Actually the people pointing and laughing at the "9/11 nutbags" consistently seem a lot more desperate and panicked.
For obvious reasons I guess.

Quite the opposite.

Loose Change is undergoing its third edit. The makers of the film have been shredded on-camera, where their sole argument has been to shriek "you're a liar! liar!". Their "oh, we DELIBERATELY made mistakes so that the viewers would feel the need to do their own research" line makes them more of a joke than they were before.

So many lies, half-truths, bad science and from the "truth" movement have been debunked so many times in so many forae that, I think, the general public cannot hear the oft-repeated lie (ie: there's no airplane wreckage at the pentagon!!") without visualizing the truth in their minds (ie: photos of airplane wreckage on the pentagon lawn and inside the building.)

So what's left? LIke this article, what's left is just the tinfoilers -- none of whom have any training or knowledge of physics, engineering or any other related fields -- talking to each other and arguing over whether the flash on the bottom of plane #1 was a pre-planted explosive or whether it was a radio-control pod. The concept of "sunlight glinting off metal", of course, escapes them all.

The four laboratory tests provide only a means for evaluating the relative fire resistance rating of the floor systems under standard fire conditions and according to accepted test procedures. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST WTC investigation, cautions, "These tests alone cannot be used to determine the actual performance of the floor systems in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, they are already providing valuable insight into the role that the floors may have played in causing the inward bowing of the perimeter columns minutes before both buildings collapsed."

"The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected," Sunder says. "Our investigation's final assessment of how the floor system performed in the WTC fires also must consider factors such as the combustible fuel load of the hijacked jets, the extent and number of floors involved, the rate of the fire spread across and between floors, ventilation conditions, and the impact of the aircraft-damaged towers' ability to resist the fire."

Isn't it ironic how so much of the "truth" movement are such blatant liars, doncha think?

new post on that page:

i tried a controlled experiment a couple of years ago - i tried to melt my wheelbarrow using kerosene - the kerosene fire would not even burn the paint off of the wheelbarrow - it did not melt an aluminum beer can either.


Hi-farkin-larious.

Not to mention that every person who posts online has access to thousands of websites and scientific articles discussing all the facts they make up on the spot.

That's why I found the poster referencing the UL/NIST study in Toronto to be so funny in his ignorance.

He states, essentially, that "the UL/NIST study said XYZ and therefore....", when the truth is that the UL study said nothing about XYZ, wasn't designed to answer the questions about XYZ and is readilly available through a Google search where anyone can read for themselves that XYZ wasn't part of the experiment.

Facts are so flexible for the "truthers", eh?

"Warnings from as far back as 1994 were ignored. See how they faked it!".

Ancalagon is making me LOL.

The woman started speechifying again and finally was shouted down by the crowd, which was strongly left-leaning but apparently not insane.

Nice to hear that even the OpinionJournal page at the WSJ can differentiate between "left wing" and "nuttier than a snickers bar".