About Tanoro

Christopher "Tanoro" Gray is a web programmer and science advocate especially concerned with resource management technologies, biology, and artificial intelligence. He is a student of epistemology and philosophy as well as an Atheist competent in Christian theology.
HOME > View Blog  >  9/11 Twoofers: Give me a Break
9/11 Twoofers: Give me a Break
Posted by: Tanoro - Sep 11, 2013 12:31PM

This is predictable. On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, the twoofers are rampant with straw men, pseudoscience, and general ass-hattery.

"The official story is nonsense!" I'm not going to argue that. I give skepticism all the room it needs. However, skepticism is rigidly defined in such a way that positive claims are forbidden in order to remain skeptical. Twoofers have a tendency to claim that 9/11 was an inside job -- a positive, non-skeptical claim -- and once they are taken to task for it, they back-peddle into the innocent realm of skepticism where they do not belong. If these twoofers were any slimier, I could kill them with a box of salt. They are dishonest nutjobs and deserve to be called out for it.

"Building 7 was not hit by a plane!" Yea, we fucking know that. Nobody is suggesting that it was. You are implying that a plane did not hit the building, therefore something else caused the building to collapse. This is correct. However, you don't get to jump straight to "controlled demolition." This is a conclusion that needs evidence on its own merit.

"What about the traces of thermite found around the WTC after the collapse?" The samples of thermite reportedly collected on-scene are not good enough because there is no verifiable means of determining their origin and plenty of other studies conducted at the same time did not find evidence of thermite. Apply Occam's Razor. This suggests that the odd man out is probably a hoax, an error, or a fraud.

"Building 7 fell at 'free fall speed.'" No, it didn't. WTC7 fell from the top-down, inside out. Claimants that the building fell at free fall are only accounting for the last phase of the drop (the outer shell of the building that is visible), not the entire thing.

"Fuel fire cannot melt steel!" It doesn't need to. It only needs to cause just enough thermal expansion to damage structural fasteners.

"Nowhere in history has a building collapsed by fire!" That depends on your definition of the word "building." We have examples of bridges and such structures that did collapse under fire. However, if you want to specifically find a skyscraper or office building, you would be hard-pressed to find one example in which the critical conditions adequately match. In nearly every case throughout history, an office building catching fire gets immediate emergency response (i.e. sprinkler systems, Halon, firefighters, etc.). WTC7 had no emergency response available. Firefighters were everywhere else that day and the water main was damaged by the collapse of the towers. WTC7 was a rare case of fires burning uncontrolled for several hours. To compare this case to any random building fire is a false comparison and suggests a severe flaw in one's standard of evidence.

Some people have asked why I call 9/11 truthers "twoofers." Well, it is because I'm a student of epistemology and have more respect for the term "truth" than they do. As Aron Ra once put it, "We should listen to those who seek the truth and doubt those who claim to have it." Twoofers do not know what the word "truth" means. They throw the word around as if it gives them authority. In their narcissism, they pretend to be more enlightened than those of us who do not share their point of view. Yet, when argued into a corner, they tap-dance around like any dishonest fool with a personel bias.

Now, I realize you twoofers out there think like Sith Lords -- either I'm with you or I must be among the enemy. Some of you feel that your standard of evidence is SOOOOO superior and that you're SOOOOO infallible that one cannot possibly disagree with you unless they are biased against you. Get over yourself. You're not right by default. This reasoning is why you're a nutjob and it is your problem, not mine. If you don't like being called a nutjob, fix your standard of evidence.

This blog is an editorial and contains only the opinions of the author. The author claims no expertise on most topics of discussion and this blog is not to be cited as an alternative for properly vetted journalism or scientific sources.

comments powered by Disqus