Creative Speculation

If David Hooper really wanted to understand why the towers fell, he should have started by trying to understand what the experts say -- "viscoplastic creep" is not that difficult to understand -- and he clearly hasn't done that. Instead, it appears that he sought out sources who deliberately misled him in the direction he wanted to go, anyway, and now he tries to pretend that it was a rational inquiry, following the "evidence." But like all 9/11 conspiracists, after deciding that all the evidence we have of a terrorist attack was faked and all the "smoking guns" were somehow covered up, he tries to justify his beliefs with things that superficially sound like evidence-based reasoning, until you look at them closely. "Truthers" give away the game, however, when they simply refuse to recognize what's wrong with their arguments, as a truly rational person would. As Jonathan Swift pointed out, you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.

You think his iron pot analogy make the "official conspiracy theory" look ridiculous because you don't understand what's wrong with it. That would be forgivable, except that you don't want to understand why real physics and structural mechanics and the effects of scale make the analogy look ridiculous. Imaginary physics is good enough for you, but that's a trivial step for someone who has convinced himself that magical silent explosives must exist, since "they" must have used them to bring down the towers.