Nuts Are Just Nuts
There’s really nothing else you can say about these people:
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an “inside job”, according to a group of leading academics.
Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.
I’m curious what the requirements are to be proclaimed a “leading academic”.
Dropped on your head several times immediately after birth?
This ever-growing conspiracy simply amazes me. These people will never be satisfied that they are wrong; they simply expand the net until we were all involved in it, I suppose.
Morality | Mr. Bingley | 
September 6, 2006 10:31 am
Subscribe
I don’t recall the exact wording, but George Orwell once said that there are some things so ridiculous that only an academic could believe them.
We have truly educated ourselves into imbecility… Their love of dark, secret plots is shared by their Islamic brothers.
But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don’t fit into their belief systems.
He said: “People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it.”
Pot, kettle, black.
Bunch of friggin’ idiots. They should be flipping burgers, not teaching.
I have friends, several in fact, who swear on the Bible that United 93 was shot down by our military, not sent crashing to the earth by a struggle between the hijackers and the passengers.
I had never even HEARD that particular theory until one night while we were out. When I expressed, um, DISBELIEF, everyone kept saying how naive I was and how there was no way a plane crash wouldn’t have left any debris or bodies.
I say they don’t know jet fuel from Shinola.
…there was no way a plane crash wouldn’t have left any debris or bodies.
Augering into the ground at several hundred miles an hour will leave bodies intact?
My head aches.
Leading academics from BYU? Heheheheh. Does the 9-11 seminar come before or after your Young Earth Seminar, Mr. Professor?
“there was no way a plane crash wouldn’t have left any debris or bodies”
Um, seriously, that’s the first time I’ve heard the claim that there was no debris at the crash site.
500+ mph, almost straight in.
Just guessing, Ken, but I think Lisa’s friends are comparing UA93 to other airline crashes, which generally take place sometime during take off and landing. At least, the media always shows a burned-out-but-sort-of-intact fuselage, and bodies strewn about, which is possible because they are coming in (relatively speaking) low and slow. Not always, I admit, but usually. But something of the site says “airplane crash!”
In contrast, UA93 literally nosed in (salt shaker alert)“…at nearly 600 mph (970 km/h)”. Debris had to dug out of the ground; the flight recorders were 25 feet down.
I suppose some people (e.g., Lisa’s friends) simply don’t accept that the hole outside of Shanksville came from a deliberate airplane crash, either from ignorance, fear, or both. Denial at its worse. Maybe physics should be a mandatory course starting in the 4th grade.
Obviously, the Daily Mail has a different definition of “leading scientist” from me; in fact I don’t think that you could see their definition from mine with the aid of the Mt. Palomar telescope.
From all of those “leading scientists”, they can get two quotes, one from a dude who holds two Master’s – one in French, one in English Lit, and an expert in Cold Fusion who has not published anything since 2003 (and those were 2 conference presentations, not real papers). There’s some leading scientists for you.
Also, doesn’t an airplane that’s shot down leave a much wider debris field? And, since wreckage is unpowered and unaerodynamic, it wouldn’t exceed terminal velocity, so wouldn’t you see much more intact wreckage? “Almost no debris” would seem to imply that the plane was intact on impact with the ground, not the reverse.
The left is in need of strong medicating starting with lithium and working up to an including mega-doses of Atropine.
This article also proves that debate and discussion has become obsolete and utterly useless.
Nightfly:
Don’t try and figure out moonbat logic. They believe that a twenty five pound warhead, commonly found in the AIM-9 missile, can disintegrate a full size passenger airliner. The left learned everything about physics from Prof. Wile E. Coyote (Genius).
Also, doesn’t an airplane that’s shot down leave a much wider debris field?
[snip]
They believe that a twenty five pound warhead, commonly found in the AIM-9 missile, can disintegrate a full size passenger airliner.
Gunslinger is right, as is Nightfly. A missile targets the aircraft engine and supporting wing, which is all you need. These are heavier than air aircraft. By definition, if the aircraft loses lift, it becomes a falling rock. If it loses control, it’s an out of control rock.
A missile big enough to “disintegrate” (for lack of a better word) an entire airline would need, what, a warhead with a couple hundred pounds of explosives? I’m assuming that we are going for Hollywood style explosions, where one massive fireball consumes the aircraft and passenger instantly, no survivors or souvenirs, but a nifty movie scene, suitable for an Oscar.
Pardon the sarcasm — I think I prefer Wil E. Coyote to these dunderheads. Same for the “leading” scientists. Heck, I’d rather have Daffy Duck behind the podium. At least I’d have a good reason to laugh.
Sigh, don’t you realize Jeff that all these people were spirited away to one of the Gulags North Of Lileks (referred to as “GNOLs” by those of us in the know)?
I should not have told you that.
I’d forgotten that, Mr. Bingley. Deliberately.
Some of the nuts are running for office…
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184553.php
Oh lordie, Guns…
I submitted a comment to the Daily Mail but I doubt it will be published. First, it’s Mount Holyoke, not “Holyoake;” the paper misspells the name of the prestigious college that employs the sane professor who torpedoes the conspiracy theory. Second, Kevin Barrett is an adjunct, not an assistant professor. That means that he is a temporary part time employee at the University of Wisconsin (see Ann Althouse for more discussion). The Daily Mail has inflated his rank to make his theories sound more important.
“They believe that a twenty five pound warhead, commonly found in the AIM-9 missile, can disintegrate a full size passenger airliner.”
And at the same time believe that a missile fired from an Israeli drone or helicopter can punch a small hole in an ambulance and leave it largely intact. It’s magic.
Good grief, it didn’t even occur to me that it was THAT Barrett the writer with the suspiciously-middle-eastern-sounding name was talking about!
But dear, they’re leading scientists and scholars! They say so themselves!
they’re leading scientists and scholars! They say so themselves!
[Cue Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner]
“So where did you get your psychiatric training?”
“Texas.”
“University of?”
“State of.”
“Pardon?”
“I was standing out in the field and I put my hand on a rock and said ‘I am a psychiatrist!'”
I can’t resist just rolling my eyes at these pinheads. Did any of these “experts” ever take physics? The lack of bodies and wreckage hmm… I recall a crash a few years ago where an elevator or stabilator got stuck and the plane nosed in at about 500kts, the description of the bodies was “vaporized”. Think that happened in Penn or maybe WVa. I do believe that JP-5 in an enclosed place with good O2 flow will certainly melt steel or at least make it very soft and with the way the towers were built the failure of the trusses on one floor result in the pancake that we all saw. These people just make me sick.
Actually, major dad, whilst I was in engineering school (structural engineering, to be exact), we studied the effects of fire on various building materials. Any reasonably hot heat source, regardless of the fuel, and given enough time, can soften structural steel to the point that it loses rigidity, and flows like hot taffy from its own weight, let alone other forces. That’s why fireproofing tends to lean towards insulating and protecting the steel members to increase it’s survival time in a fire. People tested this by exposing various materials and shapes to controlled fires. I wish I still had that textbook, it had some classic photos that I remember to this day.
And that was in 1977.
There was an excellent PowerPoint presentation going round the office a couple months after 9/11, where someone did the math on how hot the fires in the WTC were, based on the (surprise!) amount of fuel in the aircrafts.
So I think that “pinheads” is way too kind. I waver between “idiots” and “raving lunatics” myself.