Sunday, January 31, 2010

How Are Truthers Like Rubber Duckies?

A fine article by Michael Shermer.

The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the “evidence” for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.


Indeed. The Truthers are also like the IRA; they believe that the government has to be right about everything, while they only have to be right once.

65 Comments:

At 31 January, 2010 09:41, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Like I've said, twoooofers use magical thinking, rubbing half understood phrases together like fetishes.

Of course, being insane doesn't help matters.

 
At 31 January, 2010 10:15, Blogger Pat said...

Ooh, I like that. "Rubbing half understood phrases together like fetishes."

:)

 
At 31 January, 2010 12:08, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

/Elvis

 
At 31 January, 2010 12:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It'd be nice to see some evidence.
-Emory

 
At 31 January, 2010 13:06, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'It'd be nice to see some evidence.
-Emory'

That's what we keep telling you fuckers every time you come up with your 'theories'.

 
At 31 January, 2010 13:16, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It'd be nice to see some evidence.
-Emory"

Try it, you'll like it.

 
At 31 January, 2010 14:46, Anonymous chomskybot said...

On truther novels and movies Noam Chomsky had the following to say: “If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence. There’s plenty of coincidences and unexplained phenomena... but if you look at a controlled scientific experiment, the same thing is true. At the end there are lots of things that are unexplained, funny coincidences, this and that. If you want to get a sense of it, take a look at the letters columns in the technical scientific journals.”
That's basically what Shermer is saying, a few unexplained coincidences do not a theory prove.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc

 
At 31 January, 2010 15:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence. There’s plenty of coincidences and unexplained phenomena... but if you look at a controlled scientific experiment, the same thing is true. At the end there are lots of things that are unexplained, funny coincidences, this and that. If you want to get a sense of it, take a look at the letters columns in the technical scientific journals.”


Nobody but a chumpskybot could make heads or tails out of that mismash of nonsensensical garbage.

Oh. and nice ellipese.

 
At 31 January, 2010 16:21, Anonymous chomskybot said...

He's saying that anybody who knows anything about science and the scientific method would dismiss all the "evidence" presented in Loose Change and similar Truther "investigations."
Even someone from the far-left like Chomsky rejects 9-11 "truth," that's the point I was trying to make.

 
At 31 January, 2010 16:23, Anonymous Marc said...

So far, every scientific experiment has proven that the WTC towers (and #7) went down just like the report says that they did.

There has yet to be a counter-theory that can hold up to eighth grade science.

Now I am in my third year of working towards a degree in science. I can tell you that while you can play a lot of games in a lab, in the end there is usually one explaination for an event at the end of the day. In the case of the WTC collapse, a PhD is not required to explain the collapse. Two 767s crashed into each tower. WTC-2 went down first because it was struck at a lower point than WTC-1. Even had there been no fire both buildings were doomed.

The beauty of the troofer bafoonery is that even if the US government built an exact replica of the WTC complex out in the desert somewhere, and then recreated the attacks then the subsequent collapse. The troofers would still claim that the entire thing was rigged.

People are entitled to their own opinoins, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

 
At 31 January, 2010 17:16, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

More nutty mash from the lunatic Debunker Cult:"...even if there were no fires the Towers were doomed".Yea,sure,dumbass.If you get reimbursed per stupid assertion you're well on your way to prosperity!

 
At 31 January, 2010 17:26, Anonymous paul w said...

Nutty mash???

Yup, the truthers just keep smacking us with facts...lol!!!

Fail.

 
At 31 January, 2010 17:35, Anonymous KrazeesBiggestFan said...

"...even if there were no fires the Towers were doomed"
Come on Krazee you know you agree with that sentiment. The WTC was brought down with superthermite right? so no fires were necessary to bring the towers down right?

 
At 31 January, 2010 17:55, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"lunatic Debunker Cult"

Lather.

Rinse.

Wait.

I thought the twin towers were rigged with explosives?

So which is it, numbnuts?

Fire?

Rigged explosives?

superdoopernonexistantnanothermite?

C'mon, fucktard, explain yourself.

 
At 31 January, 2010 18:08, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Your whole argument is that the fires compromised the Towers and then they fell.Now you're saying that the fires were irrelevant.You schnooks are something special.The Towers were designed to take the hits they did.

 
At 31 January, 2010 18:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Noam Chomsky, a Harvard man like that nincompoop Cass Sunstein who wants the government to pay people to post disinformation on 9/11 websites. A government conspiracy to combat conspiracy theories, in other words. Same with Harvard egghead Obama who probably will need a teleprompter to explain how he turned on a dime about the 6th amendment that requires "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."


It doesn't make sense for a prosecutor to dismiss anomalies unless the plan is to never have a trial and never have to prove the case. Otherwise, the logical thing is to nail down a sound, beyond reasonable doubt explanations for anomalies so you don't get caught flat-footed in court.

-Emory

 
At 31 January, 2010 18:43, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie said...
Your whole argument is that the fires compromised the Towers and then they fell.Now you're saying that the fires were irrelevant."

You're a moron, assholio.

Truly.

Seek professional help.

 
At 31 January, 2010 18:44, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

More bitter whining from twoofers. Sorry Emory, nobody important really gives a shit about the 9/11 twoof movement to want to run a "disinfo" campaign, except for twoofers themselves. You are all morons, there is no difference between "no-planers", "controlled demolition believers" and "the Jews did it" versions of twooferism.

 
At 31 January, 2010 18:44, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It doesn't make sense for a prosecutor to dismiss anomalies unless the plan is to never have a trial and never have to prove the case. Otherwise, the logical thing is to nail down a sound, beyond reasonable doubt explanations for anomalies so you don't get caught flat-footed in court.

-Emory"


Um.....

What?

 
At 31 January, 2010 18:49, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Oh, I get it.

Emory is ignoring the whole "In all criminal prosecutions" part of the Sixth Amendment, which renders his whole, well, something of an "argument" moot, since a terrorist act is an act of war and doesn't fall under the Sixth.

Try ellipses the next time, Board, and you might get away with it.

 
At 31 January, 2010 19:05, Anonymous Damocles said...

Oh so now Harvard is the hub of the New World Order?
Sunstein doesn't want to pay people to post "disinformation" on fanatics' websites. What he proposed was asking leading questions in hopes of getting people to realize that infowars.com is not the only source of valid information in the world. He wants to combat "crippled epistemology." Furthermore it was in an academic paper he co-wrote years ago, not in any recent policy proposal.
Besides, conspiracy nuts produce enough disinformation on their own. Just google "HAARP" or "chemtrails" and you'll see but sample of the vast pool of bullshit the internet has to provide courtesy of your every day blogger.
I love the thought process. "Chomsky doesn't believe in 9-11 truth therefor he must be in on it... Chomsky is associated with Harvard, so is Obama, therefor, Chomsky lies to cover up 9-11 truth!!!"
Chomsky has spent his entire career undermining the US government no matter who was in charge. Face it, even political radicals dismiss the 9-11 "Truth" movement.
More on Sunstein:
http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/2010/01/government-wants-to-make-us-think.html

 
At 31 January, 2010 19:41, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I really do find it amusing how much the "truthers" hate Chomsky for his out-of-hand dismissal of their insanity. They all turned to the legendary radical critic of the US government, and he told them to see a psychiatrist. I love it.

Somewhere, Payday Monsanto is penning a hip hop song about how Chomsky is a money-grubbing Jew servant of the NWO.

 
At 01 February, 2010 00:18, Blogger Pat said...

Marc, you're wrong about the fires; the buildings would have survived without them.

 
At 01 February, 2010 00:27, Anonymous Sane Dane said...

"The Towers were designed to take the hits they did."

Another common misconception from the morons. The designer of the Twin Towers claimed he tested plane crash scenarios after the design. Note the use of the word "after".

Yet, there exists no evidence that he did and people working with him say they never saw him do it.

 
At 01 February, 2010 00:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"City in the Sky" discusses a white paper of February 3, 1964:

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

You guys make up your facts.

 
At 01 February, 2010 01:14, Anonymous Neil said...

It's quite offensive that you compare the Truthers to the IRA.

The IRA were the most effective terror group in the world, led by genuine intellectuals who now form part of the government in Northern Ireland; to compare some retired professors and guys with goatees in their twenties to them is plain wrong.

 
At 01 February, 2010 03:14, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.'

Your source is dated 1964. The WTC complex was built between 1966 and 1971. There's a bit of a logical problem here.

 
At 01 February, 2010 06:39, Anonymous New Yorker said...

"City in the Sky" discusses a white paper of February 3, 1964:

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

You guys make up your facts.


"You guys make up your facts"? There's only one person who uses this accusation.

PETGOAT IS BAAAAAAACK!!!! Cue the music.

Anyway, Petgoat, how did they investigate buildings that didn't exist? The towers weren't completed until 1972/1973, and construction didn't even begin until 1966.

 
At 01 February, 2010 07:53, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Shermer could be right in general terms but is hopelessly wrong when it comes to 9/11: if the theory he is referring to is the official theory, then the truth is that no major part of it adds up. Perhaps, by now it would be reasonable to say that no part of it adds up at all.

 
At 01 February, 2010 08:01, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

Boris Epstein said "if the theory he is referring to is the official theory, then the truth is that no major part of it adds up."

Nice try, Bore-ass, but what part of what you call "the official story" has been proven to be wrong? Simply saying "the collapse of the WTC looks like a controlled demoliton to me" isn't proof of anything.

 
At 01 February, 2010 08:59, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

BTW, there is no such thing as the "official story".

There is truth, then there is insane Twoooofer™ conspiratard craziness.

 
At 01 February, 2010 10:31, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

There goes PornBoy again,off into the nether world of his little blue pills! "BTW,there's no such thing..."! Now there's a nerdy megalomaniac for you.

 
At 01 February, 2010 10:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What portion of the official story has been shown to be wrong?

Oh, just the 9/11 Commission Report, the FEMA report, and the NIST reports.

 
At 01 February, 2010 11:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 1964 white paper was an investigation of the towers' design. If you believe that you have information that the original 600 mph 707 specification was downgraded, please provide it.

A 1964 ENR article said one “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction.”

 
At 01 February, 2010 11:33, Anonymous RuneFromOslo said...

-Emory

31 January, 2010 18:33

"Noam Chomsky, a Harvard man"

There's that troofer factual accuracy we know and love so much.

 
At 01 February, 2010 11:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shermer derails in his third paragraph where he sets up the straw man: "No melted steel, no collapsed towers."

He then expounds on Dr. Eagar's ancient zipper/pancake theory, apparently unaware that NIST's 2005 study completely overturned Shermer's claims.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs are more dumb-ass straw men. And it doesn't get any better after that. Such dishonest and shoddy debunkery bodes very well for the truth movement.

 
At 01 February, 2010 11:35, Anonymous Welshman said...

Arhoolie: The Towers were designed to take the hits they did.

(1) There is a big difference between a 707 and a 757.

(2) And, even if there wasn't, keep in mind that the Titantic was designed to be unsinkable.

Anon: "City in the Sky" discusses a white paper of February 3, 1964...

I've read this book and don't recall this, but, as others have noted, there does seem to be a time discrepancy in your citation.

The book does mention that a contemporary structural engineer placed a full page advertisement in the NYT stating that the towers were a disaster waiting to happen. The ad included a picture of an airliner hitting one of the towers. The engineer claimed that the building(s) would collapse if hit by a plane. So, even if your citation is correct, not all experts agreed with the study.

 
At 01 February, 2010 11:41, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'The 1964 white paper was an investigation of the towers' design.'

Aha, now you're changing your tune. The plans were unveiled on 18th January 1964, the 'white paper' (who drafted it, BTW?) is dated 3rd February. Three weeks to do a detailed analysis on the architectural plans, and assess all potential risks (including the possibility of an airplane crashing into the building). I think not. Still, any straw you can grasp hold of, eh?

 
At 01 February, 2010 11:59, Anonymous New Yorker said...

What portion of the official story has been shown to be wrong?

Oh, just the 9/11 Commission Report, the FEMA report, and the NIST reports.


According to whom?

The 1964 white paper was an investigation of the towers' design. If you believe that you have information that the original 600 mph 707 specification was downgraded, please provide it.

A 707 is not as large as a 767. You're aware of this, right Brian? Also, there's the little issue of jet fuel fires weakening the steel. The towers may very well have stood indefinitely without the fires.

Shermer derails in his third paragraph where he sets up the straw man: "No melted steel, no collapsed towers."

He then expounds on Dr. Eagar's ancient zipper/pancake theory, apparently unaware that NIST's 2005 study completely overturned Shermer's claims.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs are more dumb-ass straw men. And it doesn't get any better after that. Such dishonest and shoddy debunkery bodes very well for the truth movement.


Nobody cares, Petgoat.

 
At 01 February, 2010 13:45, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Arhoolie said...
There goes PornBoy again,off into the nether world of his little blue pills! "BTW,there's no such thing..."! Now there's a nerdy megalomaniac for you."

assholio is talking to the voices in his head again.

ass (may I call you ass?) go take your meds and have a nice long nap.

 
At 01 February, 2010 15:32, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Welshman's no welcher,that's an interesting point you make about the advertisement taken out by an engineer.My friend's father workrd on the Towers and the friend says that he remembers his father mentioning "shortcuts" and scams by certain contractors,particularly about the fireproofing.But really,PornBoy and Shermer have been so decimated in this thread that it's a bizarre thing to witness the house-proud,cocked up behavior of the Debunker Cult as they go tumbling face first into the pachysandra.What dolts! Why does thomas Eagar's name even come up anymore except to goof on?

 
At 01 February, 2010 15:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My friend's father workrd on the Towers and the friend says that he remembers his father mentioning "shortcuts" and scams by certain contractors,particularly about the fireproofing
...which would mean the towers were even more vulnerable to fire than initially thought, further undermining truthers' claims about how fire can't bring down towers.

 
At 01 February, 2010 15:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the fireproofing was shoddy, then NIST's failure to investigate it was corrupt.

Maybe they wanted to exonerate the building so that the terrorist insurance would have to pay instead of the fireproofing contractor's insurer.

 
At 01 February, 2010 16:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the fireproofing was shoddy, then NIST's failure to investigate it was corrupt.
Which doesn't change the fact that terrorists with jets, and not controlled demolition, brought down the tower.

 
At 01 February, 2010 16:33, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Debunker Cult"

Lather.

Rinse.

Repeat.

 
At 01 February, 2010 16:34, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
If the fireproofing was shoddy, then NIST's failure to investigate it was corrupt."

Sure thing, Brian.

You retarded marmoset.

 
At 01 February, 2010 17:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

[NIST's failure to investigate the shoddy fireproofing] doesn't change the fact that terrorists with jets, and not controlled demolition, brought down the tower.

If NIST covered up shoddy fireproofing in order to benefit Larry Silverstein's insurance claim, then how do you know they didn't cover up CD also?

 
At 01 February, 2010 18:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If NIST covered up shoddy fireproofing in order to benefit Larry Silverstein's insurance claim, then how do you know they didn't cover up CD also?
I don't even know where to begin with this one. They cover up shoddy fireproofing for the sake of insurance companies that think fire brought down the tower, when in reality CD brought them down? Is that what you're speculating?

 
At 01 February, 2010 19:18, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"If NIST covered up shoddy fireproofing in order to benefit Larry Silverstein's insurance claim, then how do you know they didn't cover up CD also?"

Because there was no so-called "CD", you retarded marmoset.

 
At 01 February, 2010 19:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Circular reason much?

 
At 01 February, 2010 20:41, Anonymous New Yorker said...

If NIST covered up shoddy fireproofing in order to benefit Larry Silverstein's insurance claim, then how do you know they didn't cover up CD also?

"If". Brian, every single claim you've ever made about 9/11 has been qualified by "if". Can you please make an argument using facts for once, instead of the loony hypothetical floating around inside your head?

 
At 01 February, 2010 23:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

People who do logic find "if" to be a useful conjunction.

People who don't do logic rarely need it; there are few conditionals in their world.

 
At 02 February, 2010 04:49, Anonymous New Yorker said...

People who do logic find "if" to be a useful conjunction.

People who don't do logic rarely need it; there are few conditionals in their world.


Yes, it certainly is useful. For example, if you weren't such a raging misogynist, you might have gotten laid once in your life. If you weren't convinced of your own superior intellect when you're a complete moron, you might be able to hold down a janitor's job and move out of your parents' place. If you didn't stalk Carol Brouillet, you might not have been fired by Richard Gage. If you didn't post those ridiculous "rake-on-rake" drawings at DU, we'd have one less thing to laugh at you about.

Trust me, I know the value of "if".

 
At 02 February, 2010 05:27, Anonymous petgoat said...

New Yorker, I really wish you'd stop accusing Brian Good of being me. Yes, I did those drawings at DU, but that was back during a bad time in my life. I was drinking a quart of Johnnie Walker a day and shooting heroin as well, so in my drug and booze-induced haze, I thought "meatball on a fork" made sense. I've sobered up since then and I know how ridiculous those drawings look.

Brian, if you really think those drawings describe anything, you should see a mental health professional. Mental illness is no joke.

 
At 02 February, 2010 20:33, Anonymous Brian Good said...

Petgoat, it is amusing, isn't it, that on no evidence New Yorker
concludes that you are me.

Actually, petgoat, I see no need for you to apologize for the meatball on a fork model. It seems to me to be quite as elegant as Mr. Gage's box models. And much more believable than Dr. Bazant's crazy centroid piledriver model.

Thanks for the work you did exposing Willie Rodriguez's lies. I also heard you showed William Seger for a liar at DU, something about some falsified blueprints.

Keep up the good fight.






vpmc;udesew Yorker, I really wish you'd stop accusing Brian Good of being me. Yes, I did those drawings at DU, but that was back during a bad time in my life. I was drinking a quart of Johnnie Walker a day and shooting heroin as well, so in my drug and booze-induced haze, I thought "meatball on a fork" made sense. I've sobered up since then and I know how ridiculous those drawings look.

Brian, if you really think those drawings describe anything, you should see a mental health professional. Mental illness is no joke.

New Yorker, I really wish you'd stop accusing Brian Good of being me. Yes, I did those drawings at DU, but that was back during a bad time in my life. I was drinking a quart of Johnnie Walker a day and shooting heroin as well, so in my drug and booze-induced haze, I thought "meatball on a fork" made sense. I've sobered up since then and I know how ridiculous those drawings look.

Brian, if you really think those drawings describe anything, you should see a mental health professional. Mental illness is no joke.

 
At 03 February, 2010 07:26, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Hey, Brian has finally started using his name! Woo-hoo!

Anyway, I found a different DU thread than the classic one I'm always linking to with "just you wait, gentlemen" and the 4 scribbles including "rake-on-rake".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=94447&mesg_id=94447

This might be Brian at his most entertaining. Not only does he post his "meatball on a fork" gibberish, much to the delight of those laughing at him at DU, but he's got some ever crazier ideas. The "bird's nest on a fence" analogy is beyond insane.

But probably the most insane thing Brian has ever suggested (and this is saying something given we're dealing with Mr. smoldering carpets and LIHOP/MIHOP at the same time) is that the WTC was built with the explosives already in place. You see, NYC can experience hurricanes, so you never know when you might need to bring down a gigantic skyscraper so that the hurricane doesn't hit it. Seriously. He says (or implies) this.

Also, it's been over 3 years since that thread. Have you accomplished any of your "truth"-related goals in that time, Brian?

 
At 03 February, 2010 07:36, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Hey, you never know when a hurricane might hit and you need to destroy high-rise buildings in advance of the hurricane. Remember when the Miami skyline was detonated before Hurricane Andrew? And remember how they used the rubble of the detonated One Shell Square to act as a makeshift levee to spare New Orleans from even more flooding during Katrina?

And one of the coolest things I've ever seen was when CNN carried the demolition of Houston's JP Morgan Chase Tower live in anticipation of Hurricane Ike striking.

Brian, forget what I've said about seeing a psychiatrist. You're way beyond any help.

 
At 03 February, 2010 07:38, Anonymous Wesley Willis said...

Brian, if you start playing the keyboard and singing, and drawing sketches of the San Francisco skyline, you can become famous and beloved like I was. You should use your mental illness for good, instead of wasting it. First, you have to learn to be less obnoxious and less creepy towards women.

 
At 04 February, 2010 09:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More scintillating research and analysis over here at Truth Confidential, featuring its courageous litter of pseudonymous debunker kittens!

 
At 04 February, 2010 16:20, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

And did you get a load of the ring kissing ceremony in comments #2,#3 and #1? Sheeesh,talk about sickening log rollers.The weird and wacky Debunker Cult:"We try our best and crash land virtually every time!!!"

 
At 04 February, 2010 17:35, Blogger Triterope said...

Anonymous said...

"pseudonymous debunker kittens!"


**facepalm**

 
At 04 February, 2010 17:37, Blogger Triterope said...

Hey, Brian has finally started using his name! Woo-hoo!

Yes, and thanks to him for that. It makes things so much easier to sort out.

 
At 08 February, 2010 00:39, Anonymous Brian Good Sex Stalker said...

And you're not smart enough to figure out that anybody in the world can enter "Brian Good" in the "name" field and you'll think it's me?

And you nimrods think I'm petgoat and punxsutwaneybernie and who knows who all else. What a bunch of daffydils.

 
At 08 February, 2010 15:56, Blogger Triterope said...

And you're not smart enough to figure out that anybody in the world can enter "Brian Good" in the "name" field

Anyone could enter "Brian Good" in the name field on the Haloscan site. Didn't cause much problem then.

 
At 09 February, 2010 15:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you know it didn't cause problems then. It caused plenty of problems then!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home