Jun 16 2014

9/11 Conspiracy Debate – Part I

This is the first of a four part written debate between myself and Michael Fullerton, who believes that the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was not due to the official story of damage from the impact of commercial jets, but rather the result of a controlled demolition. My response will follow next Monday, and another round of responses with one post per week.

_________

Part I – The Collapse of the Twin Towers was a Controlled Demolition

by Michael Fullerton

Dr. Steven Novella has graciously agreed to a debate on which explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) on 9/11 is more scientific, the official US Government explanation or the controlled demolition explanation. I will argue that the controlled demolition explanation is more scientific. Dr. Novella will presumably argue that the official US Government explanation is the more scientific explanation. We have both agreed that no logical fallacies are to be used in this debate.

It’s very important to recognize this courageous act by Dr. Novella. It takes a strong character to put your reputation on the line and discuss such controversial and highly emotional issues. Good skeptics though must recognize when the scientific method proves their beliefs undeniably wrong.

I want to begin by asking all readers a question. Are you smarter than a 5th grade science student? Why? Because, starting as early as kindergarten, elementary school students learn that when you have two competing explanations you are supposed to favor the explanation which has the most supporting evidence. They are taught that an explanation with no supporting evidence is an explanation you cannot ever accept as true. By grade 5 at least, students are taught the scientific method. They learn that you must have evidence before putting forth an explanation for a phenomena. They learn that if you start with only a belief you are not doing science. They learn that if you ignore evidence that does not fit with your belief you are not doing science. Portraying something as science when it is not, is pseudo-science. People that claim to follow the scientific method but do not are pseudo-scientists.

The official story of how the towers fell on 9/11 does not have a single solitary piece of supporting scientific evidence. Impossible? Preposterous? If it truly were impossibly preposterous someone would be able to produce a single piece of evidence. To this date no one has, ever. The 9/11 Commission Report contains no technical data whatsoever.[1] The NIST report on the Twin Tower collapses provides sketchy evidence only for the collapse initiations and not the falls of the twin towers themselves.[2]

There is undeniable evidence that a plane hit each tower and caused some structural damage. There is undeniable evidence that on impact the jet fuel in both planes erupted in fireballs which set each building on fire. This fire would definitely have caused some additional structural damage. There is absolutely no evidence however, that this damage resulted in the falls of both towers. There is only an entirely unsupported faith-based belief that this damage caused the fall of the towers. Let’s assume that NIST is correct that the damage caused the upper blocks of each tower to fall onto the lower buildings. If you claim however, that the falling upper blocks caused the complete destruction of the buildings, you commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Simply because one event precedes another does not mean that the first event caused the second. There may be other causes that you must rule out before settling on what you believe is the cause.

Every time in the history of modern human civilization when a skyscraper has come down in a similarly rapid and symmetrical manner as the Twin Towers, it has been a controlled demolition. The rapid fall times and highly symmetric descents of the Twin Towers then are currently only scientifically explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition. This observation then constitutes evidence that supports the controlled demolition explanation of the twin towers. The entire history of building controlled demolition supports the notion that these buildings could have come down by controlled demolition. There has never ever been a case where a skyscraper has come down in a similar manner as the Twin Towers without using some form of controlled demolition. Official story believers then are making an extraordinary claim without even providing any ordinary evidence.
The extremely simple argument above has already resulted in the following responses from others:

1) “The buildings did not fall at free fall speed and weren’t perfectly symmetrical.”

This is a great example of the lengths believers must stoop to in order to defend their highly irrational position. Injecting the reference to free fall is a straw man. I have never ever said that the towers came down at free fall. Whether the towers did or did not descend at free fall acceleration is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that they came down quickly. We have never ever witnessed a skyscraper coming down that fast due to natural causes. The only times we have ever seen a building come down that fast was when they were intentionally brought down.
Further, no controlled demolition is perfectly symmetrical either. However, all successful controlled demolitions are generally very symmetrical. In a pedantic sense, the world is not perfectly round nor is a marble. In a practical sense though we say both are round. Similarly, we say that successful controlled demolitions are generally all symmetrical.

2) “You provide no evidence to support your claims.”
My argument makes two main claims: 1) there is no evidence for the official story of the Twin Tower falls; 2) there is evidence of controlled demolition.

I have presented the obvious evidence of rapid fall times and symmetrical falls. Anyone can visit YouTube to see the footage for themselves. I can’t provide evidence that there is no evidence of the official story though. Asking me to do that is like asking to prove there is no evidence that flying spaghetti monsters exist. Those who support the official story are making the implicit claim that it is more likely. It can only be more likely if it has more evidence than competing explanations. Therefore, the onus is on official story believers to provide evidence to support their belief. Claiming that I produce evidence that there is no evidence is shifting the burden of proof from the claimer, them, onto the doubter, me.

3) “All controlled demolitions start at the bottom. Therefore the Twin Towers could not be controlled demolitions.”
That is false. Most controlled demolitions do start at the bottom because that is simpler and usually cheaper. The Vérinage technique used in France, for example, typically removes a single floor of support about half way down the building.[3] Controlled demolition of a building simply means intentionally destroying a building. Whether I start at the top, the bottom or the middle is irrelevant. There are at least two instances of top-down controlled demolitions viewable on YouTube.[4][5]

4) “No skyscraper has ever been struck by a plane before, so there is actually no precedent for this scenario.”
Whether the towers were hit by a plane, a meteor or an energy weapon is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is which explanation has more evidence to support it. The official story claim is that a falling top portion of each building was able to completely demolish the building below. If you had precedence this would provide you with evidence. But you don’t need precedence to provide evidence. A valid computer model or scale model for example will do. Why has no one ever produced a valid model? Presumably because the official story is impossible to model accurately.

In closing, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the official story and there is evidence to support the controlled demolition hypothesis. The most basic requirement for a scientific explanation is the presence of supporting evidence. This proves without a shadow of a doubt that the controlled demolition explanation is currently the most and only scientific explanation available for explaining the Twin Tower collapses. Dr. Novella the floor is yours.

Notes
1. 9/11 Commission Report http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
2. NIST NCSTAR 1 http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

Share

110 responses so far

110 Responses to “9/11 Conspiracy Debate – Part I”

  1. SteveAon 16 Jun 2014 at 7:40 am

    “Why has no one ever produced a valid model? Presumably because the official story is impossible to model accurately.”

    Or, more probably, because no-one capable of doing so feels the need to pander to your crack-pot theories.

    In your shoes I would consider it diligent to create my own model and show everyone how physics can’t support the official story. However, it seems that you and your fellow theorists think this is too much like hard work, far harder than watching YouTube videos then saying it must be a controlled explosion because it looks like one.

    And let’s face it, you’d have to create your own model, because if someone else came up with one that disagreed with you, you would immediately lump them into the conspiracy as well.

    So come on. Do the work, or save up and pay someone to do it for you.

  2. banyanon 16 Jun 2014 at 7:57 am

    Is this guy the best person for debating this topic? There is little value in this debate if the proponent of one side is poorly qualified to debate the topic. I’ve heard 9/11 truthers argue in a way where I can at least understand why people are swayed, but this does not read like that. These are some of the weakest opening arguments I’ve encountered in just about any debate.

  3. The Other John Mcon 16 Jun 2014 at 8:02 am

    I love the “are you smarter than a 5th grader, because a 5th grader knows I’m right.” Very convincing argument.

    “The most basic requirement for a scientific explanation is the presence of supporting evidence. This proves without a shadow of a doubt that the controlled demolition explanation is currently the most and only scientific explanation available for explaining the Twin Tower collapse…”

    What evidence did you provide exactly? All you did is rehash the arguments against your position. I’m not seeing the compelling evidence that rules out alternative explanations there, which you said yourself is the process of science.

    Oh, I see, you watched a YouTube video, and then claimed it looked symmetric and stuff, so there you go, that proves it. This is yet another example where people’s definition of “evidence” is not anywhere near the accepted scientific standards for evidence…even a 5th grader knows that.

  4. shalliton 16 Jun 2014 at 8:04 am

    Fullerton’s crackpottery is missing an essential detail: a plausible scenario of why any conspirator would feel the need to BOTH (a) crash planes into buildings AND ALSO (b) conduct a controlled demolition.

    No 9/11 truther has ever supplied this. Bringing down the buildings by explosives alone would have resulted in exactly the same kind of reaction, and would be much more plausible because a similar attack was already conducted by Islamic extremists on February 26 1993.

    Read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. It painstakingly takes you through the history leading up to September 11. No sane person can read this and not understand that the conspirators were Islamic extremists directed by Bin Laden. They planned it 9/11, they carried it out, and they left behind tons of evidence that they did.

  5. The Other John Mcon 16 Jun 2014 at 8:11 am

    “Whether the towers were hit by a plane, a meteor or an energy weapon is completely irrelevant”

    Why would it be irrelevant if a meteor hit the towers at the exact same time the airplanes hit and the secretly placed bombs detonated?

    There was some unidentified rock at Ground Zero (I saw it on YouTube), therefore THIS explanation (bombs + airplanes + meteor) is the best supported scientific explanation, and is correct with no room for doubt in my mind, or my 5th grader’s minds. There is not a single shred of evidence that contradicts this view.

  6. magsolon 16 Jun 2014 at 8:47 am

    “I want to begin by asking all readers a question. Are you smarter than a 5th grade science student?”

    I lost all interest at this point. Rather than get straight to the point, Mr. Fullerton instead decides to equate rejection of his 9/11 conspiracy theory with failing 5th grade science. Irrelevant, insulting, and incorrect in every meaningful way.

  7. Bruceon 16 Jun 2014 at 9:40 am

    “We have both agreed that no logical fallacies are to be used in this debate.”

    And then he sets up 4 straw man arguments about what people apparently say is wrong with his theory.

    My brother and father in law give better arguments than this… heck, even Neal Adams is more convincing.

  8. mindmeon 16 Jun 2014 at 9:43 am

    “2) there is evidence of controlled demolition.”

    Can someone point out the evidence he presented? I might have missed it. I am reading this early in the morning. If it’s not found, maybe this will follow? That controlled demolition is so obvious, there must be loads of engineers and other related fields publishing on this.

  9. Bruceon 16 Jun 2014 at 10:06 am

    Mindme,

    Apparently the fact that the buildings fall symmetrically, as seen on YouTube, is evidence enough for a 5th Grader!

    Asking for things like evidence that explosives were snuck into the building and precisely set prior to the demolition is apparently too much. I am still rooting for the Sharknado-With-Freakin-Lasers theory. What we saw on TV was all a cover up, what really happened was that a meteor from outer space carrying Laser totting Sharks hit the first building and they were then picked up by a freak tornado that destroyed the second building and are to this day hiding out in the midwest after destroying various historical (and not so historical) buildings. Since 9/11 the illuminati have seen how hard it is to cover a story once it has broken, so they have just muted the press completely on all other incidents.

    Of course, I have already informed my wife, friends and all work colleagues to warn me if they see someone wearing a black suit who looks suspiciously like Will Smith anywhere near where they know I am that day (I have cleverly arranged to Hot Desk at work so I am never in the same place two days in a row). If I ever deny this story… you know they got me!

  10. The Other John Mcon 16 Jun 2014 at 10:36 am

    Steve A: “In your shoes I would consider it diligent to create my own model and show everyone how physics can’t support the official story. However, it seems that you and your fellow theorists think this is too much like hard work”

    Perfectly awesome challenge…put up or shut-up, every 5th grader knows that.

  11. Lumen2222on 16 Jun 2014 at 10:52 am

    So the argument seems to go something like this:

    Event Type A happened and we’ve never seen that before.
    Immediately after X occurred.
    X looks a lot like this other thing we do all the time, Event Type G.
    Therefore:
    Event A is irrelevant, X must have been caused by an unknown Event Type G.

    This is 5th grade level logic alright.

  12. The Other John Mcon 16 Jun 2014 at 11:13 am

    “the onus is on official story believers to provide evidence to support their belief. Claiming that I produce evidence that there is no evidence is shifting the burden of proof.”

    Oh yes, good idea, all people making wild, wacky claims about 9/11 (or any other topic for that matter) should be considered the null position. This way, the more reasonable hypotheses that don’t require any additional explanatory mechanisms can be cast in serious doubt, using only YouTube videos as evidence, yay!

    You are making the claim, good sir, so you must provide your proof, otherwise I am sticking with the null hypothesis. If you think YouTube videos are evidence, you need to go back to science class.

  13. Karl Withakayon 16 Jun 2014 at 11:36 am

    “Every time in the history of modern human civilization when a skyscraper has come down in a similarly rapid and symmetrical manner as the Twin Towers, it has been a controlled demolition.”

    Therefore the only way a building can collapse in such a manner is by controlled demolition, right? Where did you buy your Jump to Conclusions Mat from, Amazon or Think Geek?

    What’s the frame of reference here? Exactly how many skyscraper-high rise buildings designed and built similar to the Twin towers have been crashed into by large planes filled with jet fuel such that we can see how they collapsed compared to the Twin Towers?

  14. LCon 16 Jun 2014 at 11:47 am

    Ug….I’m missing four good Monday columns from Steve for this? Michael — I’d suggest that you go back and try again, only I’m sure this is actually the best you got.

  15. jwalms2on 16 Jun 2014 at 12:44 pm

    “I have presented the obvious evidence of rapid fall times and symmetrical falls.”

    No, you did not present any evidence. You asserted without reference that an airplane crash into a building could not produce “rapid fall times and symmetrical falls” and called it “obvious”.

    You criticize the 9/11 Commission for not having technical data and then make assertions without reference to technical data.

    You can’t have it both ways.

  16. Gallenodon 16 Jun 2014 at 12:57 pm

    “If you claim however, that the falling upper blocks caused the complete destruction of the buildings, you commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.”

    Uh, no, it means you understand the physics of motion transfer, where an upper layer “pancakes” the layer below it, and they hit the one below that, etc., gaining mass and speed as they fall in a relatively straight line downward. Gravity works.

    “Every time in the history of modern human civilization when a skyscraper has come down in a similarly rapid and symmetrical manner as the Twin Towers, it has been a controlled demolition. The rapid fall times and highly symmetric descents of the Twin Towers then are currently only scientifically explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition. This observation then constitutes evidence that supports the controlled demolition explanation of the twin towers. The entire history of building controlled demolition supports the notion that these buildings could have come down by controlled demolition. There has never ever been a case where a skyscraper has come down in a similar manner as the Twin Towers without using some form of controlled demolition.”

    Observations of external, visual and historical records are not “scientific evidence.” They are speculation with a dash of motivated reasoning.

    “The most basic requirement for a scientific explanation is the presence of supporting evidence.”

    Absolutely. For the official theory we’ve got pieces of the airplanes that crashed into the buildings, jet fuel, fires, and lots of building debris. You know what would constitute actual evidence supporting controlled demolition? Actual residue from the fairly substantial amounts of explosives it would have taken to pull it off. Show me residue, bomb parts, or any other physical evidence that supports the demolition theory and he has a case. Otherwise, all he’s got are videos and wishful thinking.

    No evidence will convince someone who refuses to accept any evidence that doesn’t fit his current belief.

  17. Lorenon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:13 pm

    “In closing, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the official story and there is evidence to support the controlled demolition hypothesis.”

    So…is the latter evidence coming in Fullerton’s column in two weeks? Or did it just get lost in the cut-and-paste? Because as far as I can tell, Fullerton hasn’t provided *anything* resembling evidence to specifically support a controlled demolition hypothesis.

    He cites only five sources. Two explicitly support the “official story”, and a third is just a video of a controlled demolition that he intentionally cites for purposes of contrast, not comparison. The two remaining cited sources, YouTube videos of top-down controlled demolitions, thus remain as the only ‘evidence’ he cites as support for his hypothesis.

    And having watched both videos, I can’t even say that either of them actually “support” his hypothesis at all, because both are conspicuously dissimilar to the collapse of the WTC towers. In both of Fullerton’s videos, the controlled demolition is begun with a conspicuously large, loud, and visible explosion. Nothing remotely similar happened with the WTC.

    Apart from that, Fullerton’s “evidence” in support of his controlled demolition hypothesis mainly seems to be just his insistence that the way the WTC towers fell is visually similar to how buildings fall when they’re being demolished. And, as others have already noted, he provides absolutely ZERO evidence to support the existence or plausibility of the explosives he insists were there.

    Then again, midway through his column, Fullerton seems to pretend like his hypothesis doesn’t have a burden of proof AT ALL.

    Maybe in his next column, Fullerton will explain how the controlled demolition scheme would have coped with one of the two planes failing entirely to hit a tower. Say, if UA Flight 175 had crashed instead of UA Flight 93. Or if they’d messed up and hit the same tower twice. Or if one of the flights had been delayed at the last minute. Because it’s always seemed to me that the conspiracy falls apart pretty fast when there’s a building left standing, and one of its upper floors is discovered to be packed full of explosives.

    What would they have done if a plane had simply hit a tower LOWER than the supposed explosives? Since Fullerton insists that the plane’s impact alone couldn’t bring down a tower, then what would the conspiracy have done if the planned explosives in the building were suddenly ten or twenty stories ABOVE the impact site?

    Or maybe Fullerton will just explain away these sorts of problems and others by virtue of the power wielded by the conspiracy.

  18. garyacrowellsron 16 Jun 2014 at 1:17 pm

    I believe he has destroyed his own arguments.

    In point #3: “All controlled demolitions start at the bottom. … That is false. ” And then he cites examples of demolitions starting on upper levels that completely demolish the building.

    And then he immediately goes on in point #4: “The official story claim is that a falling top portion of each building was able to completely demolish the building below.”

    Well, the upper floors of the Trade Center were *much* larger than the entire building used in one of the videos he uses as an example. He manages to prove the case himself that the collapse of a single upper level can demolish the entire building.

  19. mumadaddon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Ahah! It looked like a controlled demolition…therefore it was a controlled demolition. I knew it! Take that, skeptics!

  20. mumadaddon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Yhis made me laugh:

    “The Vérinage technique used in France, for example, typically removes a single floor of support about half way down the building.[3]“

  21. mumadaddon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:22 pm

    Followed by:

    “The official story claim is that a falling top portion of each building was able to completely demolish the building below.”

  22. Willyon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:24 pm

    One of the important points that was missed is that JFK was at the controls of the second plane, along with MLK and RFK. Jimmy Hoffa piloted the first plane.

    Does Mr. Fullerton have even a hypothesis as to whom would have the motive and the means to pull off a controlled demolition of the buildings? I know, I know, the GUB’MINT!…

    How easy would it be to gain access to structural beams high up in the building? Did folks just ignore the suitcases full of explosives against the walls of their offices?

  23. mumadaddon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Duh! So taking out a single floor about mid way up a building is a good way to bring it down, due to the weight of the top portion. But wait! That’s also totally implausible in the case of the twin towers.

    Sorry for the multiple posts but I can only copy and paste once per comment on this phone.

  24. The Other John Mcon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Sorry Willy, but the burden of proof is apparently on you to prove you that it wasn’t the GUB’MINT, best of luck to ye.

  25. erickatarnon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:44 pm

    I did not plan on spending my lunch break reading the NIST WTC report instead of listening to the world cup but I thought the claim that no evidence for a collapse method other than controlled demolition with explosives was ever produced sounded a tad exaggerated.
    I am very curious what Mr Fullerton’s qualifications are regarding structural engineering and finite element analysis? Is there any analysis of less “sketchy” quality he can provide that show a better simulation of the controlled demolition? I don’t see how the NIST report doesn’t count as any “evidence whatsoever to support the official story” but his opinion based on a video and his expert explosives and demolitions experience (he has this, right?) counts as “evidence to support the controlled demolition hypothesis”?

  26. BBBlueon 16 Jun 2014 at 1:46 pm

    I reject the premise of the debate as described by Mr. Fullerton. The debate, is not, or should not be about which theory is more “scientific”, but rather, which is more probable.

    And wasn’t there an agreement not to commit logical fallacies? Isn’t Mr. Fullerton begging the question by claiming that the collapse was caused by controlled demolition because the collapse looked similar to a controlled demolition?

  27. steve12on 16 Jun 2014 at 1:57 pm

    The annoying and condescending fifth grade scientific method lesson is appropriate, because his idea of how science works is simplified to that level. What material scientists have to say doesn’t matter because a fifth grade conceptualization of science cannot accommodate it, I guess.

  28. steve12on 16 Jun 2014 at 2:07 pm

    I just went to the Scientists for 9/11 Truth… Oh, boy! Very sciency. Lots o’ work in the illustrious Journal of 9/11 Studies, which is itself a prize.

    Have fun Steve…

  29. jsterritton 16 Jun 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Someone, possibly even a sixth- or seventh-grader, said: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Fullerton provides no real (i.e., supported, testable) evidence in support of his extraordinary claims, repeatedly “begging the question” instead — a shaky starting point for someone claiming to forego logical fallacies! I do not claim any special knowledge, but as someone who was there that day, I will never forget the sounds of the planes exploding on impact; I recall no subsequent explosions, only a rumble building to a roar as first one tower, then the other, fell.

    The only “scientific” conclusion Fullerton can draw is that, since we have much evidence of how buildings collapse as a result of controlled demolition, and the towers fell in a similar fashion, we now have even more evidence of how buildings fall. Fullerton sounds like one of those creationists who, ignoring the sun, insists that evolution stands in violation of the second law of thermodynamics and therefore could not have happened. By insisting that there had to be explosive charges and a conspiracy to collapse the towers, Fullerton is ignoring the planes (i.e., explosive charges and a conspiracy). Why? That would be far more interesting to delve into than Fullerton’s crackpot notions — let’s hope Dr Novella doesn’t disappoint.

  30. roadfoodon 16 Jun 2014 at 2:55 pm

    “We have both agreed that no logical fallacies are to be used in this debate.”

    “Every time in the history of modern human civilization when a skyscraper has come down in a similarly rapid and symmetrical manner as the Twin Towers, it has been a controlled demolition. The rapid fall times and highly symmetric descents of the Twin Towers then are currently only scientifically explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition.”

    On other words, every example we have so far of A was caused by B. Therefore this new A must be caused by B.

    Can someone help me with which logical fallacy that is? I don’t think it’s “Post-hoc ergo propter hoc”; he’s not saying that B must have caused A because B happened first (especially since there is currently no evidence that B happened at all). He’s saying that A has always in the past been caused by B, therefore this A could not have had any other cause except B. There is no direct evidence for B, the evidence for B is that all known A’s prior to this one have been caused by B.

  31. Insomniacon 16 Jun 2014 at 3:17 pm

    Valid computer simulations using finite elements have showed that it WAS possible and even expected that the towers would collapse given the damage caused by the planes and the fire that followed.

    Plus it’s actually remarkable that he uses the idea that nothing of the sort has been seen before without controlled demolition, to back his claim that the extroardinary circumstances we are talking about could not have in any way caused the collapse. This is in some way close to an argument from ignorance.

  32. banyanon 16 Jun 2014 at 3:48 pm

    “[E]very example we have so far of A was caused by B. Therefore this new A must be caused by B.”

    Affirming the consequent? If B causes A and A occurred, it does not necessarily mean that B caused it.

  33. jsterritton 16 Jun 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Fullerton’s overarching failure of logic stems from equal parts begging the question (his question presupposes the conclusion he is arguing for), argument from ignorance (we haven’t flown enough planes into buildings to know what happens every time), argument from authority (we have ample evidence of what happens during controlled demolition; also Fullerton seems to feel he’s possessed of some measure of authority, himself, somehow), peppered liberally with argument from incredulity (Fullerton cannot imagine that any explanation but his own could be true). Then the snake eats its tail; repeat ad infinitum. All of this falls under the umbrella fallacy of “false cause,” which is what you’re looking for since Fullerton is not specifically confusing correlation for causation, but is substituting another, equally untested (i.e., “false”) cause for his smoking gun. Most of these logical no-nos are codified in Fullerton’s own “10 Commandments of Logic,” which would be funny if it weren’t 9/11.

  34. Bronze Dogon 16 Jun 2014 at 4:03 pm

    I have some fond memories of dealing with 9/11 twoofers. It’s been a while. One thing that I had to bring up before with regard to controlled demolition: The sound of the explosives going off. IIRC, there was some audible sounds that were likely supports snapping, but nothing as loud as demolition explosives.

  35. LCon 16 Jun 2014 at 4:08 pm

    His argument is of the form:

    If A then B

    B

    Therefore, A

    That’s affirming the consequent

    If I hit my head with a hammer, I’ll have a headache.

    I have a headache.

    Therefore, I hit my head with a hammer.

  36. jsterritton 16 Jun 2014 at 4:49 pm

    BBBlue and roadfood are onto something interesting: another fallacy, but one of probability, not causation. It’s called the Backwards Reasoning Fallacy or Probabilistic Backwards Reasoning Fallacy and is a common pitfall for those who do not understand probability or uncertainty and fail to make the appropriate corrections (e.g., Bayesian) when working backwards from results. I do not understand this stuff very well at all, but it essentially has to do with how we reason with prior assumptions. Fullerton assumes that since ‘most’ or ‘all’ controlled demolitions behave the same way as the towers on 9/11, the towers were a controlled demolition. As BBBlue points out, this is unscientific. Fullerton should make a case for what is more probable, that the explosive charge and resultant heat of the airplanes caused the towers’ collapse, or that some other explosive charge caused it. Science would say we have to fly a lot more planes into a lot more buildings, some rigged with demolition charges and others not, and conduct a blinded comparison of the manner in which the buildings fall, etc, etc, etc. I would hazard that the probability is >.50 that those planes knocked down those buildings and that Fullerton’s “data set” (his observations of falling buildings, weighted for his unalterable conviction that 9/11 was an inside job) contains no signal, all noise.

  37. Karl Withakayon 16 Jun 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Here’s a job for the Mythbusters: Is it possible to conduct a controlled demolition via explosives without producing an audible bang from the detonation of the explosives?

    Would be possible in practice to sufficiently muffle the report of the explosives without (or even with) filling the entire building in feathers and fill foam?

  38. roadfoodon 16 Jun 2014 at 5:38 pm

    Come now, we’re talking about the government here, obviously they would have access to Hushaboom (http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question102121.html).

  39. Teaseron 16 Jun 2014 at 6:04 pm

    Here is evidence Fullerton could have used to bolster his position, a brief article from 1993 in the Seattle Times about one of the structural engineers who worked on the design of the towers. This article came out shortly after the first bombing in the garage.

    Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
    By Eric Nalder

    Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

    “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side,” said John Skilling, head structural engineer. “However, back in those days people didn’t think about terrorists very much.”

    Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world’s top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle’s downtown skyline and for several of the world’s tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

    Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

    “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”

    Skilling – a recognized expert in tall buildings – doesn’t think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

    “However,” he added, “I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.”

    He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn’t work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

    Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

    “I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”
    Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

  40. Hosson 16 Jun 2014 at 6:32 pm

    I never knew arguments like that were possible!
    One hears such arguments, and what can one say but… “Fullerton.”

    I’m going to paste a few cherries from pieces Fullerton has written for entertainment.

    “Novella’s bizarre evidence that the brain produces or causes the mind is that whenever the brain is altered physically the mind is also altered. But this only shows that the brain influences the mind not that the brain produces the mind. Chopra is criticizing the absurd belief that the mind magically arises from the brain out of nowhere not that brain function shapes the current state of awareness. As Chopra correctly states, the brain is made only of atoms and other particles. If these particles do not possess simple mental states then mental states magically arise out of nowhere when atoms interact in a particular manner. If instead, as Chopra alludes, these particles have primitive mental states; this suggests the Universe could have some kind of mental state. Novella proclaims that this notion has “far deeper and even fatal problems” but does not go into what they are. Perhaps this is because these problems are only imaginary and thus completely unsupportable by fact and rational argument.” http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=219 [Review: “Chopra Skepticism Fail Part 2″]

    “This is not the first time I’ve had such a revelation either. In the mid 90′s I considered myself a real skeptic because I didn’t believe false the notion of “cold fusion”, now known as LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). I had rightly noticed that the belief that “cold fusion” was false was not supported by sound evidence or sound reasoning. Then in the mid 2000′s I was exposed to evidence against the official story of 9/11, 2001. Up until then I believed I was a true skeptic despite believing in the official 9/11 story without question. Again, with 9/11 there is no evidence whatsoever to support key parts of the official 9/11 story. There are only pronouncements from authorities meant to be taken on faith.” http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?m=201402 [Is True Skepticism Possible?]

    “The study was retracted for two main reasons: rats with a tendency for tumors were used and small sample size. According to the head of the study though, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, they used the exact same rats and the exact same numbers that Monsanto used to get authorization for its maize.[5] The counter argument is that these were two entirely different sorts of studies. Yes so? The main difference between the studies was that Séralini’s study was more extensive. Monsanto’s study lasted only 90 days while Séralini’s lasted 2 years. Monsanto looked at short term toxicity while Séralini looked at long term toxicity. Among competent scientists, a longer study tends to be more accurate since toxicity indicators like cancer are usually a slow process. If any study should be criticized it is Monsanto’s since they did not monitor the effects of their maize long enough to catch harmful side-effects like cancer. In addition, Séralini’s study involved a greater number of tests groups. A greater range of parameters were measured. More information was given on what the diets contained. In particular, the control diet was explicitly stated to be non-GM. Monsanto in comparison did not state that their control diet was non-GM in their 90-day feeding trial data. So Séralini’s study used proper control diets as stipulated by EU GMO legislation whereas Monsanto used irrelevant control diets.[6]” http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=273 [Séralini Study Fuelling Fear of ‘Frankenfood’ Retracted]

    “To summarize, the proof of pantheism is that you think and are conscious. Mental states can’t magically arise out of nowhere. So the building blocks of “matter” you are composed of must have some kind of primitive mental states too. We see on Earth that the more advanced the organism, the more intelligent it is. The Universe is the most advanced thing there is. That’s God. The sentient Universe.” http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=74 [A Proof of Creationism and Intelligent Design]

    One hears such arguments, and what can one say but… “Fullerton.”

    @Karl Withakay
    Fullerton has a response about the lack of sound from the controlled demolition.

    “There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,[6] in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,[7] for example. Non-typical technologies could also have been used.” http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

    Also, if his Vernon 9/11 truth website is to be believed, he tried to get Adam Savage to debate him on WTC 7 collapse but didn’t get a response.

    ———————–

    This is my favorite quote, but it is out of context.

    “But try asking a member of any mainstream “skeptic” organization or any pseudo-scientist who claims to support the official story for any evidence as to how the towers came down. You’ll get anything but. They might simply scoff at the very question. They might commit a logical fallacy such as stating that the planes obviously hit the buildings and set them on fire.”

  41. Blair Ton 16 Jun 2014 at 8:11 pm

    The controlled demolition theory simply makes no sense from the point of view of a terrorist operation – whether you think Al qaeda did it or if you think some other group framed al qaeda (eg US govt).

    If you are an al qaeda terrorist, you would be better off spending your resources blowing up some buildings and flying planes into other buildings – thus increasing your impact.

    If you are a gov’t conspiracy, you gain nothing by planting explosives in the buildings, since by the conspiracy theorist logic, it is the planting of the explosives that gives away what is supposed to be a covert conspiracy.

    This claim disproves itself.

  42. Willyon 16 Jun 2014 at 9:13 pm

    How do the “skeptics” explain the reports of Bin Laden gloating over the damage he caused. A lunch date with GWB where they both agreed that each of them would benefit? Was there a unicorn present to “seal the deal”? I’ll bet that’s it–remember that GWB never did manage to kill OSB. Them two bast#rds had a deal! They probably celebrated over falafel.

    I am so sick of conspiracies and anti-science folk! So sick!

    It was fun, but wrong, to give Fullerton this exposure.

  43. tmac57on 16 Jun 2014 at 9:14 pm

    I think that weighing the plausibility of a controlled demolition scenario vs the apparent and empirical scenario of what is pejoratively termed as ‘The official scenario’ easily tilts toward the latter,unless motivated reasoning kicks in and blinds one from what evidence does exist,rather than what evidence would satisfy a motivated conspiracy advocate…which probably would be none.

    Several commentors here have exposed Michael Fullerton’s fallacies (that he was supposedly trying to avoid),and kudos to them. Others have raised the plausibility questions that should be part of any thinking about such an event,but sadly seem to be irrelevant to the conspiracy minded.

    I ran across this narrated slide presentation on the PBS NOVA website from Sept 2006 from an investigator for NIST that lays out the basics of the jets impact and subsequent collapse of the twin tower dynamics ( Note:You need to manually select each new segment after they play):

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html

  44. grabulaon 16 Jun 2014 at 9:38 pm

    @Mfullerton

    “There is only an entirely unsupported faith-based belief that this damage caused the fall of the towers.”

    Popular Mechanics started the process of breaking down the physics behind the fall of those towers. You make this claim but I’m not sure you udnerstand what you’re saying here.

    “What is relevant is that they came down quickly. We have never ever witnessed a skyscraper coming down that fast due to natural causes”

    So jetliners crashing into 80 story buildings is natural now?

    “Whether the towers were hit by a plane, a meteor or an energy weapon is completely irrelevant.”

    This is a ptently ridiculous statement that blows off the fact that we witnessed something on 9/11 that has no precedence.

    Just to remind you guys: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-9-11-anomaly-hunting/#comments

    Fullerton basically showed up, challenged Steve to debunk his video, dismissed us as just attacking him. I very specifically hit some of his points with no response. This guy is just looking for some attention. If you watch his video, it’s his ‘argument’ above – there’s no factual claims, just an ad hominem about a faith based belief, and a claim that the NIST paper has no technical evidence, therefore he wins.

    This guys, as is typical, isn’t interested in honest discourse.

  45. grabulaon 16 Jun 2014 at 9:38 pm

    @The Other John MC

    “What evidence did you provide exactly? All you did is rehash the arguments against your position”

    I tried to draw him out on this on the last thread with no luck. I think this guy is just looking for some attention. He feels he’s has a water tight case – no evidence but water tight regardless. I think he’s hoping for a “win” here against a well known skeptic. I predict regardless of the evidence provided – there’s something like over 3000 books and papers published on the event so his claims of no evidence is bizarre – he’ll declare he’s won.

  46. Willyon 16 Jun 2014 at 10:51 pm

    OSB–Good grief! I need to learn to edit/reread better. Make that OBL.

  47. ghulseon 16 Jun 2014 at 11:16 pm

    “Every time in the history of modern human civilization when a skyscraper has come down in a similarly rapid and symmetrical manner as the Twin Towers, it has been a controlled demolition. The rapid fall times and highly symmetric descents of the Twin Towers then are currently only scientifically explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition.”

    There are other problems with Fullerton’s argument, but this one stands out. Are there any uncontrolled demolitions comparable to the WTC collapse? So the conclusion here seems a reductio ad absurdum. There are, in fact, other possible explanations including that this building was constructed in a way that led to an inward collapse.

    I don’t have knowledge of structural engineering myself, so I would look to structural engineers to explain how the Twin Towers collapsed the way they did. Michael Fullerton works as a software designer. I don’t see any compelling reason to pay much attention to his arguments because he’s not an expert in this field.

    Conspiracy theories usually fall apart under scrutiny. Who could pull off a controlled demolition of this scale (at precisely the time that two airliner jets can be seen crashing into the buildings)? This theory is much less believable than the facts that have been put forth that two hijacked jets were flown into the buildings and those collisions caused the buildings to collapse. Occam’s Razor.

  48. grabulaon 16 Jun 2014 at 11:36 pm

    “I don’t have knowledge of structural engineering myself, so I would look to structural engineers to explain how the Twin Towers collapsed the way they did.”

    I remember watching a special that had some computer modeling on it (Fullerton seems naively unaware of all the research and work that’s been done in understanding this issue). They explained pretty thoroughly the ‘pancaking’ why and how it happened. We’ve all heard it before – heat causes sagging in cross beams, outside support beams separate from those and boom, the collapse begins.

    That’s what kills me about these guys who’ve held on so tight to the fringe concepts here. We have a pretty good understanding of what happened after the fact. It’s not even that complex from an engineering perspective. The building wasn’t designed to sustain that type of impact, and so they came down. I don’t know why people are surprised by this at all.

  49. Paulzon 17 Jun 2014 at 12:09 am

    “It’s very important to recognize this courageous act by Dr. Novella. It takes a strong character to put your reputation on the line and discuss such controversial and highly emotional issues. Good skeptics though must recognize when the scientific method proves their beliefs undeniably wrong.”

    Courage, sir, would imply that Dr. Novella has a reason to fear you.

  50. Paulzon 17 Jun 2014 at 12:15 am

    I went back and read again, just in case I missed anything – nope, still preposterous.

  51. Thadiuson 17 Jun 2014 at 4:23 am

    Ill refute the idea that there are no scientific studies explaining how the planes alone could not have caused the collapse with this, its the first one that came up in a Google search for “World Trade Center Steel Structural Collapse”.

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

  52. Bruceon 17 Jun 2014 at 4:25 am

    (oh my, I wrote some junk yesterday… my apologies, sleep deprivation is not a good thing)

  53. RickKon 17 Jun 2014 at 6:52 am

    Sadly, this is a very weak opening gambit by Mr. Fullerton.

    His “there is no evidence” that the building collapse was from the planes is as absurd as a creationist’s assertion that “there is no evidence” of evolution.

    Mr. Fullerton is ignoring: the PLANES we all witnessed, the resulting fire, the effect of the explosive force on fireproofing materials, the effect of heat on the strength of steel, the force of vertically dropping a 20 story building onto an 80 story building, and so on.

    Mr. Fullerton’s parallels with creationist arguments don’t stop there.

    “Every time we’ve seen a skyscraper collapse straight down, it was a controlled demolition” sounds perilously close to “every time we’ve seen a DNA-like code, it was created by an intelligent designer.” In both cases, the argument fails.

    Mr. Fullerton’s argument fails because (1) we haven’t seen a 100-story skyscraper burned in the middle by jet fuel before, and (2) it DIDN’T fall straight down. While neither tower tipped over lengthwise, they did fall in a messy, very uncontrolled fashion. The massive gash in the front of the 130 Liberty building across the street (where I once worked) is just one of MANY pieces of evidence of this.

    The fact that Mr. Fullerton is convinced by such weak reasoning and is able to ignore so much factual evidence indicates he is in the grip of a grand conspiracy obsession. Such thinking is what leads people to deny evolution, deny the Holocaust, or to claim that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged. Mr. Fullerton undoubtedly takes personal pride in his superior perception and takes satisfaction from confidently knowing a truth to which others are blind. And the support and accolades he gets from those who share his obsession must be quite rewarding.

    As someone who lost friends in the WTC disaster, I find it distasteful in the extreme that Mr. Fullerton chooses this tragedy and his twisted interpretation as a mechanism for inflating his own ego. Thinking about it, I’m struck by the similarities between Mr. Fullerton’s “personal fulfillment through tragedy manipulation” and that employed by those suffering from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

    But there’s a simple test to determine if Mr. Fullerton is an obsessed ideologue incapable of logical discourse: how many informed engineers must agree with the “official version” before Mr. Fullerton will admit his “controlled demolition” theory is false? If he can give a finite, reasonable number, then the discussion should be over because plenty of engineers have reviewed the evidence. If he can’t give a finite, reasonable number then the discussion should be over because he’s in it to preach, not debate.

  54. BillyJoe7on 17 Jun 2014 at 7:16 am

    This is Fullerton’s argument in its entirety:

    “Every time in the history of modern human civilization when a skyscraper has come down in a similarly rapid and symmetrical manner as the Twin Towers, it has been a controlled demolition”

    “The rapid fall times and highly symmetric descents of the Twin Towers then are currently only scientifically explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition”

    “There has never ever been a case where a skyscraper has come down in a similar manner as the Twin Towers without using some form of controlled demolition”

    That’s it!
    Essentially what he is saying is this:

    In every case of a building coming down in the manner in which the twin towers came down, it has been as a result of a controlled demolition; and there has never been a single case of a building coming down in the manner of the twin towers came down that was caused by a plane loaded with fuel hitting the building and exploding; therefore the twin towers came down as a result of a controlled demolition.

    This argument is destroyed by two inconvenient facts:

    - There was no evidence of an explosion on 9/11 other than that caused by the plane fuel igniting.
    (Hence 9/11 does NOT resemble a controlled demolition)

    - There has never been a case of an exploding plane hitting a building of the type hit on 9/11.
    (Hence there is no precedent for 9/11 and therefore Fullerton’s probabilities MEANINGLESS)

    What IS improbable is that there was a plan to bring down the twin towers by controlled demolitions at the very same level that the planes hit each of the towers.

  55. Bill Openthalton 17 Jun 2014 at 7:31 am

    If the planes hit the Twin Towers, who was flying them if not people prepared to sacrifice their lives for their cause?

    If the government planned a controlled demolition to coincide with the planes hitting the buildings, were the pilots civil servants? While there are many devoted, hard-working people in the civil service, I don’t think that devotion includes suicide (not even for fervent Tea-party supporters). Laying down your life for Allah is one thing, but for Dubya?

    That leaves flying the planes by remote control, or collusion between Al Qaeda and the Bush administration. Both hypotheses are very plausible, of course.

  56. Willyon 17 Jun 2014 at 10:43 am

    Remember that there were two more planes, one of which never made it to its target. Why didn’t a controlled demolition of the Pentagon happen–the only damage was from the impact of the plane? Why didn’t the Capitol building collapse despite the fact that the plane didn’t make it?

    Bill O–Great thought on who the pilots would have been. That one never occurred to me. Unless, of course, my GWB and OBL lunch is fact?!

  57. Bill Openthalton 17 Jun 2014 at 11:15 am

    Willy –

    Of course it is — I clearly remember I served GWB grapefruit juice, while OBL stuck to orange juice :) .

  58. pdeboeron 17 Jun 2014 at 11:54 am

    I’m confused. Are we joining a debate in progress? Why is he defending himself already? I like how he is setting up strawmen and defending against their strawmen.

    Classic anti-establishment. Constantly on the defensive. They are defined by the established science and so can only respond to it instead of making their own case.

  59. Bronze Dogon 17 Jun 2014 at 1:31 pm

    “There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,[6] in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,[7] for example. Non-typical technologies could also have been used.”

    I decided to look up blasting mats to see if they were what I thought they were. It makes for one more ridiculous thing to stick out so people would notice. Also, they’re not there to muffle the explosion’s noise. They’re there to reduce the amount of flying debris. The decibels involved in demolition charges’ explosions aren’t going to be stopped so easily.

    I’m also amused by the genericness of “non-typical technologies.” It doesn’t actually say anything, and because it doesn’t say anything, it gives him a way out of committing to meaningful claims that can be questioned.

  60. Jerome Viveiroson 17 Jun 2014 at 1:43 pm

    Oh dear, it starts with some fatuous flattery for Dr. Novella, followed by a massive appeal to ignorance. I couldn’t bring myself to read on. (But I will look forward to the response.)

  61. Teaseron 17 Jun 2014 at 2:32 pm

    I wonder why Fullerton didn’t offer up specific analysis along these lines. I found this information in less than two minutes of searching.

    Wherein All the Columns Suddenly Become as Wet Noodles

    Any explanation of the total collapse of the towers would have to account for the collapse of the columns extending the height of the towers. The column failure theory maintains that fire stress to the columns, combined with structural damage from the crashes, was sufficient to level the towers.

    The column failure theory was rolled out days after the attack to replace the claims of “structural engineers” on the day of the attack that the jet fuel had melted the towers’ steel. It requires that all of the columns on a story reach temperatures of 800º Celsius, well below the over-1500-degree melting point of steel. At 800º C, the steel would lose about 90% of its strength and the weight of the building above would cause the columns to buckle, and the top to begin to fall, according to the theory.

    Column failure theory proponents usually invoke some combination of structural damage and fire stress to explain total collapse. Structural damage is used to explain the insufficiency of fire stress and vice versa, in a kind of circular argument.

    *Actual Conditions*

    Fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before, but could the structural damage and fuel load from the jets have created conditions for column failure never before achieved? Perhaps theoretically, but the evidence of the actual structural damage and fires in the Twin Towers precludes those conditions.

    FEMA diagrammed estimated column damage for both impacts. They show about 13 percent of the North Tower’s perimeter columns broken, and 10 percent of the South Tower’s broken.

    The fuselage of the jet that crashed into the South Tower appears to have almost entirely missed the core structure.

    *Structural Damage*

    The impacts damaged less than 15 percent of the perimeter columns in either tower. The South Tower’s core columns apparently escaped significant damage.

    -People in the towers at the time of the impacts reported sways of several feet, but the deflection was not large enough to be noticeable in any of the video footage. The sways were less than the towers experienced in winter storms.

    -The North Tower impact destroyed from 31 to 36 of the 240 perimeter columns (according to FEMA) and an unknown number of core columns.

    -The South Tower impact destroyed about 23 of the 240 perimeter columns, and probably did not damage many of the core columns. The impact hole indicates that the fuselage entered on the right end of the middle third of the southwest wall, and videos show it exiting the east corner. That implies that the plane’s trajectory through the building caused the fuselage to almost entirely miss the core structure. The fact there was a passable stairwell in the core after the crash also suggests there was minimal structural damage.

    Thus both towers lost less than an eighth of their perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost little of its core. Each of the impact holes were confined to five floors. The North Tower’s impact was so high — just 15 lightweight stories from the top — that no amount of structural damage to that portion of the core would threaten the whole building. The highly redundant connection of perimeter columns via the horizontal spandrell plates on every floor assured that gravity loads of the broken columns were easily transferred to other parts of the wall.

    *Fire Severity*

    The fires were not nearly hot enough to significantly soften steel in either tower. The fires in the South Tower were small compared to other serious high-rise fires, and were diminishing at the time of its collapse.

    -In both towers, the smoke darkened a few minutes after the crashes, suggesting that most of the jet fuel had burned off. Smoke from the South Tower never lightened. Dark smoke indicates oxygen-starved fires.

    -In both towers, there were no visible areas of fire extending to large portions of multiple adjacent floors. Hot fires would have to simultaneously cover several entire floors to have any chance of heating the columns to 800º C.

    -The fires remained confined to the crash zone in the South Tower, and never spread to the other side of the building. Strong fires tend to spread.

    -The exterior columns were not visibly glowing red-hot, as they would have had they been above 700º C.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html

  62. ProSubzeroon 17 Jun 2014 at 3:51 pm

    It is just so draining trying to read this conspiracy nonsense. All this has been put to bed a decade ago, yet we get the same stuff. Just so tired. I can read the sensible response from Dr. Novella, but damn… this stuff is brutal.

  63. laserfloydon 17 Jun 2014 at 4:16 pm

    It sounds like he’s saying that since we weren’t actually inside the building to see the structure fail and witness all points of failure first hand, then we must believe something else was at work? If it were controlled, we’d have to witness that also, right? Makes more sense that hundreds (or more) tons of falling building would create a complete collapse vs the circus required to carefully plan out a ‘controlled demolition.

    I wish I didn’t have to wait for Steven’s response. ;)

  64. Larry Fitzgeraldon 17 Jun 2014 at 4:58 pm

    About the Skilling article, there is a sentence in that article that was actually the inspiration for the attacks.. “Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.”

    The planes flown into the Towers were 767′s. The added mass and fuel, and the fact that they were deliberately flown into the building so the planes were accelerating, was enough to tip the scales. Further. The test showed the buildings would withstand the impact of a 707. They did not consider that the debris would strip heat shielding from support structures or that the fires would then be able to weaken those supports. The Towers did withstand the impact of the additional 30+ tons, what they did not survive was the exposure of their support structure to high temperatures for hours.

    After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others attempted to bring a tower down with a car bomb, that article was published. Seeing that sentence gave him the idea to use bigger planes. They didn’t expect to be so completely successful.

  65. ndjinnon 17 Jun 2014 at 5:04 pm

    What I don’t understand is where Fullerton comes up with his questions. I mean setting up your own questions to debunk on any topic isn’t debating anyone but yourself. I totally don’t get it. Where did he get these questions? Looking at the issue as a conspiracy (come on, we all like them if for no other reason than how little they understand about whatever the topic is – (like why the snow won’t melt!”) I have never heard of any of these questions presented as evidence that there was no conspiracy and I can only imagine Dr Novella and anyone debating this topic wouldn’t start there. There are much better questions both technical and logistical and have never been addressed by the folks on the “conspiracy” side.

  66. DJCrashon 17 Jun 2014 at 7:01 pm

    First:

    “The Vérinage technique used in France, for example, typically removes a single floor of support about half way down the building.”

    The in the very next paragraph:

    “The official story claim is that a falling top portion of each building was able to completely demolish the building below. If you had precedence this would provide you with evidence. ”

    How delusional are you that you can’t understand removing a single floor of support half way down the building means that the falling top portion of the building is able to demolish the building below?

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition

    “The technique of Vérinage is used in France to weaken and buckle the supports of central floors promoting the collapse of the top part of a building onto the bottom resulting in a rapid, symmetrical, collapse.”

  67. ghulseon 17 Jun 2014 at 8:32 pm

    “I want to begin by asking all readers a question. Are you smarter than a 5th grade science student? Why? Because, starting as early as kindergarten, elementary school students learn that when you have two competing explanations you are supposed to favor the explanation which has the most supporting evidence. They are taught that an explanation with no supporting evidence is an explanation you cannot ever accept as true. By grade 5 at least, students are taught the scientific method. They learn that you must have evidence before putting forth an explanation for a phenomena.”

    Two competing explanations?

    You don’t need to launch an investigation when a bird crashes through your living room window. There are no competing explanations. The dead bird lies at your feet. The window pane is broken. This is an example of deductive reasoning.

    The collapse of the WTC towers is obviously much more complicated. But my point is that there is no credible reason to examine conspiracy theories when simple deductive reasoning points to a terrorist attack.

    But in fact there are numerous strands of evidence that all point to a terrorist attack and no credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Michael Shermer has written a good piece on holocaust denial, showing the tactics used by the deniers. They tend to look for esoteric bits of data that they claim casts doubt on the official explanation. But even if some of those points did prove to be true, you still have mountains of data that support the official explanation.

    Creationists use the same tactics to deny evolution. See Dr. Novella’s excellent series on motivated reasoning in the Don McLeroy interviews.

  68. grabulaon 17 Jun 2014 at 8:52 pm

    @laserfloyd

    “It sounds like he’s saying that since we weren’t actually inside the building to see the structure fail and witness all points of failure first hand, then we must believe something else was at work?”

    I really believe this lies at the heart of fullertons reasoning. He does a lot of arguing from ignorance in his ‘refutation’ of the facts – we didn’t see this or that, it’s never happened before, etc…

    This is a common mistake. True believers in evolution/abiogenesis denial use this same type of argument all the time. We don’t SEE IT happening (we do in the case of evolution) so you can’t absolutely prove it.

  69. pendens proditoron 18 Jun 2014 at 12:03 am

    Is there a wiki entry for “cargo cult skepticism” somewhere? Someone should add a link to this argument — you couldn’t ask for a better illustration of it.

    A hundred bucks says this “good skeptic” doesn’t change his mind about anything.

  70. theclimateguyon 18 Jun 2014 at 8:13 am

    “The official story of how the towers fell on 9/11 does not have a single solitary piece of supporting scientific evidence.”

    He then lists 3 “undeniable” evidences in the next paragraph. How do you miss such a huge contradiction?

  71. jsterritton 18 Jun 2014 at 10:16 am

    We’ve uncovered a new logical fallacy: Argument From The Sixth Grade. Fullerton’s argument has all the gravity and certitude — not to mention condescension — of a sixth grader explaining to some fourth graders where babies come from (and of course getting it entirely wrong). Snicker.

  72. laserfloydon 18 Jun 2014 at 8:21 pm

    @grabula

    Those were my thoughts exactly. It’s an insult to people who make a living reconstructing past events, be they crime scenes or geologic events. The hardcore group of ‘believers’ will be hard pressed to change their minds but I look forward to the response next week. :)

    Cheers

  73. tmac57on 18 Jun 2014 at 9:42 pm

    So here is the official NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: (Large file 18 MB PDF file)

    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

    A couple hundred investigators, 1,200 interviews, computer and engineering analysis and fire experts all come together to produce a 248 plus page exhaustive report.
    Let me ask Michael Fullerton this: Are you smarter than these people? What expertise do you have?
    Why should anyone accept your simplistic argument from incredulity?
    And finally,I will leave it up to those who chose to read the report, to decide after reading it ,if (as asserted by Fullerton) that

    The NIST report on the Twin Tower collapses provides sketchy evidence only for the collapse initiations and not the falls of the twin towers themselves.[2]

    I guess “sketchy” is in the eye of the beholder.

  74. the devils gummy bearon 18 Jun 2014 at 9:51 pm

    That’s brilliant, jsterritt… Argument From The Sixth Grade… Or, Fullerton’s Fallacy:

    a sixth grader explaining to some fourth graders where babies come from (and of course getting it entirely wrong). Snicker.

    Snikers indeed…

    grabula and I called this guy on his crap in the last one… He just swung in to promote himself… For hits. I’m a little puzzled about why Novella is indulging this guy…

  75. grabulaon 19 Jun 2014 at 12:30 am

    I had an issue early on with the concept of controlled demolition in the twin towers. It was pretty obvious that the collapse was initiated at the points of impact – which should be enough to lead you to the right conclusion. However, even if you wanted to believe in controlled demolition, you’d have to believe several things:

    1- First that hundreds, if not thousands of people would have been involved in a conspiracy to bring the towers down. From those planting the explosives, to the buildings security personnel, and whoever was involved in flying the planes into each building.

    2 – That all of these people have managed to continue to keep this secret.

    3 – That whoever planned the attacks felt not only that they would have to demolition the buildings from the inside, but that they would also have to fly planes into them – presumably to cover up the controlled demolition, even though the building had been targeted in the past by a terrorist explosive attack.

    4 – That with the visual evidence, you have to assume that the attack was so well coordinated and so expertly carried out that the planes hit the exact spots they were supposed to and that the explosives on those floors were not affected by these impacts so that they were set off initially to keep the illusion up that the building was collapsing from the impacts.

  76. SteveAon 19 Jun 2014 at 7:43 am

    Karl Withakay: “Here’s a job for the Mythbusters: Is it possible to conduct a controlled demolition via explosives without producing an audible bang from the detonation of the explosives?

    Would be possible in practice to sufficiently muffle the report of the explosives without (or even with) filling the entire building in feathers and fill foam?”

    Bit of a head-slap moment for me. I never considered the lack of loud bangs. I’m sure we’ve all seen footage of demolitions. They’re pretty noisy, even from a distance. Not to mention the miles of cabling needed to set the charges…

    Or perhaps the conspirators used the building’s existing wiring and plugged their silent explosives into the power outlets. Is that even possible?

    Come on theorists. Do the work. Draw a wiring diagram. Show us how it was done.

  77. BoringKittenson 19 Jun 2014 at 7:59 am

    What are we going to do about Big Explosive? They knew the building was already in line for the plane attack, but the Explosives Industry stepped in to make sure they also benefited from the occasion. And I’m just gonna put this out here…I wouldn’t be surprised if the explosives were laced with fluoride, or even the building itself, and this is why we see all the health issues plaguing the first responders and locals.

  78. Willyon 19 Jun 2014 at 10:49 pm

    Here’s an interesting comment from former CIA agent Bob Baer (no of CNN). I just stumbled into it while looking for info on another topic.

    Baer had expressed skepticism regarding the events of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, writing in The Guardian “[D]id bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I’m far more certain and emphatic: no.”[5] However, he later stated, “For the record, I don’t believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn’t all that good at it, and certainly couldn’t carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with.”[6]

  79. JRockon 20 Jun 2014 at 12:09 am

    is micheal fullerton even a real person or is it steve having a poke at us? the way fullerton boldly takes his first step then precedes to immediately faceplant is classic. comical timing in written form is an art, and we’ve got buster Keaton himself.

  80. Bill Openthalton 20 Jun 2014 at 5:42 am

    JRock –

    Yup, it’s punishment for the 1113 posts in the “Is the Brain a Receiver” topic. :-)

  81. Comorvon 20 Jun 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Hello,

    Well, am no Physicist (I barely finished high school), but just made a few amateur calculations on the kinetic energy of 1 Boeing 767ER (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.page)

    150000 kilos (Max takeoff weight is 179000, so arbitrarily took off 29000)
    139 meters/second (Max speed is 851 K/h, arbitrarily made it 500 for control purposes)

    = 1 449 075 000 joules

    1 ton of TNT = 4 184 000 000 joules

    I guess 1 third of a TON OF TNT per jet, + the 150 TONS OF WEIGHT not distributed, but focused in one small portion of the building dont count.

    btw, if I did the math wrong, please correct me, am always open to learning :)

  82. JRockon 21 Jun 2014 at 11:37 am

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/logic.jpg

    can we hold the boat for a moment? the ten commandments of logic. what is this? why is it here? is it expected to be adheard to? who thought it up and why should they be given authority? why 10, and why these 10 to the exclusion of others?

    now some make sense because they build stronger arguments. some make sense because they raise the bar of the debate, good standards.

    ad hominem, attack the argument not the character. what if their character sucks and is adding obvious problems to the debate? what if they’re hiding in a position of morality and its apparent they’re slimy little toads?

    false dichotomy, no reduction to two possibilities? it seems like this is saying the act of reducing to a dichotomy, even if its true or useful, is a fallacy because somehow dichotomies can’t escape false hood due to their own inherent falseness… I think? seems like this is making an arbitrary restriction backed up with circular logic.

    its saying if you’re using logic it must be this logic. why only standards for logic?

    finally, what’s the logic of labeling logic as commandments. first of all we know the relationships of the members of the list, they directly share in logic. the moral relationships of the real commandments or why they were formed is somewhat dubious. logic derives its authority from its usefulness in the scientific method. the commandments derived authority from god. if logic is supposed to carry so much weight why are we dressing it up as something we give no credence to?

  83. SteveAon 21 Jun 2014 at 12:07 pm

    JRock: “ad hominem, attack the argument not the character. what if their character sucks and is adding obvious problems to the debate?”

    An ad hominem is where their character sucks without adding obvious problems to the debate. If someone has a criminal record it does not follow that we should automatically discount anything they have to say on climate change, for example.
    On the other hand, if someone has a track record as a proven liar, it is fair to reference their past behaviour if they’re offering their own recollections of an experience as evidence of something.

    “false dichotomy, no reduction to two possibilities?” Some things can be reduced to two possibilities; some can’t. The latter are false.

    “the ten commandments of logic. what is this?” The playful use of a common meme. Not to be taken seriously.

  84. jsterritton 21 Jun 2014 at 12:57 pm

    JRock and SteveA: What’s so funny is that Fullerton included these “10 Commandments” in his post, along with this proviso in his opening remarks: “…no logical fallacies are to be used in this debate.” He then proceeds to break his word — and his Commandments — with his opening sentence! Begging the question, argument from ignorance, false cause, etc (see comments above — it’s almost too funny to be true).

  85. JRockon 21 Jun 2014 at 2:03 pm

    @stevea

    ah ha! on the ad hominem. there are so many permutations connected with these logic fallacies. its staggering. I’m staggered. some of the members here are just so fluid with them, hoping to get there.

    “false dichotomy, no reduction to two possibilities?” Some things can be reduced to two possibilities; some can’t. The latter are false.

    I still have some fuzz with this. are you saying arguments that can’t be reduced to two possibilities are false. or that arguments that can’t be reduced to two possibilities BUT are, are the false dichotomy?

    @jsterritt

    indeed, I make mention of the perfect comedic timing of the fail. like a pratfall.

  86. jsterritton 21 Jun 2014 at 3:24 pm

    JRock: short, easy answer: yes, it is arguments that can’t be reduced to two possibilities BUT are, that are the false dichotomy.

    Some arguments CAN be reduced to two possibilities:

    1. the cat is either alive or dead.
    2. the cat is alive.
    3. the cat is not dead.

    The fallacy of false choice (or “false dichotomy,” or “false dilemma”) is a reductive tactic that makes the false claim that there are only two possibilities:

    1. either you believe that God created everything 6,000 years ago
    2. or you’re a Satanist

    These two choices are presented as if one choice must be true and one choice false, when in fact they may both be false. Unless you are a Satanist, there is obviously a third choice — or infinite other choices — all of which have been ignored by the false choice presented. Even if you ARE a Satanist, the dichotomy (i.e., the claim that the two are mutually exclusive) is still false. Both choices could be true (perhaps you are a young-earth creationist Satanist), but it is still a false dichotomy.

    Logical fallacies, which are often no more than debating tricks, become increasingly easy to spot with time. I let my bullsh*t detector go off, then parse the offending content for actual substance. It is rare to find a substantive, reasoned argument in the camouflage of a fallacy.

  87. JRockon 21 Jun 2014 at 8:17 pm

    # jsterritt

    thanks for the follow up on the false dichotomy. that’s what I thought it was. two answers, presented as mutually excswoosive (your divisive example helped greatly), but really just ignoring the gamut. I was confusing myself on the way this was presented in the 10 commandments. which substitutes a little nuance for authoritarianism…. I got caught assuming I was missing an important distinction in the commandment version, thinking its version had something logically valid to offer. when it was a perfect example of the adoption of skeptical tools that wind up tainted in the general direction of some telling flaw in the presenter. here I was seeing it all coming and bam, obvious variable blindness.

  88. Steven Novellaon 22 Jun 2014 at 7:44 am

    These logical fallacies are called informal logical fallacies, because they are not strictly invalid. A lot depends on form and context – how the arguments are used.

    Authority, for example, can be legitimate – if it is a broad consensus of a scientific community hammered out with evidence and debate arriving at a confident conclusion.

  89. jsterritton 22 Jun 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Steven Novella makes an excellent point about the fallacies we’ve been discussing here (i.e., informal). There are also the several “formal” fallacies that mathematically preclude an argument from being valid. The “informal” ones comprise a long, growing list of recognizable patterns of flawed reasoning and debating tricks, but do not guarantee fallacious reasoning: a dichotomy can be true; an argument from authority valid. Fun stuff.

  90. tmac57on 22 Jun 2014 at 2:41 pm

    The way that I view informal fallacies, is that they represent poor/sloppy reasoning,and often a desire to psychologically manipulate the audience rather than inform,despite whether they represent truth claims or not. That is why they should be called out,not because they falsify a claim.
    A ‘red flag’ if you will.

  91. fullermon 22 Jun 2014 at 4:40 pm

    Not surprisingly there seems to be some serious confusion about how fallacies work. A fallacious argument is _always_ wrong. That is the whole point of the term. The conclusion of a fallacious argument may be correct; it’s just that the premises don’t support that conclusion. With formal fallacies the argument is wrong due to a defect in form or structure. Informal fallacies are arguments that have a flaw in content.

    If person A presents an argument and person B merely calls person A stupid, that’s a fallacy because there is no support for the conclusion. If person B also explains why person A is stupid that’s not a fallacy because the conclusion is supported.

    Note that falsely accusing someone of committing a logical fallacy is a form of straw man called a false fallacy fallacy. Heh heh.

  92. Bruceon 22 Jun 2014 at 6:10 pm

    “A fallacious argument is _always_ wrong.”

    That is a fallacy fallacy, at least in the informal fallacy arena. Just because someone is arguing badly (ie with fallacies), it does not mean their position is not valid.

  93. fullermon 22 Jun 2014 at 6:34 pm

    No, a fallacy fallacy occurs when you claim an argument’s _conclusion_ is false because the argument itself is fallacious. Argument = premises + inference + conclusion. If your inference is wrong that means your argument is wrong not necessarily your conclusion.

  94. SteveAon 23 Jun 2014 at 7:44 am

    Fullerm

    Are you going to address any of the criticisms of your theory raised in the above posts?

    You have a great opportunity to change some minds. Why don’t you use it?

  95. BillyJoe7on 23 Jun 2014 at 8:40 am

    Well, I think I understand what a fallacy is, and I think I can just grasp what a fallacy fallacy is but…

    If Bruce’s fallacy fallacy is fallacious, as Fullerm fulminates, has he made a fallacy fallacy fallacy?
    And, if Fullerm’s fallacy fallacy fallacy accusation is fallacious, could Bruce claim that Fullerm has made a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy?
    But, if Bruce’s accusation that Fullerm has made fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy is fallacious, has he made a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy?

  96. w2edon 23 Jun 2014 at 2:48 pm

    I’m going out of my way and on a limb by saying I can see your argument. However, there are some things, when counter arguments to a major event are given, don’t add up. (This is why I have a hard time getting into conspiracy theories – they’re often some creation of a fear-addled mind.) The big question standing out: Who was controlling the explosion? As silly as it sounds, you have me picturing two very different, and very scary, scenarios that would support your claim, with the only difference between them being who was controlling the whole thing.

  97. grabulaon 23 Jun 2014 at 9:21 pm

    @Fullerm

    “Not surprisingly there seems to be some serious confusion about how fallacies work”

    You should read your article above for examples on how they work. There’s some irony in you lecturing anyone on how fallacious thinking operates.

  98. grabulaon 23 Jun 2014 at 9:23 pm

    @SteveA

    “Are you going to address any of the criticisms of your theory raised in the above posts?”

    He won’t. He’s not interested in engaging with anyone but Dr. Novella, star struck I think.

    When he first popped in and linked his video a couple of use addressed some very specific things and he lazily accused us of attacking him and not his points.

  99. SteveAon 25 Jun 2014 at 8:05 am

    “Are you going to address any of the criticisms of your theory raised in the above posts?”

    grabula: “He won’t. He’s not interested in engaging with anyone but Dr. Novella, star struck I think.

    When he first popped in and linked his video a couple of use addressed some very specific things and he lazily accused us of attacking him and not his points.”

    I’d certainly like to attack him, with decomposing vegetables. The time-wasting loon.

  100. Bruceon 25 Jun 2014 at 9:08 am

    Fullerm:

    “A fallacious argument is _always_ wrong.”

    I say again, this is not correct. You see, how I see it, I am not looking at ANY other part of what you said in your post, I am focusing on one sentence, and I am now going to interpret it in a way that suits me. So, I am reading “wrong” as reading “the conclusion to the argument is false”. So, I still call this a “fallacy fallacy”.

    I feel vindicated because I have failed to then read any further into what you have said and have (perhaps willfully) completely ignored any evidence that you might have actually meant “wrong” in any other way.

    I wonder if there are any other real world scenarios where I might be able to use this new skill of mine?

  101. Steven Novellaon 25 Jun 2014 at 11:17 am

    The term “wrong” is not precise.

    A fallacious argument or one based upon a false premise is not sound.
    Bad logic is not valid.
    A conclusion is either factually correct or factually wrong.

    So an unsound argument, using invalid logic, can still arrive at a conclusion that is not wrong. However, the argument cannot be used to support the conclusion.

    This is all separate from the other point, that informal logical fallacies are not necessarily invalid in every use and context. Sometimes, pointing out the authoritative source of information is valid, for example.

  102. fullermon 27 Jun 2014 at 2:08 pm

    Dr. N., I think I understand the point you’re trying to make and it is correct. Your attempt of explaining that point though is horribly wrong. What I think you are trying to say is that for example, appealing to authority is not always wrong. That’s correct, I do it all the time. I don’t have time to research every drug or technique so if I have to make a decision quickly I will appeal to an authority or the group to save time. It’s not wrong to commit such appeals in order to make a decision. In this case it is not a fallacy. It is wrong, always wrong, to state that decision is the correct one based on such appeals. In this case it is a fallacy.

  103. steve12on 27 Jun 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Mlema:

    Please tell me that you’re not a Truther….

  104. the devils gummy bearon 28 Jun 2014 at 9:18 pm

    It is wrong, always wrong, to state that decision is the correct one based on such appeals.

    Eh. I lack the patience to get into this. Suffice it to say- he really doesn’t have of a grasp of informal logic, AT ALL, but throws around “fallacy this” and “fallacy that” more than you can shake a stick at.

    Per the OP; he isn’t presenting a scientific argument at all. His argument doesn’t actually include any kind of hypothesis by any stretch- Fullerton, if you’re reading this, a hypothesis must be falsifiable/testable. Simply calling your belief a “hypothesis” doesn’t make it a proper a hypothesis. This is an elementary/basic science literacy failure. Thus his assertion that his argument is more “scientific” is rendered utterly moot by this basic failure. And further, per his belief in this conspiracy theory- he gives zero supporting evidence. No meat and potatoes to this guy. Just a conspiracy theory, wrapped in pseudo-science, with a whole lotta inane “fallacy” declarations (which only demonstrate his sophomoric comprehension of fallacious argumentation).
    

  105. grabulaon 28 Jun 2014 at 9:26 pm

    @DGB

    “Eh. I lack the patience to get into this. Suffice it to say- he really doesn’t have of a grasp of informal logic, AT ALL, but throws around “fallacy this” and “fallacy that” more than you can shake a stick at”

    He does like to throw around those words but in the famous words of Inigo Montoya “You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Notice again he’s only bothered to address Dr. Novella? Someone’s got his stalker on….

  106. the devils gummy bearon 28 Jun 2014 at 9:34 pm

    grabula, yeah, you and I both called this guy on his schtick almost immediately after he popped up. It was and is painfully obvious. I’m on the same page with you (what you just said in the part II comments) about this being mostly a mistake, but for (probably slightly different) reasons than yours, which I’m not going to go into publically- it’s pretty embarrassing as is.

  107. Bruceon 29 Jun 2014 at 6:21 am

    He responded to me once… should I feel honoured?

  108. wood757on 29 Jun 2014 at 10:06 am

    Michael Fullerton tweeted yesterday: “Watch official story true believers get schooled on Monday with my rebuttal.”

  109. Bruceon 29 Jun 2014 at 10:35 am

    Oh, I love that he is trying to turn the “true believer” moniker around.

  110. mandelboton 01 Jul 2014 at 12:57 pm

    I have a question for those who advocate for controlled demolition. Have you ever watched a show about controlled demolition on any of the science channels? Or, in this case, the YouTube videos “supporting” the claims in this article?

    Every one of them shows a building where everything that isn’t structural has been removed. leaving a shell. In fact, the demolition teams usually also remove key structural elements prior to detonation in order to facilitate the demolition.

    Unless they were the demolition team from the movie “Volcano” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120461/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_26, I don’t see how they could have even attempted a controlled demolition.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.