Which CTer do you enjoy being out-facted? [Archive]

beachnut

28th January 2007, 02:14 AM

Go over to Screwloosechange forums and just take a look at any post by Stundie. It will blow your mind.

Stundie is a standard CTer; no facts, no idea what really happened, and not a chance at being able to figure it out.

Stundie lack of facts is due to the fact he spends too much time looking for someone talking about him instead of learning physics or CD, or anything useful.

(Stundie, some of us finished school and have an education. Reading about yourself and ignoring facts is not helping your abilities to solve 9/11. Just talk does not work; you have just talk no facts. You can make up all the dumb ideas you want but without facts they are just stories made up by dolts for 9/11 truth. Check out your truth experts; none of them have a clue; they even tell you the same.)

Zero facts from the entire truth movement. The big CT thing is we just want another investigation. While the experts in the movement should be able to do an independent investigation on 9/11; they have instead decided to sell lies and peddle false conclusion for some unknown reason; some for money, some for their own Nixon like political ends!

MG1962

28th January 2007, 02:49 AM

The interesting thing with stundie - he admited once he is not convinced about these theories. Just likes to throw them out there and see what happens.

His defense of melting concrete was precious

orphia nay

28th January 2007, 03:30 AM

I've been debating an ex-Vietnam vet in a private forum on and off for over a year. It's very sad. No matter how many times I point out it was not "arabs in caves", that I am neither American nor Republican, or that Northwoods was rejected because it was batcraptastic, he keeps bringing them up. He seems oblivious to the fact that all the controlled demolition supporters' theories have cancelled each other out (SWBW, thermite, mininukes). He's admitted to many psychological problems and personal relationship breakdowns because of his beliefs. Sad, sad, very very sad. Sigh. Mind you, the 9/11 threads have quietened down of late.

But I do love to take a break from that and watch Killtown's unwitting impersonation of the Black Knight.
:pythonfoot:

Andúril

28th January 2007, 03:42 AM

I like bashing them all.

The only problem with fighting against conspiracy theorists is that constant witnessing of unlimited stupidity and ignorance can make you feel arrogant.

It would also be even more satisfying if the CTs would be smart enough to realize that they are defeated and then just go away. But no, they keep repeating and repeating their delusions, and again and again you must crush them to prevent innocent souls, who are reading their texts, from falling into Darkness.

Architect

28th January 2007, 09:15 AM

uk_dave

28th January 2007, 09:24 AM

Well at least by focusing on 9/11 the truthers aren't getting close to our real conspiracy and still use their computers in blissful ignorance.

;)

Loss Leader

28th January 2007, 10:03 AM

Architect

28th January 2007, 10:27 AM

I like the ones who wander into economic, social or political theory - TS1234 or Se7enSnakes. Neither lasted long in that arena, sadly. I don't think the "just asking questions" strategy works well for philosophical topics.

I have to admit that I wandered off into politics and found a bunch with political logic and understanding just as sound as the CTers; I'm beginning to suspect some sort of "loudmouth eejit" gene which runs in about 5 to 10% of the population, plus (of course) all politicians. :eye-poppi

VespaGuy

28th January 2007, 10:46 AM

For lack of a better word, I "enjoyed" debating Reggie_Perrin over at LCF. He made things easy by continually used hyperbole in almost everyone of his arguments, saying things like "the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world." When asked for proof, he changed his statement to "the Pentagon is one of the most secure buildings in the world." and then waffled even further to "the Pentagon is highly secure." Before I was banned, Reggie was still unable to prove that the Pentagon was any more secure against the 9/11 attacks then the towers.

Like most of the CTs, Reggie was never able to back up any of his claims and simply moved the goalposts; I'd link to some of my favorites, but as with anything incriminating at LFC, many of the threads have been deleted.

GlennB

28th January 2007, 10:58 AM

.......Like most of the CTs, Reggie was never able to back up any of his claims and simply moved the goalposts; I'd link to some of my favorites, but as with anything incriminating at LFC, many of the threads have been deleted.

It's true. One of the nutters over there was claiming that 2 pool balls, moving at the same speed and colliding head-on, would stop dead. "Conservation of momentum" was to blame, apparently :D
Sometime later all evidence of this part of the debate has been deleted.

It really does seem to be the case that LC'ers can just contact the admins and say "er, like, wow ..... that JREF'er just dissed me bigtime! Delete those posts, man? Cool"

Arus808

28th January 2007, 11:42 AM

of course KillClown, PDoh, Lyte and Merc are fun watching them be outwitted....

Dang, too bad this isn't a game of Survivor.

Firestone

28th January 2007, 01:07 PM

I like it when they are forced to bury their "head" in the sand, like Lyte Trip here (about the DNA of the flight 77 passengers):

Nice attempt at dodging. Why not just admit that you willfully ignore evidence that contradicts your fantasy?

With that kind of bias, do you think anyone is going to take your "documentary" seriously?Well please demonstrate how it is in fact evidence.

Have you had independent professionals view the DNA? Have you seen records pertaining to the retrieval, chain of custody, and analysis of the DNA?

Names listed on a paper is not evidence, my friend.

As for small personal effects like rings, and luggage tags-are you saying that intelligence operatives wouldn't plant evidence to help frame muslims?

Alareth

28th January 2007, 01:47 PM

I haven't directly debated any CT in particular, there are others that can do a much better job.

I do enjoy it when they try to back claims using evidence that is completely contrary to their point.

MarkyX

28th January 2007, 01:56 PM

The Bin Laden confession tape. This shows that there is a good chance that the majority of 9/11 Deniers do not want the guilty to be Islamic Extremists, because they don't know anything about them.

"He is using his right hand! HE IS LEFT HANDED"

This is the second page to appear on google when typing "left hand islam". First hit was a broken link.

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying: ‘Do not eat with your left hand, because Satan eats and drinks with his left hand.’” (Reported by Muslim.)

This tradition reflects the unseen wisdom behind eating and drinking with the right hand, as we see that Satan, who seeks to lead us away from Allah, eats and drinks with the left. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has taught us a complete system to release ourselves from Satan’s control, and thereby earn the Pleasure of Allah.

Of course, one could explore the medical benefits of designating the right hand for eating for example, and the left for less sanitary acts, but this is not the purpose of our answer nor does it reflect the larger picture that we have tried to portray.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016046&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

I honestly think the big motivation behind the 9/11 Deniers to point blame at the government is because they know the government, who runs it, how it's run, and where it's located. The Islamic Extremists, on the other hand, they know nothing about the religious fanatics and in order for them to disappear, they need to rely on the government.

A big psychological mess. They are forced to believe the government did 9/11 due to fear of their ignorance.

Alareth

28th January 2007, 02:13 PM

A big psychological mess. They are forced to believe the government did 9/11 due to fear of their ignorance.

I disagree. They don't fear their own ignorance. They revel in it.

MarkyX

28th January 2007, 02:19 PM

I disagree. They don't fear their own ignorance. They revel in it.

No, they fear it. They avoid anything that is backed up by science, meaning they avoid facts. They don't understand how buildings fall or how things work, and thus must come up with alternative explaination to fit their world view. Because they don't understand, they are worried about a problem they cannot come up with a solution for.

That is why these theories exist. You'll notice that a good majority of theories are revolved around big events that would seem rather surreal at first, such as JFK, the holocaust, and 9/11. They find the surreal nature of these events impossible or not understadable, thus must make something so that they understand it.

PerryLogan

28th January 2007, 03:17 PM

It is their tragedy that what they make up is dumb.

gumboot

29th January 2007, 02:04 AM

My favourite thing to watch is when a CTer comes out spouting nonsense, and when questioned they start spouting of claims of expertise and delving into side issues.

Okay, so that's not fun.

But what IS fun is when a JREFer turns up and goes "Oh, I'm an engineer" or "Oh hang on, I can calculate how much explosives would be needed" or "I'm an avionics expert, hang a sec while I dig out my 767 manual" or "oh you're talking about LAW now? Goodey, because I'm a lawyer"

It's just beautiful to behold. It's as if every time they cite "faster than freefall" Isaac Newton's ghost rises out of the ground and bitch slaps them.

-Gumboot

8den

29th January 2007, 03:53 AM

I have one over on urban 75, Jazzz - extra z apparent compulsory - who has to be one of the stunningly worst debaters I've ever come across. He plucked the "600% safety factor" for the core out of the air - admints it - but doesnae see what's wrong with posting such information.

Just for extra amusement, he cherry picks quotes from articles which actually debunk his own case and then storms off in the huff when the full text is quoted back at him.

Fish in a barrel, lads - the whole flippin' bunch of them.

Man that urban75.net is a classic, it's reached the point where some people are begging the architect to stop, because it's like watching the internet equivelent of kicking a man when he's not just down, but a bloody stain on the floor.

Jazzz doesn't and cannot figure out that he's beat and just keeps getting up for another pounding. In the eyes of many posters he's gone from an annoying twat to someone who should just be pitied

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 08:38 AM

He plucked the "600% safety factor" for the core out of the air

What does a 600% safety factor even mean? Does it mean that the uilding could bear six times the load it was designed to without collapsing? And, even if that were so, what does that have to do with knocking out supports and setting the rest of them on fire for ninety minutes?

Architect

29th January 2007, 09:24 AM

What does a 600% safety factor even mean? Does it mean that the uilding could bear six times the load it was designed to without collapsing? And, even if that were so, what does that have to do with knocking out supports and setting the rest of them on fire for ninety minutes?

My point exactly.

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 09:56 AM

My point exactly.

Okay, but now I'm actually asking a real architecture/engineering/design question: Is there even such a thing as a "600% safety factor"?

JonnyFive

29th January 2007, 10:25 AM

Just for extra amusement, he cherry picks quotes from articles which actually debunk his own case and then storms off in the huff when the full text is quoted back at him.

Yeah, they hate that.

Which begs the question: Why even quote it to begin with? They already make tons of unfounded assertions without providing evidence, so why open themselves up to such embarassment?

uk_dave

29th January 2007, 10:43 AM

Okay, but now I'm actually asking a real architecture/engineering/design question: Is there even such a thing as a "600% safety factor"?

Yeah, it looks like this.....

http://www.confluence.org/mn/all/n47e115/pic9.jpg

Lurker

29th January 2007, 10:47 AM

Okay, but now I'm actually asking a real architecture/engineering/design question: Is there even such a thing as a "600% safety factor"?

Speaking as an engineer (MSME), I would presume the 600% safety factor to mean a safety factor of 6 but I am not sure of what the 600% means by itself. What would a 100% safety factor mean? Does it mean the design is designed for maximum loads to its failure point? Or does it mean the safety factor is 2 (100% above max loads) and the design is designed to withstand twice the maximum load? Using a percentage like the "600%" is a tad unclear.

Lurker

JAStewart

29th January 2007, 10:54 AM

Surely 600% safety factor means 600%/100% = 6/1 thus the building can support six times its own weight?

Lurker

29th January 2007, 11:40 AM

Surely 600% safety factor means 600%/100% = 6/1 thus the building can support six times its own weight?

Well, I am used to safety factors being termed in integral numbers, not percentages, but that is my experience.

But the safety factor is not proportional to the weight of the structure at all. Think of it like this problem here:

1. A bolt needs to carry a maximum load of 100 lbs.
2. If I design the bolt to withstand a load of 600 lbs by making it much thicker than needed then my safety factor is 6.
3. Note that the weight of the bolt or structure is not involved at all.

The safety factor refers to the ratio of (load to cause failure) / (maximum designed load).

Lurker

rwguinn

29th January 2007, 12:06 PM

Well, I am used to safety factors being termed in integral numbers, not percentages, but that is my experience.

But the safety factor is not proportional to the weight of the structure at all. Think of it like this problem here:

1. A bolt needs to carry a maximum load of 100 lbs.
2. If I design the bolt to withstand a load of 600 lbs by making it much thicker than needed then my safety factor is 6.
3. Note that the weight of the bolt or structure is not involved at all.

The safety factor refers to the ratio of (load to cause failure) / (maximum designed load).

Lurker

Margin is generally in %.
in other words, Margin is " [(load to cause failure) / (maximum designed load)"]-1

so a margin of 600% (6.0) is a Factor of Safety of 7.0

I serriously doubt that the idiot who pulled that number out of his hat will understand either term...

Architect

29th January 2007, 01:28 PM

Spektator

29th January 2007, 01:34 PM

Didn't Peter Griffin once out-fact Michael Moore in a men's room? Oh, no, wait, that was something else.

rwguinn

29th January 2007, 01:54 PM

I could be wrong, but I've only heard engineers use ratios - not percentages. For example 1.32 (ie a 32% safety factor).

However one thing that woowoos and others inexperienced in engineering forget is that safety factors will not be universal to all forces or bedning moments. It would be perfectly possible to have quite a high factor for (say) compressive loads but be lower for a horizontal bending moment, depending upon overall design.

We use margins cuz that's what the customer ordered.
Instead of saying "you have a safety factor of 1", we tell them "your margin is zero". (Military aircraft are stressed to a margin of 0 or greater, based on the worst-case loading)
Negative margins are bad.
Translated to a building, I guess a zero margin would be read as "Really!Don't jump up and down on the 110th floor!"

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 02:07 PM

"Really!Don't jump up and down on the 110th floor!"

And don't carry up any pocket change with you.

JonnyFive

29th January 2007, 02:10 PM

And don't carry up any pocket change with you.

"And if any of you weigh more than 120 pounds... god help us all."

Lurker

29th January 2007, 02:18 PM

Margin is generally in %.
in other words, Margin is " [(load to cause failure) / (maximum designed load)"]-1

so a margin of 600% (6.0) is a Factor of Safety of 7.0

I serriously doubt that the idiot who pulled that number out of his hat will understand either term...

Agreed. and that was my concern with the use of 600%. I am unsure whether the person who used that term meant 6x or 7x. Also agree that the "idiot" who originally wrote the term has no idea what he wrote.

Lurker

A W Smith

29th January 2007, 03:06 PM

Yeah, it looks like this.....

http://www.confluence.org/mn/all/n47e115/pic9.jpg

They must have factored in the snow load:)

rwguinn

29th January 2007, 03:15 PM

Yeah, it looks like this.....

http://www.confluence.org/mn/all/n47e115/pic9.jpg

The visible structure would have 600% from 3 sides only, and only from bullets and possibly grenades.
I would estimate its margin for nuke blast to be, oh, maybe -5.0e6?

WilliamSeger

29th January 2007, 04:03 PM

Okay, but now I'm actually asking a real architecture/engineering/design question: Is there even such a thing as a "600% safety factor"?

I'm not a structural engineer, but I worked for about 5 years as a structural draftsman, and this is the way I understand it: In structural engineering, "safety factor" and "factor of safety" mean two slightly different things. A "safety factor" is a multiplier applied to loads (or stresses, such as vertical force, torque, or bending moment) for each individual type of load (e.g. dead load, live load, wind load), an amount which depends on the type of component (columns, floors, stairs) and type of structure (residential, industrial, office). This factor is to account for possible underestimates in the loading (i.e. it's an "uncertainty factor"). Then, the total calculated load is multiplied by a "factor of safety" to account for possible flaws in materials or construction and degradation over time. Dead load safety factors are typically smaller than live (dynamic) loads, both because dead loads can usually be determined more accurately, and because there is a "size effect" associated with using too large a factor (because increasing the size of a component also increases its weight). Typical safety factors for commercial construction are 1.4 for dead load and 1.7 to 2 for most live loads. The factor of safety added at the end of the load calculation for steel structures is typically 1.67 (and that was the design criterion used in the WTC towers), and about 2 to as much as 5 for reinforced concrete (depending mainly on the type of component).

NIST "reverse-engineered" the columns in the WTC towers and found a "utilization factor" (the inverse of the factor of safety) of about 0.6 for the core columns and probably around 0.2 for the perimeter columns with respect to gravity loads alone (because the governing factor in the perimeter column design was wind loading, which wasn't a factor on 9/11).

But the thing that bugs me about "truther" use of these numbers is that if you lose structural integrity -- which surely happened in the collapse -- these numbers don't mean much at all. FEMA found that most of the perimeter columns and about half the core columns were not buckled at all, which implies that they were simply knocked out of the way before they reached their maximum capacity.

Architect

29th January 2007, 04:05 PM

Right, I've ploughed through NIST...again.

- Core columns in typically had a Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR) of 0.83 with around 10.6% of components exceeding design capacity under normal conditions.

- Hat Truss Columns had a typical DCR of 0.59, with 14.3% exceeding design capacity (some by DCRs of up to 1.95).

Other elements of the trusses had lower DCRs, however a truss is only as strong as the weakest member so we can set these to one side.

So not even 200%, basically.

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 05:33 PM

Thanks, WS and Architect. Although, to be honest, my head almost exploded from the stress of comprehending that. I went to law school on the express condition that there be no math.

Andúril

29th January 2007, 05:50 PM

No, they fear it. They avoid anything that is backed up by science, meaning they avoid facts. They don't understand how buildings fall or how things work, and thus must come up with alternative explaination to fit their world view. Because they don't understand, they are worried about a problem they cannot come up with a solution for.

That is why these theories exist. You'll notice that a good majority of theories are revolved around big events that would seem rather surreal at first, such as JFK, the holocaust, and 9/11. They find the surreal nature of these events impossible or not understadable, thus must make something so that they understand it.
So it's simply their version of "goddidit".

It is true that most "truthers" are in other discussions strongly defending islamic extremists with all sorts of "islam is a religion of peace" etc. -crap. I've "met" some who really, really believed that the Taleban-ruled Afghanistan was virtually a paradise until the Evil Yankees came and bombed the place into a desert. So much for their general knowledge.

EnergeticChemistry

29th January 2007, 07:54 PM

I've been debating..well..I learned to debate 9/11 over at DCjunkies.com with a user named 'stefan segal'..a truly impossible CT. He's a 60-something year old man..I swear he's senile or something, but as I said- he's impossible to debate with. Ignores everything, and cuts and pastes like a mad man as if his one goal is not to debate, but to make his posts the longest possible. It's so frusterating :(.

eeyore1954

30th January 2007, 05:30 AM

Out of all the times they have been "outfacted " how many times have they recognized it. ALmost never from my experience. I think I remember Londoneye admitting the Achilles project was biased once but still claiming the calls were impossible.
A simple case in point is the pictures of 6 story buildings toppling after an earthquake rather than collapsing that pop up from time to time in a debate. These buildings have the layers of floor present to be seen . I have never once heard one admit that maybe , just maybe the floors might have just possibly been damaged more if they had fallen over several hundred feet and had several hundred thousand of tons of other debris land on them. Not even mentioning that the construction was different than the WTC towers.

you can ask them what do they think will happen if you drop a piece of concrete from 1000 feet. doesn't work because the fall was "cushioned" by the other debris.
you can ask what would happen to that broken concrete if you dropped a few desks and a couple of computers on it but that doesn't work because the buildings were pulverized before they hit the ground.

ETC, Etc

Lurker

30th January 2007, 09:17 AM

In my debate with a friend of mine who is a CTer, I took on of his initial claims about melting steel and just honed in on the temperatures. He claimed that tmperatures could not have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel or melt it. He claimed that oxygen fed fires do not get that hot.

I researched and found numerous firefighting articles that talked about average home fires that far exceeded what he said was possible in WTC. He kept trying to dodge and change the topic but I kept hammering him with one article after another and articles about structural steel and how it was effected by temperature. Eventually he had enough of me and agreed that the fires could be hot enough to substantively reduce the strength of the steel.

It was very difficult not to follow him down other rabbit holes though but I thinik that is what is required in order to make any points. You have to maintain the tenacity and singlemindedness of a starving bulldog with a bone.

Lurker

pagan

31st January 2007, 08:23 AM

They all get out-facted (is that even a word?), but which one is your favourite?

Personally I think that there is no better bag of ludicrous quotes that come from KKKilltown when he is [always] losing a debate.

White-trash under pressure. It makes you feel so-o-o-o good.

My fav to get "out-facted" would be myself.

Unfortunately, it has not happened yet. This is probably because the facts are on our side and that we are slightly more intelligent then you.

Gullible we are not. If we are handed a BS story used as a pretext for starting wars and stealing oil. We get suspicious and immediately start taking it apart using our critical faculties. We consider this our duty as human beings (slightly more intelligent then you).:cool:

Firestone

31st January 2007, 08:41 AM

My fav to get "out-facted" would be myself.

Unfortunately, it has not happened yet. This is probably because the facts are on our side and that we are slightly more intelligent then you.

Gullible we are not. If we are handed a BS story used as a pretext for starting wars and stealing oil. We get suspicious and immediately start taking it apart using our critical faculties. We consider this our duty as human beings (slightly more intelligent then you).:cool:Well, then please fulfill your duty as an intelligent human being with critical faculties and provide us with the FACTS and EVIDENCE that prove your inside-job thesis.

Can't be that difficult, right?

You can do it in this thread: 9/11 Truthers - Post Your Conspiracy Theory Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72448), courtesy of Wildcat.

Or you can do it in a new thread, perhaps using Orphia Nay's format outlined here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2255868&postcount=89).

I know you chickened out before in these two threads, but since you are slightly more intelligent than the sheep here, it really can't be that difficult, right?

JonnyFive

31st January 2007, 09:03 AM

Unfortunately, it has not happened yet. This is probably because the facts are on our side and that we are slightly more intelligent then you.

Gullible we are not. If we are handed a BS story used as a pretext for starting wars and stealing oil. We get suspicious and immediately start taking it apart using our critical faculties. We consider this our duty as human beings (slightly more intelligent then you).:cool:

Actually, I would think that it's because you have yet to even present a coherent theory of what you think happened, let alone any facts to support it. You are the ultimate "just asking questions" truther.

Your "war for oil" theory indicates that we should add "economics" to the list of subjects that truthers apparently do not bother to understand. Care to explain how the cost of the war is balanced out by the value of the oil found?

The Silver Shadow

31st January 2007, 09:23 AM

It is true that most "truthers" are in other discussions strongly defending islamic extremists with all sorts of "islam is a religion of peace" etc. -crap.
as a Muslim, Islam IS a religion of peace. The hijackers, like the CTer's, took their Koran out of context and made it fit their view. This was a breakaway sect of Muslims who carried out the attacks. I don't even want to call them Muslim because of what they have done and what views they harbour.

Just to clear things up...

Architect

31st January 2007, 03:30 PM

Mashuna

1st February 2007, 04:27 AM

Out of all the times they have been "outfacted " how many times have they recognized it. Almost never from my experience.

My fav to get "out-facted" would be myself.

Unfortunately, it has not happened yet. This is probably because the facts are on our side and that we are slightly more intelligent then you.

Any questions?

PerryLogan

1st February 2007, 05:28 AM

Of course, I think about Alex Jones in this context...but how do you debunk a whole Bizarro World of fantasy?

If you confront Alex Jones with facts, he just freaks out, picks up his bullhorn, and repeats his factoids again--very typical conspiradroid behavior.

Say...if conspiracy guys get out-facted, don't we debunkers sometimes get "out-factoided"? That's when the Truther turns off your microphone and inundates you with long-debunked memes.

Mashuna

1st February 2007, 05:52 AM

double post

HeyLeroy

2nd February 2007, 08:49 AM

Someone recently posted a pic of the partially-collapsed core of one of the towers, barely visible through the dust cloud, an instant before it too collapsed.

Anyone know the picture and in which thread I could find it?

Thanks, guys.

A W Smith

2nd February 2007, 01:29 PM

JonnyFive

2nd February 2007, 01:31 PM

the realstice thread maybe?

AH! Where?! Help, it's happening again! Concrete core... eroc etercnoC... EROC ETERCNOC!

VespaGuy

2nd February 2007, 01:54 PM

This is probably because the facts are on our side and that we are slightly more intelligent then you.

I'm not sure who you are including in the "we", but I'll assume you mean that CTs are more intelligent than the JREFers.

There is a thread within this very forum where folks have listed their occupations and education. I suggest that you take a trip over to the Loose Change forum and start a similar thread. I guarantee that there is a gap in the levels of intelligence between the average CT over there and the average JREFer, but not in the manor you suggest.