrounding area but for miles around. Thermite cutting? If we get to invent technology for which there’s no evidence of its existence (in this case, some sort of thermite cutter capable of slicing horizontally through a vertical steel column) or even the mechanical basis as to how it would work, then I’m going to pretend that Al Qaeda has a machine that magically makes the target dumb enough to mistake Afghanistan for Iraq. The fact is that even if you could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that two planes crashing into the towers, followed by debris setting serious fires which burned for 8 hours in tower 7 could not have brought down those buildings, you still have offered zero credence to the theory that it was a controlled demolition, because that has been shown quite conclusively to be _effectively impossible_.
But of course, this false dichotomy is typical of science deniers, conspiracy theorists, and the like. “Evolution is false, therefore biblical young earth creationism is true!” “Plate tectonics is false, therefore the expanding earth hypothesis is true!” “The official conspiracy for 9/11 is false, therefore it was controlled demolition!” :rolleyes: Of course, that’s not how it works. You still need to demonstrate why your explanation is plausible. And for the most part, conspiracy theorists fail miserably. Why? Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: it bears repeating that most of the points brought up are either unreliable or have already been debunked. CTers seem incredibly unwilling to admit that they’re wrong about any given point. They will hold on to any tenuous piece of evidence, no matter how often it’s pointed out that it’s simply wrong. The fact that you _still_ have people claiming that the buildings fell “at free fall speed” when any cursory examination of video footage from the event proves that this is simply not the case should say quite a lot about it.
We see this in every conspiracy theory that even attempts to hold itself up with evidence. This dogged attachment to “facts” which simply aren’t. The claim that Oswald couldn’t have realistically made the shot (it’s been done with the same gun and trained gunmen - not even master shots, just trained soldiers); the claim that the Danish thimerosal study was meaningless (it’s one of the most-cited vaccine papers, shows a clear failure of correlation, and is sufficient for all but the most strident of quacks); the claim that quotes by Darwin make the evolution of the human eye impossible (not only are they dated by over 150 years, but even back then reading the very next sentence demonstrates that Darwin was setting up a rhetorical strawman to demolish, rather than actually claiming his theory was wrong); the claim that Obama’s birth certificate is a demonstrated forgery due to photoshop (debunked by someone on this very forum; can’t remember who it was though…); the claim by Jesse Ventura’s team that the aurora borealis was spotted directly before the 2010 boxing day tsunami (their photographic evidence was from the wrong year AND the wrong hemisphere) and so on, and so forth.
The term “Zombie Idea” is quite accurate here - they are indeed zombies. They get killed again and again and yet they _never die_ and get reused anyways. In actual scientific investigation, _this does not happen_. Ideas which are shown to be wrong are discarded and left to rot in the dustbin of history. If they were particularly influential, they may show up as footnotes in the “how we got to where we are” department. And the more you strip away the “facts” in most modern conspiracy theories, the less remains, until all that’s left is paranoid ranting and claims of “you can’t trust the government/reliable academic sources/mainstream newspapers/\; trust our complete lack of valid information instead!”.
And it is _always_. _ALWAYS_. The exact same schtick. In any conspiracy. The details change, but the core of the story remains the same. It’s why any given thread on any given conspiracy, be it JFK, 9/11, Alternative Medicine, FEMA camps, boston marathon bombing, you name it. And it’s tiresome. And there’s no wonder whatsoever that there’s so much crank magnetism - the though process is easy to apply to various things.
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/147 "2013-12-11T18:29:40Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#):
>
> This makes no sense.
>
> People don’t expect every psychologist to repeat Pavlov’s experiment every time somebody asks a question.
That makes no sense. Where did I say anything about expecting every psychologist to perform Pavlov’s experiment? Can you read?
The point was that psychologists should know what experiments are, therefore I mentioned a famous one.
So shouldn’t psychologists expect physicists to perform experiments to determine if the top 15% or less of a skyscraper could fall straight down and destroy the intact structure below?
The problem with the title and OP is that as far as I know the term “Truther” is only applied to people questioning the 9/11 incidents. But the term “Conspiracy Theorist” can apply to lots of other things, like the JFK assassination and Moon landing fakery. So this discussion mixes a lot of psychological gaming with guilt by association even though the supposed collapses of the twin towers must have a lot of physics involved.
But the physics profession has spent 12 years not talking about needing accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers.
So at best the debates are psychological BS based on insufficient data.
psik
---
### Author:  [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/148 "2013-12-11T19:37:05Z")
**Budget Player Cadet** , good post. Maybe that’s why it’s taking longer than we thought.
---
### Author:  [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/149 "2013-12-11T19:58:00Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> That makes no sense. Where did I say anything about expecting every psychologist to perform Pavlov’s experiment?
It was heavily implied (see below).
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> So shouldn’t psychologists expect physicists to perform experiments to determine if the top 15% or less of a skyscraper could fall straight down and destroy the intact structure below?
Yes, it’s called Civil Engineering. And they do know what would happen and have pretty good models (verified by experiment) to explain them.
Why do you call for these experiments and models to be repeated and done again?
The problem is that you don’t accept those results. That’s the same as denying the results of Pavlov’s experiment and calling for them to be performed again, to answer whatever inane and specific objection you had.
Why the double standard? Why accept results in one field but not another? Your question makes no sense, since it simply assumes (without proof, I might add) that there is no physical model for how skyscrapers work and how they can fail under certain conditions. That’s not true. Those models exist, and they’re pretty good. If you don’t want to accept the results of those experiments, it’s on you to show where they fail.
ETA: From another thread but it applies here equally well.
When would _you_ have us accept a result?
> [@Flouride - dental savior or poison?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/100):
>
> Yes but we need more studies. More. More, more, more. More, more, more, more more. We need to keep doing studies until paranoids can find one that suggests they are right. Then we will have done enough studies.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/150 "2013-12-11T20:31:47Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#):
>
> ETA: From another thread but it applies here equally well.
>
> When would _you_ have us accept a result?
> [@Flouride - dental savior or poison?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/100):
>
> Yes but we need more studies. More. More, more, more. More, more, more, more more. We need to keep doing studies until paranoids can find one that suggests they are right. Then we will have done enough studies.
Ya know, if you’re going to ask a question and then pop right up with the answer, it’s fair to wonder why the rest of us even need to _be_ here…
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/151 "2013-12-11T20:38:35Z")
> [@David\_Lango](#):
>
> Unfortunately not all of them get out of bed in the morning every day, feel like it or not, and go to work.
>
> I sympathize with the conservative rant against redistributing my wealth to someone else who can’t even get up and do the dishes.
There are plenty of people who get up and would love to go to work, but can’t because the banks screwed up the economy. There are also plenty of people working two jobs because they can’t make enough to live on with one.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/152 "2013-12-11T21:04:05Z")
> [@David\_Lango](#):
>
> You’re welcome smarty pants.
>
> Want my opinion on The Theory of Evolution while I’m at it?
>
> I think a tornado has a better chance of roaring through a trailer park and leaving behind a gleaming Boeing 747-400 all fueled and ready for take off.
This is an excellent example of the mind of a CT. It shows that they are unable to process all the data about a subject which is not in line with their preconceived ideas of what should be happening. It also shows that they don’t (can’t?) comprehend the structure of the accepted explanation.
It is very different thing to understand the accepted explanation and find places where it may be lacking in explaining the evidence - that is what innovation in science is all about. Tossing it all it doesn’t support the idea that government is behind it is something else.
Conspiracies do happen. The Koch’s and their allies conspired to put unattributed money into a California Proposition. ([Link.](http://www.sacbee.com/2013/10/25/5850222/dan-morain.html)) They went through so many layers of organizational laundering that a Colombian drug lord’s head would spin. But unlike the usual CT, this conspiracy had evidence it existed.
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/153 "2013-12-11T23:29:48Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#):
>
> It was heavily implied (see below).
Then someone does not know what an implication is.
> [@](#):
>
> Yes, it’s called Civil Engineering. And they do know what would happen and have pretty good models (verified by experiment) to explain them.
I can read the CLAIM, I don’t see any links providing information about them.
> [@](#):
>
> Why accept results in one field but not another? Your question makes no sense, since it simply assumes (without proof, I might add) that there is no physical model for how skyscrapers work and how they can fail under certain conditions.
As this thread demonstrates these 12 years of inadequately definitive solution has resulted in people debating psychological BS.
It is hilarious that you should mention Civil Engineering. Before 9/11 I would have regarded skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists. But now the psychologists should be wondering about the physicists. So do psychologists know what experiments are? So I mentioned a well knowl one.
> [@](#):
>
> We need to keep doing studies until paranoids can find one that suggests they are right. Then we will have done enough studies.
Where has any study specified trustworthy data on the quantity of steel and concrete on every level? The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total for the concrete but does for the stee in three places. But it also admits that the distribution of weight needs to be known to analyse the impact, but then does not provide the data. It only took 5 years and cost $20,000,000.
So now we have name calling and other psychological BS.
psik
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/154 "2013-12-11T23:49:25Z")
This sounds like a “gaps” creationist argument. Because we don’t know the exact weight of the WTC towers, they could not have collapsed but have to have been brought down by demolition charges.
Why not reverse the argument? Since we don’t know exactly how many demolition charges were used, the buildings have to have been brought down by aircraft impacts and jet-fuel fires?
If “You don’t know X, therefore Y” is a valid logical process, well, there’s a whole lot of Y going on. I don’t know exactly how many poor people there are in the world; therefore there is no poverty. etc. ad nauseam.
---
### Author:  [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/155 "2013-12-11T23:51:46Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> Where has any study specified trustworthy data on the quantity of steel and concrete on every level?
Your argument is BS.
Did anybody repeat Pavlov’s experiment on parakeets? Did they ever test using a whistle instead of a bell? Did they use different types of food? How about different dog breeds? Dogs of different ages?
That’s the level of question you are applying here. It’s a bizarre attempt to gain some sort of traction by nitpicking at that level, and it makes absolutely no sense.
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> This sounds like a “gaps” creationist argument.
It doesn’t just sound like one, it **IS** a God of the Gaps argument.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/156 "2013-12-12T00:51:51Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> It is hilarious that you should mention Civil Engineering. Before 9/11 I would have regarded skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists.
Which pretty well demonstrates why your opinion on any of these topics is worthless. (Well, not completely worthless; it can always serve as a bad example.) The fact that you did not associate the engineering of skyscrapers with physicists merely demonstrates your ignorance on the topic.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/157 "2013-12-12T01:00:08Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> So shouldn’t psychologists expect physicists to perform experiments to determine if the top 15% or less of a skyscraper could fall straight down and destroy the intact structure below?
They did. [Extensively](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165).
> [@](#):
>
> The problem with the title and OP is that as far as I know the term “Truther” is only applied to people questioning the 9/11 incidents.
Initially; although these days it has become broadened to mean any conspiracy theory where “the truth is being kept from us”. However…
> [@](#):
>
> But the term “Conspiracy Theorist” can apply to lots of other things, like the JFK assassination and Moon landing fakery. So this discussion mixes a lot of psychological gaming with guilt by association even though the supposed collapses of the twin towers must have a lot of physics involved.
Um… No. It doesn’t. It’s more like if a discussion talks about “brutal dictators and Pol Pot”. It’s not talking about two separate things. It’s talking about one set of things, and something belonging to that set. “Truthers” like you are not being slandered by being grouped in with conspiracy theorists, because you _are_ conspiracy theorists.
> [@](#):
>
> But the physics profession has spent 12 years not talking about needing accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers.
Yes, and the medical profession has spent almost 100 years not talking about proving that every single case of influenza is caused by viral infections. Of course, this would be a colossal waste of time, prove nothing, and have no explanatory value. If you’re demanding 100% accuracy, then you are _wasting everyone’s time_, because there will never be 100% accuracy. I mean, do you apply this standard of evidence when talking about your pet theory? Do you demand to know _exactly_ how much steel and concrete was used? Because you’d think this would be quite a bit more relevant for controlled demolition…
No. Of course you don’t. Because conspiracy theorists always. _ALWAYS_. Have a double standard the size of a small planet. The standard of evidence for the “official” story is pristine - you must have exact, perfect data explaining everything, or else it’s not good enough. But the alternative hypothesis, rejected by “the authority”? It doesn’t matter how flimsy the evidence is; if there are gaps in the official story, we can just fill it in! It’s an obscene argument from ignorance that holds no water whatsoever. As said previously, _this whole thing is a false dichotomy_. You don’t just get to show how it couldn’t have been the planes, and then it’s automatically your own personal pet theory. You have to _demonstrate_ your theory.
And of course, like with every CTer, you claim ignorance when the evidence is all right there. Which begs the question - what, exactly, are you waiting for? What are you trying to accomplish? That we don’t treat 9/11 truthers the way we treat most other nutty conspiracy theorists? Well, offering such poor arguments and bad logic is _not going to help your case_. Acting as though nobody has ever examined the issue in detail when it is in fact one of the _most-examined_ engineering cases in the history of the United States and the evidence is everywhere you turn is _not going to help your case_. And demanding _ridiculous_ standards of evidence that you damn well know cannot be fulfilled and then presenting a ridiculous double standard for your own pet theory that demands nowhere near the same standard of evidence…
…Basically, what I’m getting at is, if you don’t want to be labeled a nutty conspiracy theorist, _don’t act like a textbook example of one!_
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/158 "2013-12-12T01:08:07Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> Do you demand to know _exactly_ how much steel and concrete was used?
Actually, he does. He simply ignores the information when it is presented and then pretends that someone is hiding what he refuses to look at.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/159 "2013-12-12T01:14:34Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> But the physics profession has spent 12 years not talking about needing accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers.
Perhaps that’s because the physics profession has, oh, maybe 300 years or more of experience in what makes things stand up and and why they fall down. Even medieval cathedral architects knew more than today’s truthers about basic physics and structural elements.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/160 "2013-12-12T01:18:50Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Actually, he does. He simply ignores the information when it is presented and then pretends that someone is hiding what he refuses to look at.
I should have specified: for his pet theory. As in: “Do you demand to know exactly how much steel and concrete was used before claiming that it was a controlled demolition?”
Missed the edit window. :smack:
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174.md?page=9)