Jun 03 2014

More 9-11 Anomaly Hunting

It’s been almost 13 years and the nonsense shows no sign of stopping. It is still amazing to me – thousands of direct eyewitnesses saw two passenger jets plow into each of the twin towers. Further, there are countless videos from multiple vantage points clearly showing these events.

Also keep in mind that after the first jet hit the North Tower, media attention descended onto the towers. The media was in full force when the second jet hit the South Tower. In addition, many personal video cameras were up and running. It is therefore an extensively documented event.

In the face of this overwhelming direct eyewitness and corroborating video evidence, who could deny the basic fact that two jets struck those two towers that morning?

Well, this guy, for one. I know this is beating a dead horse, but I think it is useful to have occasional reminders of the extent to which people can deceive themselves into absurd conclusions. It should also be noted that, while apparently declining in more recent polls, belief in a 9-11 conspiracy remains high. Averaging all surveys, less than half of those asked accept the standard explanation that 9-11 was an Al Qaeda plot.

One of the ways in which people arrive at and then reinforce conclusions that are demonstrably absurd is anomaly hunting. This is a common part of the conspiracy theory process – look at any complex event and hunt for any apparent anomaly. Does anything not make immediate sense or stick out as unusual.

This is a form of data-mining – looking at a very large set of data and hunting for patterns or statistical quirks. Any large set of data will contain these things by chance alone. All the details that make up a complex event represent a large data set, and so apparent anomalies and unusual coincidences should be common.

This mental error is then combined with the false conclusion that because there are apparent anomalies, something must be wrong with the superficial or official story. Conspiracy theorists are very impressed when they find anomalies, because they work from the false premise that if there weren’t a cover-up, then no such anomalies should be apparent.

Apparent anomalies, however, are everywhere. If you look you will find them.

This latest YouTube video is a perfect example of anomaly hunting. The author, pouring over videos of jets crashing into towers, thinks he has found evidence that the video was faked. He points to the appearance that the wing of the plane seems to pass behind a building in the background. He concludes this is a “layering error” and is therefore evidence the entire video is faked.

There is a far simpler explanation, however. This is simply an optical illusion and an artifact of the video. The shade of the wing is very similar to that of the building in the background, so when the two are overlayed the video camera cannot separate the two. The wing therefore disappears into the building, which our brains then interpret as it being behind the building.

You can see that this is true because on the nearer side of the building, which is more lit by sunlight, the wing is much darker and we can see it pass in front of this side of the building.

The video, therefore, is not evidence of CG. This is just what happens when you zoom in on such video – artifacts appear and can sometimes produce optical illusions.

This, of course, is a much simpler explanation than the claim that thousands of eyewitnesses were somehow deceived, that hundreds of videos were all faked, that the passengers on those jets were made to disappear, the buildings were demolished, and all the other elements of that day were faked without leaving any hard evidence behind. The more you think about the implications of a conspiracy, the more absurd it becomes.

The new video also claims that the jet would not have penetrated the building as it did. This is just naive, and a bit arrogant. Why would anyone presume to know intuitively what should happen when a passenger jet loaded with fuel flies into a building at 466 mph. The kinetics of such an event are totally outside our everyday experience.

The momentum of that jet had to go somewhere, and the exploding fuel would have provided even more energy. Further, the towers were constructed with their supports on the inside, and so the outer shell was more fragile than for most other similar buildings.

This point is not even an anomaly.

The true lesson here is to never underestimate the extent to which people can convince themselves that the absurd is true.

Share

69 responses so far

69 Responses to “More 9-11 Anomaly Hunting”

  1. jasontimothyjoneson 03 Jun 2014 at 8:57 am

    This actually links into something thats been puzzling me for some time now, why is it that people will tend to believe false information, in this case, why would more than 50% of a survey believe anything other that what has been proven, and happened in front of our eyes, I remember watching the live news stream of the second plane hitting the building, as it happened live.

    Its the same with Woo Woo (non) medical treatments, why do so many people flock towards the non scientific or unproven answers?

  2. BillyJoe7on 03 Jun 2014 at 9:08 am

    Comments are disabled for the video (:

  3. BillyJoe7on 03 Jun 2014 at 9:19 am

    “I remember watching the live news stream of the second plane hitting the building, as it happened live”

    My wife and I had just returned from a play at the nearby Athenaeum theater and, for some reason, turned on the television. After watching for a few minutes, we decided that this was probably not a movie. Then the second plane struck and it was clear that we were watching a real event unfolding.

  4. Chris Robertson 03 Jun 2014 at 9:51 am

    Another common feature of the conspiracy theory is found in the video’s description: “I’m not saying this video is true, I don’t know.” – the claim that a direct accusation is not being made, he’s just asking questions. But of course his purpose is to accuse and to cast doubt.

  5. Cadraigon 03 Jun 2014 at 10:07 am

    Hmm. Another possibility is that the building is in the foreground, i.e. it could be across the street from where the video is being recorded, but giving the illusion that it is much bigger, and behind the WTC.

  6. The Other John Mcon 03 Jun 2014 at 10:09 am

    Chris — yes, the annoying “JAQing off” method of pseudo-skeptics

  7. JDunhamon 03 Jun 2014 at 10:11 am

    Steve, I think the explanation is even simpler than you mention above. I am not familiar with this part of NY, but it seems to me that the video clearly shows the lower portion of the building in question between the camera and the towers. To my mind, the optical illusion here is just one of scaling. Both the plane and the twin towers are massive, much larger than this foreground building. The uploader is imagining this building is in the background when it actually is much closer. I think the optical illusion is that we don’t expect the plane to be as big as it is, so we imagine it “in front” of the building until they intersect, when in fact the whole plane is behind–really above–the building throughout the video.

  8. ScubaSharkyon 03 Jun 2014 at 11:18 am

    Dr. Novella, the explanation for the apparent anomaly in this video is actually far simpler than what you’ve proposed. The buildings purported to be in the background, north of the WTC, are actually in the foreground! They are the Whitehall Building and the Downtown Athletic Club which are SOUTH of the WTC complex. The wing of the aircraft appears to pass behind the Downtown Athletic Club because it IS behind the DAC. The optical illusion is that, because of the angle of the video footage, one might mistake the buildings on the left to be further away than they actually are.

  9. HaveANiceCupOfTeaon 03 Jun 2014 at 11:54 am

    Hi Steve

    I too came to that conclusion, but upon further investigation I suspect that I got it wrong.

    A chap on youtube has done his homework and demonstrates that the wing of the plane does in fact fly behind the top of the building, because said building is a lot closer to the camera than the World Trade Centre Tower. It’s an optical illusion which makes it seem that the building is near to the Tower.

    To my shame I cannot find the link to the skeptics youtube video. But it’s very easy to establish for ourselves that what the skeptic in the video was demonstrating is true. Paste the following into google earth search (with 3d buildings turned on) and you should end up in Battery Park, right in front of the building with the distinctive semi-circular facade. Behind that building is the one which the wing of the plane flys behind. You’ll notice that that building is a long long way in front of the tower from the cameraperson’s perspective.

    40°42’18.42″ N 74°00’57.44″ W

    Hope that makes sense!

    First post for me Steve. Thanks ever so much for all that you do with skepticism and the podcast.

    Kind regards
    Joe

  10. Steven Novellaon 03 Jun 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Thanks – that makes sense. Then perhaps the wing passing in front of the other side is just a reflection off the windows?

    I’ve seen this illusion work either way – the bottom line is that it can be difficult based on perspective to tell what is passing in front or behind, and there are deliberate illusions where dark colors are used to create the illusion of passing behind. When the colors of two objects merge like that our brains tend to assume one is passing behind the other.

    In any case – this is not evidence of CG.

  11. The Other John Mcon 03 Jun 2014 at 1:02 pm

    Dr. N: “this is not evidence of CG.”

    And EVEN if it were good evidence (which it’s not)…why should anyone just jump to the conclusion that there is a grand, evil, murderous conspiracy? Conspiracy theorists just see conspiracy in anything, even grainy video.

  12. Sylakon 03 Jun 2014 at 1:02 pm

    the actual Structure were Outside in part. The outside walls were load bearing, it was a different architecture for the time, most ouside wall of other building are not load bearing. That’s the reason for the small windows the huge beam going in between. It is also a good part of why the building collapsed, since the support structure was destroy in huge part by the planes, and the anti-fire material covering them was also tear apart, letting the fire heat up the steel. My Brother is a Architect explain that to me couple of time.

    I did find this site that explain. http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

  13. Sylakon 03 Jun 2014 at 1:05 pm

    For those who might read French ( although some of the link son the site lead to English literature about it, for example the popular mechanic debunking, ) this site have a lot of information about the science behind “debunking” all those 9-11 myth. http://www.bastison.net/.

  14. Teaseron 03 Jun 2014 at 1:58 pm

    BillyJoe7

    I spy an anomaly in your recounting the events of that fateful morning.

    “My wife and I had just returned from a play at the nearby Athenaeum theater…..”
    That theater is in Chicago which is CST. Which means you went to see a play in the early morning hours of Sept 11. Did you attend a special sunrise performance on that day?

    The first jet hit at:
    “8:46:30[10] Flight 11 crashes at roughly 466 mph (790 km/h or 219m/s or 425 knots) into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99.”

  15. tmac57on 03 Jun 2014 at 4:44 pm

    Teaser- Did you know that there is an Athenaeum theater in Melborne Australia,and that Melborne is 15 hours ahead of CST?
    If I recall correctly, BillyJoe7 is from Australia.

  16. tmac57on 03 Jun 2014 at 5:08 pm

    I guess I should have used EST for New York City. So the second plane should have hit the South WTC building around 11:03 PM by Melbourne Australia time,if I did the numbers right.

  17. Teaseron 03 Jun 2014 at 6:02 pm

    tmac57

    Another conspiracy down the drain!

  18. BillyJoe7on 03 Jun 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Teaser,

    tmac is correct. :)

    The Athenaeum theatre we attended is actually in Lilydale (a suburb on the outskirts of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia):

    http://www.lilydaleatc.com/

    Victoria is 14 hours ahead of New York, so 8:46:30 am in New York would be 10:46:30 pm in Victoria.
    That sounds about right.

  19. BillyJoe7on 03 Jun 2014 at 6:15 pm

    ..oops, didn’t see your acknowledgement.

  20. Paulzon 03 Jun 2014 at 8:13 pm

    “If I recall correctly, BillyJoe7 is from Australia.”

    Ah hah! He could be a member of the Australian Illuminati!
    You can’t PROVE that he isn’t!

  21. Roman100on 03 Jun 2014 at 8:25 pm

    What about WTC-7?

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

  22. grabulaon 04 Jun 2014 at 1:30 am

    “If I recall correctly, BillyJoe7 is from Australia.”

    The onus is on you to prove this outlandish claim

  23. BillyJoe7on 04 Jun 2014 at 7:47 am

    Teaser,

    The interesting thing about those of us who live in the southern hemisphere is that we always think about the whole world. Those living in the northern hemisphere more often than not seem oblivious to the existence of the other half and, more often than not, Americans think the world does not exist outside its own borders. It’s as simple as starting a post with “Now that it’s Summer…” when it’s damn well Winter where I live. Or “80% of people believe that…” when its 80% only in the damn USA”.

    Anyway, you are forgiven.

  24. tmac57on 04 Jun 2014 at 7:51 am

    Hmmm….now I’m not so sure. I have seen BJ7 refer to occam’s razor…razor…raze…”to destroy,as a building”…BJ7…Building 7…down…under…Australia…MY EYS ARE OPEN NOW!.

  25. grabulaon 04 Jun 2014 at 7:52 am

    Billjoe7

    “Those living in the northern hemisphere more often than not seem oblivious to the existence of the other half and, more often than not, Americans think the world does not exist outside its own borders.”

    Billyjoe, I find this sort of an ignorant statement. As an American I’m extremely aware of the rest of the world. I know you don’t mean EVERY American, but I find in my experience people from other countries tend to be much more interested in local goings on than what’s going on out in the world. I find people of 1st world countries tend to look farther beyond their borders than those of 2nd or 3rd world, for obvious reasons really. I think this statement can really be applied to most countries, though some countries are small and surrounded by other small (geographically speaking) countries and so can’t help but think outside their own borders.

  26. BillyJoe7on 04 Jun 2014 at 8:48 am

    tmac: “I have seen BJ7 refer to occam’s razor”

    Never. Never. Never.
    Please quote me or retract your accusation.
    I have always and without fail used the proper English form: Okham’s Razor!

    grabula,

    Sorry if I didn’t make it clear, but that was not a serious post.
    I thought the “Anyway, you are forgiven” at the end would be a giveaway.
    But reading it again now, perhaps not.
    (It is true, however, that blog posts here and at SBM often assume a northern hemisphere audience)

  27. BillyJoe7on 04 Jun 2014 at 8:49 am

    Goddamn… Ockham’s Razor. (:

  28. Teaseron 04 Jun 2014 at 11:03 am

    BillyJoe7

    Google search let me down when searching the theater name. I perused only pages 1 & 2 of the search return. I was focused on NYC and then saw the theater was in Chicago. At that point I knew I had a solid lead into the conspiracy. You had unwittingly revealed your involvement in the horrendous attack.

    If I had clicked on page 3 I would’ve seen the Melbourne location…..USA USA USA!

    Perhaps you could tell us the truth about Pine Gap…………

  29. blu28on 04 Jun 2014 at 12:21 pm

    It took me all of two minutes to use Google Earth and find the two buildings in the video. As others here have noted, the buildings are south of the former WTC site, not as described in the video. How much longer did this guy spend on making the video in the first place than it would have taken to show his hypothesis was incorrect.

  30. Newcoasteron 04 Jun 2014 at 4:16 pm

    @grabula
    Perhaps billyjoe7′s comments don’t apply to you, and you always have a global perspective. However, I’m a fellow denizen of North America, in Canada, and it is a truism that most Americans have a very local perspective and very little interest or awareness of what happens outside their borders. It is apparent even to casual readers of this blog, and other places that allow comments.

    I would hope most skeptics have a more worldly outlook, but I don’t know that is true.

  31. tmac57on 04 Jun 2014 at 5:46 pm

    All this loose talk about “other” countries,and “global perspective” smacks of NWO speak.

    ;)

  32. zorrobanditoon 04 Jun 2014 at 7:21 pm

    Here’s the problem with conspiracy theories, at least most of them, the ones that deal with events which have been widely reported. (The moon landings are another example.)

    To believe that the whole thing was cooked up, was a fake, the airplanes did not hit the building, the buildings fell for some other reason, no one went to the moon, the films were shot in the Mojave… you have to believe that a very large number of people were involved, and that every single one of them has kept his/her mouth shut all this time.

    More than one person cannot keep a secret for a week, let alone all these years. Are we to believe that of all these hundreds of people, no one, no camera person involved in these supposed fakes, no film processing person, no explosives person, no secretary, no witness, not one, no one has blown the gaff in all this time?

    In a way you could sort of wish that government was this effective, but ….. for good or ill, this is a government which finds collecting revenue almost inextricably difficult. For example. Keeping secrets? Please.

  33. Paulzon 04 Jun 2014 at 9:26 pm

    “(It is true, however, that blog posts here and at SBM often assume a northern hemisphere audience)”

    I’d imagine a supermajority of his audience is. Not to say we should ignore you southrons, of course. You have such amazing beaches.

  34. grabulaon 05 Jun 2014 at 12:24 am

    @BJ7

    “It is true, however, that blog posts here and at SBM often assume a northern hemisphere audience”

    My bad, it was getting towards the end of my day. I can say that most of the exposure I get to news is northern hemisphere centric – though in the skeptical world Australia is mentioned often for it’s battles fought over the silliness there. I wonder though if ‘most’ of the ‘stuff’ happens in the northern hemisphere? Looking at a map it appears most of the ‘stuff’ is in the northern hemisphere so it’s likely to generate more attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Hemisphere#mediaviewer/File:Global_hemispheres.svg

    Not that this means we ignore what’s going on with the antipodes, just that honestly other than Australia I rarely hear much coming from those parts of Africa and South America that lie below the equator.

  35. grabulaon 05 Jun 2014 at 12:28 am

    @newcoaster

    ” However, I’m a fellow denizen of North America, in Canada, and it is a truism that most Americans have a very local perspective and very little interest or awareness of what happens outside their borders”

    I’m not really convinced. I know we have a slice of the population who is barely aware of the rest of the world but so far that’s been true in the other countries I’ve visited – more so in less 1st world countries. The US is something like 3rd in population in the world so I’d have to somehow see a breakdown by percentage on that sort of attitude (by polling I’d assume).

    For years there was a meme floating around about how bad American kids were at identifying other countries, then a few years back they released some similar studies for Europeans both east and west, and it turns out that sort of ignorance isn’t limited to North America.

    Anyway, I don’t want to get too far off topic.

  36. BillyJoe7on 05 Jun 2014 at 7:18 am

    Well it’s more that we would like to feel included (like all those students at a certain public school recently who would have liked to have felt included in the graduation speech given by the christian principal – see below). So, instead of “now that Summer has arrived…” how about “now that Summer has arrived in the northern hemisphere…”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwrBqcBcgM

    Okay, I admit, those students have a much bigger gripe, but still…

  37. grabulaon 05 Jun 2014 at 7:46 am

    @BJ7

    lol, I can’t tell if you’re kidding again but I suspect you are. I’m ok with southern hemisphere types not including us northerners in their graduation speeches etc.

  38. Bill Openthalton 05 Jun 2014 at 7:56 am

    BillyJoe7 –

    Of course, the fact that southern hemispherists feel compelled to celebrate Christmas with a braai (barbecue for the non-South Africans) at the poolside by 40C doesn’t help. Faux snow, anyone?

  39. BillyJoe7on 05 Jun 2014 at 8:47 am

    Oh well, it looks like this poor old southern hemispherian might as well crawl back in his shell for all the empathy he’s going to get here.

  40. The Other John Mcon 05 Jun 2014 at 9:01 am

    that’s right, crawl back into your upside down shell at the bottom of the earth, mwa-hahaha!

  41. tmac57on 05 Jun 2014 at 9:35 am

    I personally,wish to acknowledge the importance of our venomous Australian friends! :)

  42. ccbowerson 05 Jun 2014 at 10:40 am

    What would be a reasonable perspective given that nearly 90% of the world’s population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, and this blog is created by a person living in the Northeastern United States and speaks English? Inclusive language is important, but audience is not a random sampling of the world.

    Yes, Australia is a physically large country, but it has a population less than California or Texas (therefore would rank third in population as a state). Not that there is anything wrong with that, but worrying about innocuous comments about seasons seems petty. To the extent that people don’t even realize that the Southern hemisphere experiences seasons differently, then I agree that it makes sense to correct that, but is that really happening here?

    I do agree that there are too many people unconcerned with what happens beyond their borders (or beyond the ends of their noses), but let’s not pretend that this is unique to people from the US. I’m sure that all types of assumptions are made with that bias in mind, and perhaps I miss a lot of them because of my perspective, but let’s have some better examples.

    How about the North-up map/globe orientation?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-up_map_orientation

  43. ccbowerson 05 Jun 2014 at 10:45 am

    BJ7. Oh, I see that you mention your post being not serious, but I only half believe that.

    That’s OK. It is a good to be reminded about that… that there are over 10% of the world standing upside down. It must be hard with the sky below you and the blood constantly rushing to your head.

    =D

  44. Insomniacon 05 Jun 2014 at 10:58 am

    grabula :

    I don’t know about this study that put European kids on the same level, I’d like to see it. Because in fact that’s not the impression I have from personal experience. I acknowledge this is quite a poor way to evaluate those things, but I can’t help but thinking Americans are the worst. Even grown ups in the US seem to barely know what’s overseas. I have multiple examples from personal experience (again, I know it’s not good evidence).

    One of the most striking story was the CNN coverage of the 2005 riots that happened in my country (France) where they didn’t even locate cities correctly.

    This year I attended a lecture in Washington about nuclear energy, and the guy put Paris also in the wrong place.

    I mean, if you don’t know, just look it up and don’t try to make up something.

    I met a woman who didn’t know where France was, I mean she just replied “I know it’s not around here”. Ok, it was Idaho, but still.

    There was also this terrible television programme where there was this womand saying “What ? There is a country called Turkey ?”.

    Of course you may also have heard about this : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

    Actually all these anecdotes don’t settle the question as to the fact that Americans are worst than others at geography, but still, these are things I’ve never seen in Europe, be it in England, Spain, Belgium or France where I’ve been. People tend to know a bit of basic geography, even of Asia, the Americas, Oceania and of course Europe (although it has become more difficult as multiple countries split in the East/Balkans).

    I mean, maybe it’s not that Americans know less than Europeans, it may be that when they don’t know they don’t bother to verify because they don’t really care. Again, I’m talking about averages, there is obviously a fraction of the population for which this is not the case at all in the US, and vice versa in Europe.

  45. Insomniacon 05 Jun 2014 at 10:59 am

    are worse* than others

  46. BillyJoe7on 05 Jun 2014 at 6:02 pm

    ccbowers,

    Yes, you’re a little late to the party.
    And, yes, I am only half joking.

    (I assume you at least have some empathy for those few non-christian students in that graduating class – I would have walked right up to the microphone during the minute of silence and said “We are not all christians here. How dare you exclude us from the graduation celebrations”)

  47. Dennis.Kon 05 Jun 2014 at 6:47 pm

    I can prove right here and now that Dr. Steven Novella is wrong. In his second sentence, he says, “thousands of direct eyewitnesses saw two passenger jets plow into each of the twin towers.” It is a very well-known and well-documented fact that there were only two towers and two planes involved in this tragic incident. Therefore, those thousands of eyewitnesses only saw one passenger jet plow into each of the towers. The rest of his article is correct, except for the two questions that have periods instead of question marks.

    Just in case anyone can’t tell, my tongue was firmly ensconced in my cheek as I typed the message above.

  48. noswonkyon 05 Jun 2014 at 8:33 pm

    This video debunks the video mentioned:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8

    It shows that the building that hides the wing is actually in the foreground and the wing therefore should indeed go behind it.

    It’s an illusion of perspective where the building looks like it’s in the background but it’s actually in the foreground.

  49. fullermon 05 Jun 2014 at 10:14 pm

    Great work Dr. Novella. Now how about debunking a real 9/11 skeptic video, mine. The simple argument in this video shows how all 9/11 official story believers are science-illiterate crackpots.

    http://youtu.be/o9lsNFYt5Ik

  50. tmac57on 05 Jun 2014 at 11:22 pm

    Mike Hall on the Skeptics With A ‘K’ podcast did an excellent piece on this in their last episode. He especially unwound the ‘CG effects’ bit. Really worth a listen.

  51. grabulaon 06 Jun 2014 at 12:53 am

    @fullerm

    From your video:

    “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. The official story is therefore 100% pseudoscience.”

    The NIST report contains a lot more than just the initiation:

    http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017

    Your leap to ‘therefore 100% pseudoscience’ isn’t supported by your previous claim. HUGE leap in assumption.

    You go on with this garbage:

    “there is absolutely no evidence however that this damage resulted in the falls of both towers. there is only an entirely unsupported FAITH BASED that this damage caused the fall of the towers” (in reference to the airplanes striking each tower, stress is mine)

    You go on with the usual ridiculous and debunked claims of symmetrical collapses and rapid fall times, all of which have been addressed pretty thoroughly using science. No faith involved here Fullerm, just good ole science!

  52. grabulaon 06 Jun 2014 at 12:55 am

    @FullerM

    Out of curiosity, how do you have a ‘debate’ in 5 minutes, with yourself?

    Finally, you provide no evidence to support your claim in that video. Just statements a few of which I posted above, that go unsupported. there’s literally no argument in that video other than ‘they’re evidence sucks, mine is better.’

  53. BillyJoe7on 06 Jun 2014 at 1:05 am

    fullerm,

    “Now how about debunking a real 9/11 skeptic video, mine…http://youtu.be/o9lsNFYt5Ik

    What a crock.

    1) Your video clearly shows that the collapse of the tower proceeds from the point of impact of the planes (with the part of the building above the impact collapsing down into the part of the building below the impact) and not from the base of the building as would be the case in a contolled demolition.

    2) You say that no buiding has ever collapsed in this manner without the cause being a controlled demolition, therefore this building must have collapsed as a result of a controlled demolition. However no building like this has ever been struck by a plane before, so there is actually no precedent for this scenario.

    3) You misuse the term pseudoscience and you misuse the argument from incredulity.

  54. grabulaon 06 Jun 2014 at 1:07 am

    @BJ7

    “you misuse the argument from incredulity.”

    Actually I think he might be using that one properly :D

  55. Davdoodleson 06 Jun 2014 at 4:04 am

    Jeepers. What a moron that conspiracy guy is.

    I’m not even from the US, never been to NYC, but it took me about ten minutes (working back from a map showing the route Flight 175 took into the tower), on Google earth to find the two other buildings, right where they should be.

    The building whose top has a fancy curved window on the top floor, is called the Whitehall Bldg, on the corner of Washington St and Battery place (right next to the entrance to the Battery Park Underpass). The other building (the reddish brown building with three tall thin windows) is a couple of buildings further north on Washington St, and is quite a bit taller than .

    Both line up right as you’d expect them to, well in front and smaller than the south tower, and right between the videographer and the flight path of flight 175 on the map and as observed in the video.

    It was so damned easy to work it out, and difficult to believe that the conspiracy idiot never bothered to spend ten minutes looking. Almost as if he doesn’t care about facts.

    Here is a link to a photo showing the two buildings from nearly the same angle (taken, I’d guess, from Battery Park: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/52915684

    And a pre-9/11 photo with the two buildings, and the twin towers, all clearly visible…
    http://wirednewyork.com/images/hotels/the-ritz-carlton-new-york-battery-park/ritz_carlton_twins_may.jpg

    Good grief.

  56. BillyJoe7on 06 Jun 2014 at 6:08 am

    grabula,

    “Actually I think he might be using that one properly :)

    I don’t know what you mean Mr. Mustard.

  57. tmac57on 06 Jun 2014 at 9:42 am

    It’s a puzzling mindset that the 911 truthers have. I mean,if the conspirators needed or wanted to demolish the buildings,why not just do a controlled demolition,and frame the terrorists? After all,they had already tried it once before. Why the planes too. And if the idea is to make it more dramatic,or kill specific people on the planes,then just crash the planes.Why the need to also destroy the buildings?
    The incident would have been just as inciting and more than enough provocation to action.
    Every question and objection forces them into yet another ad hoc rationalization that further complicates their theory until it resembles a Rube Goldberg cartoon.

  58. fullermon 08 Jun 2014 at 10:53 am

    [crickets chirping...]

    No response to my simple elementary school science-level argument Dr. Novella? An argument that appears to effortlessly prove that people who hold the same exceptionally irrational beliefs about 9/11 as you do, are science-illiterate uncritical thinkers (or posing as them).

    Perhaps you mistakenly believe that some of your disciples’ ridiculous responses here are in some way logically or factually valid? Please point them out so I can demolish them to dust for you.

  59. Bruceon 08 Jun 2014 at 11:30 am

    We need to copy and paste the expected (and usual) response of all true-believers/deniers/apologists that was posted in one of the other 400+ long threads because fullerm here seems to be following that exact same pattern.

  60. tmac57on 08 Jun 2014 at 12:06 pm

    I think that a cricket chirp is just about all the response that your argument merits. Furthermore,your inflammatory goading is probably not the wisest tactic for gaining any acceptance of your ideas.
    Just sayin’…but please…go on,as Jon Stewart likes to say.

  61. fullermon 08 Jun 2014 at 3:09 pm

    Yet Novella’s and all other official story believers/denialists/apologists’ continual inflammatory goading of actual skeptics like myself is perfectly acceptable? Double standards in the application of criticism is a hallmark of pseudo-skepticism.

  62. tmac57on 08 Jun 2014 at 4:59 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0

  63. the devils gummy bearon 08 Jun 2014 at 5:09 pm

    You’re not a sceptic, fullerm. You’re not thinking critically and you are too quick to latch on to howlingly stupid bits of nonsense. You are in denial, of reality, and everything else in the enormous expanse between you and it.

  64. Oracon 08 Jun 2014 at 5:44 pm

    Actually, this isn’t the dumbest 9/11 conspiracy theory I’ve heard. Personally, I like the ones that invoke holograms generated by hologram generators on drones:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/08/your-friday-dose-of-woo-and-now-for-some/

  65. the devils gummy bearon 08 Jun 2014 at 6:10 pm

    Yay! Orac! Holodrones FTW!

  66. BillyJoe7on 08 Jun 2014 at 7:11 pm

    fullerm,

    Steven Novella is unlikely to respond unless he feels he has something to offer that has not been covered by those who have already responded. But your response to those criticisms may prompt him to chime in, so what have you got to lose?

    Give it your best shot man, or are you…erm…full of it! ;)

    My guess is that you have no response to the arguments already provided and this is just a get out of jail free card you’re playing.

    Prove me wrong.

  67. the devils gummy bearon 08 Jun 2014 at 7:38 pm

    I think he just wants hits, and isn’t going to stick around long if his video doesn’t get any play. If he had anything resembling an argument(s), he would be able to sufficiently disseminate them in writing. It appears he’s popped in for a quick ad to his little video ditty.

  68. grabulaon 11 Jun 2014 at 12:59 am

    @Fullerm

    “Perhaps you mistakenly believe that some of your disciples’ ridiculous responses here are in some way logically or factually valid?”

    I addressed your video with some valid points. As most true believers do, you chose to ignore those to continue to attack. I’m starting to get the feeling you’re just here to get Dr. Novellas attention for whatever that does for you. Feel free to address my questions on your video.

  69. grabulaon 13 Jun 2014 at 12:19 am

    no response, imagine that!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.