Informal Poll - No-planes or WTC Nukes - Which is dumber?

[LARED]

Which CT is dumber?

1. No-planes
2. WTC Nukes
3. Equally idiotic.
4. Other

[Sweet Pea]

1. HAS to be 3...

without question. I though perhaps 2 simply because the absolute dearth of evidence - none whatsoever, zip, nada, etc, but then I look back and realize that 1 is just as dumb. Twin sons of different mothers.

Has to be 3.

[LARED]

2. Defining stupidity is difficult

http://thegreatsze.blogspot.com/2007/05/defining-stupidity.html

Pretty decent shot at it. Check the last one.

[Flatulo]

7. I'm not sure that I would characterize people who hold to really

far out theories (nukes, DEW) as stupid, as they actually do not come across that way. Many are articulate and otherwise seem pretty normal.

I think there is something more subtle at work. A willingness and ability to suspend or disregard reason and evidence in order to fit reality into a different shape that affirms their beliefs in other areas. Some might label this as cognizant dissonance, but that label cuts both ways, so I think it's still more subtle.

For example, many RWers believe that there is a global conspiracy to surrender American sovereignity to some higher global order. In order to affirm this belief, it is necessary to interpret innocuous events as portents of the coming disaster. I clearly recall during the Clinton years RWers ranting about UN troops invading the US, gun confiscation, jack-booted thugs, black-clad helicopers etc. Everything was a conspiracy.

I see the same thing with people who would consider themselves to be on the left side of the political spectrum. People spend countless hours interpreting how Bush scratched his balls or ate a booger as confirmation that he somehow 'knew' about 9/11. Their feelings tell them that Bush is an evil man, so they ascribe his every action as proof of this.

Maybe its my nature as an engineer to look only at the data and filter out the noise.

[jberryhill]

3. DEW wins hands-down

DEW or some CD mechanism is required by no-planers, to the extent that they believe any buildings were damaged on 9/11.

At least if you wanted to destroy a building - in any manner - there are conventional and nuclear devices that, yes, can destroy a building.

What is special about DEW is that it is so completely "out there" in terms of basic feasibility - is there a directed energy device that can bring down a building. And, from there you move into energy requirements, etc.

[HamdenRice]

4. Other -- OCT

That's because the chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have stated they were lied to, the staff wanted to indict witnesses for perjury and a recent book has conclusively demonstrated that it was a white wash.

It therefore takes even much more gullibility -- or really willful disregard for reality -- to be an OCTer than to be a no-planer or a nuker.

On edit: Equally up there is the OCTer claim that Bush personally talks to Jesus.

[SDuderstadt]

8. It's kinda stupid to claim the only evidence of what happened that day comes from...

the 9/11 Commssion Report.

[Realityhack]

12. Just as a side note

Is there anyone who believes every aspect of the 9-11 report or who thinks they know the entire truth without any holes or potential inaccuracies?

If such people even exist are there ANY here?

I have to say belief in many of the basics of the 'official' story is a heck of a lot more sane than claiming there where no planes or that nuclear weapons where used.

[SidDithers]

5. I gotta go with 3 too...

and both make the "truth" movement look silly.

Sid

[Flatulo]

6. 3.

[SDuderstadt]

9. 3 n/t

[sabbat hunter]

10. choice 3

you can't fix stupid.

[Realityhack]

11. 3