Difference between revisions of "2010-01-29 Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(done fisking, now need to wrap it up.) |
(I should proofread the last 1/3 again, but things are just too distracting right now; this will have to do.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Adjectives are inadequate to express the degree of intellectual dishonesty in this piece | + | ==Very Brief Intro== |
| + | Adjectives are inadequate to express the degree of intellectual dishonesty in this piece – which might be understandable if it came from a Republican, but the author (Michael Shermer) is supposedly a skeptic and fierce advocate of [[skepticism]]. He even founded an international society dedicated to skepticism, called [[wikipedia:The Skeptics Society|The Skeptics Society]], and is editor of its magazine, called ''[[wikipedia:Skeptic|Skeptic]]''. (But of course Wikipedia is just a "crowdsourced" wiki that ''anyone'' can edit and clearly can't be trusted, so maybe I'm making this all up.) | ||
| + | I'm going to take Shermer's article paragraph by paragraph to make sure I don't miss any valid points which might be buried in the rhetoric, and try to ignore the snide tone (I agree with PZ Myers that [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/numbers_herein_are_used_to_dem.php a hostile tone does not invalidate an argument] even if it can be extremely irritating. | ||
| + | ==The Fisking== | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 "truthers," who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up.</blockquote> | Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 "truthers," who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 54: | Line 57: | ||
Finally, Shermer begins to get into some matters of fact (reformatted slightly for readability): | Finally, Shermer begins to get into some matters of fact (reformatted slightly for readability): | ||
| − | <blockquote>For example, on the issue of the melting temperature of steel, according to 911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees Fahrenheit. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. (This claim is made by Jim Hoffman,in his book ''[[Waking Up From Our Nightmare]]'' and on his web page http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/index.html.)</p> | + | <blockquote> |
| + | <p>For example, on the issue of the melting temperature of steel, according to 911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees Fahrenheit. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. (This claim is made by Jim Hoffman,in his book ''[[Waking Up From Our Nightmare]]'' and on his web page http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/index.html.)</p> | ||
| − | <p>Wrong. In an article in the ''[[Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society]]'', M.I.T. engineering professor Dr. Thomas Eager explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture, and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and spreading the fire throughout the building; temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag, straining and then breaking the angle clips that held them to the vertical columns; once one truss failed, others failed, and when one floor collapsed (along with the ten stories above it) onto the next floor below, that floor then gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered the 500,000-ton building to collapse.</blockquote> | + | <p>Wrong. In an article in the ''[[Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society]]'', M.I.T. engineering professor Dr. Thomas Eager explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture, and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and spreading the fire throughout the building; temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag, straining and then breaking the angle clips that held them to the vertical columns; once one truss failed, others failed, and when one floor collapsed (along with the ten stories above it) onto the next floor below, that floor then gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered the 500,000-ton building to collapse.</p> |
| − | (Shermer does not link to the article; it is catalogued[[2001-12 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse|here]].) | + | </blockquote> |
| + | (Shermer does not link to the article; it is catalogued [[2001-12 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse|here]].) | ||
This is the "[[9-11/official/theories/truss failure|truss failure]]" theory, and was refuted by [[911Research]] (911R) in '''2005'''. Apparently Shermer made the same claim, almost verbatim, in a ''Scientific American'' article 5 years previous to the article currently under discussion, and 911R [http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html#meltedsteel responded] that very same year: | This is the "[[9-11/official/theories/truss failure|truss failure]]" theory, and was refuted by [[911Research]] (911R) in '''2005'''. Apparently Shermer made the same claim, almost verbatim, in a ''Scientific American'' article 5 years previous to the article currently under discussion, and 911R [http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html#meltedsteel responded] that very same year: | ||
| Line 65: | Line 70: | ||
Here is 911R's position on the temperatures present in the WTC fires: | Here is 911R's position on the temperatures present in the WTC fires: | ||
<blockquote>The melting point of steel is slightly below that of iron, which is 1535 Celsius. The highest temperature you can achieve by burning hydrocarbons in the atmosphere without pressurization or preheating of the air is around 825 Celsius, and that's when you have pre-mixed fuel and air -- the kind of blue flame you get with a gas stove. Diffuse flames of the type you have in building fires are far cooler than that, and oxygen-starved diffuse flames are far cooler still. Note that the the dark smoke, especially in the South Tower, indicate that those fires were oxygen starved; they were probably only a few hundred degrees Celsius.</blockquote> | <blockquote>The melting point of steel is slightly below that of iron, which is 1535 Celsius. The highest temperature you can achieve by burning hydrocarbons in the atmosphere without pressurization or preheating of the air is around 825 Celsius, and that's when you have pre-mixed fuel and air -- the kind of blue flame you get with a gas stove. Diffuse flames of the type you have in building fires are far cooler than that, and oxygen-starved diffuse flames are far cooler still. Note that the the dark smoke, especially in the South Tower, indicate that those fires were oxygen starved; they were probably only a few hundred degrees Celsius.</blockquote> | ||
| − | The next paragraph addresses the "column failure" theory: | + | The next paragraph addresses the "[[9-11/official/theories/column failure|column failure]]" theory: |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>A more sophisticated theory that was [[2001-09-13 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse|presented within days of the attack]], is the "column failure" theory, or as we call it, the "wet noodle" theory, in which the heat from the fires supposedly causes the columns, not to melt, but to lose most of their strength by softening because steel starts to soften long before it melts at high temperatures.</p> | <p>A more sophisticated theory that was [[2001-09-13 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse|presented within days of the attack]], is the "column failure" theory, or as we call it, the "wet noodle" theory, in which the heat from the fires supposedly causes the columns, not to melt, but to lose most of their strength by softening because steel starts to soften long before it melts at high temperatures.</p> | ||
| Line 83: | Line 88: | ||
911R then addresses the truss-failure theory, as advocated by [[2001-12 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse|Eagar]] and others, by pointing out that: | 911R then addresses the truss-failure theory, as advocated by [[2001-12 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse|Eagar]] and others, by pointing out that: | ||
| − | * Eagar viewed the fires as being no hotter than a trashcan fire; the catastrophic damage came because | + | * Eagar viewed the fires as being no hotter than a trashcan fire; the catastrophic damage came because the fires were so widespread |
* The animation commonly used to explain the theory shows trusses running in only one direction; there were in fact perpendicular trusses interwoven with the trusses that you see, requiring much more extensive truss failure before an entire floor could collapse | * The animation commonly used to explain the theory shows trusses running in only one direction; there were in fact perpendicular trusses interwoven with the trusses that you see, requiring much more extensive truss failure before an entire floor could collapse | ||
* That same animation also "implies that the floors merely rested on the trusses when in fact these trusses were bolted into the pans underlaying the floor slabs every few inches" -- it would take more than a little sagging to cause the trusses to pull loose. | * That same animation also "implies that the floors merely rested on the trusses when in fact these trusses were bolted into the pans underlaying the floor slabs every few inches" -- it would take more than a little sagging to cause the trusses to pull loose. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 100: | ||
* The floors were not stacked on top of each other; one floor falling due to truss failure should not have caused the floors ''above'' to collapse as well. So what formed the necessary huge mass which caused the "pile-driver effect" so often cited? Maybe 6 floors of trusses -- is that enough to bring the whole building down? | * The floors were not stacked on top of each other; one floor falling due to truss failure should not have caused the floors ''above'' to collapse as well. So what formed the necessary huge mass which caused the "pile-driver effect" so often cited? Maybe 6 floors of trusses -- is that enough to bring the whole building down? | ||
| − | I can certainly understand Mr. Shermer being unaware of the latter points, but he has clearly had some time to research his answers to the points raised by 911R in 2005. Where are they? | + | I can certainly understand Mr. Shermer being unaware of the latter points, but he has clearly had some time to research his answers to the points raised by 911R in 2005. [[denialism|Where are they]]? |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 102: | Line 107: | ||
This is a '''distortion'''. The actual arguments: | This is a '''distortion'''. The actual arguments: | ||
| − | * If the buildings had collapsed due to the mechanical energy of the impact, they would have done it within seconds of the actual impacts -- not | + | * If the buildings had collapsed due to the mechanical energy of the impact, they would have done it within seconds of the actual impacts -- not an hour later, suddenly, without any prior signs of structural failure. |
* If the buildings had collapsed due to mechanical failure caused by fire plus mechanical damage, the collapses would have been asymmetrical and incomplete -- as seen in every other non-deliberate building collapse known. | * If the buildings had collapsed due to mechanical failure caused by fire plus mechanical damage, the collapses would have been asymmetrical and incomplete -- as seen in every other non-deliberate building collapse known. | ||
** And yes, tall buildings actually can [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/27/content_8330067.htm fall on their sides almost intact] -- so Shermer's [[argument from incredulity]] itself falls a bit flat, although nobody in the truth movement is claiming that this would have happened in the case of such enormous buildings as the Twin Towers. We would, however, expect to see large chunks of recognizable building, as commonly seen with earthquake-induced collapses -- not the pulverised concrete and bare steel found at Ground Zero. | ** And yes, tall buildings actually can [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/27/content_8330067.htm fall on their sides almost intact] -- so Shermer's [[argument from incredulity]] itself falls a bit flat, although nobody in the truth movement is claiming that this would have happened in the case of such enormous buildings as the Twin Towers. We would, however, expect to see large chunks of recognizable building, as commonly seen with earthquake-induced collapses -- not the pulverised concrete and bare steel found at Ground Zero. | ||
| − | <blockquote> | + | Shermer continues:<blockquote> |
Conspiracy theory buffs – in direct contradiction of the above claim – also believe that the buildings fell straight down into their own footprint, which, they say, could only have happened if they had been deliberately brought down by explosive charges carefully and deliberately set ahead of time.</blockquote> | Conspiracy theory buffs – in direct contradiction of the above claim – also believe that the buildings fell straight down into their own footprint, which, they say, could only have happened if they had been deliberately brought down by explosive charges carefully and deliberately set ahead of time.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 120: | Line 125: | ||
* '''Distortion''': again, nobody except Shermer said "precisely". | * '''Distortion''': again, nobody except Shermer said "precisely". | ||
* '''Omission''': ...except in the case of WTC7, which some major demolitions experts have agreed does ''look'' pretty exactly like [[controlled demolition]] (CD) -- whether or not they agree that this is what happened. | * '''Omission''': ...except in the case of WTC7, which some major demolitions experts have agreed does ''look'' pretty exactly like [[controlled demolition]] (CD) -- whether or not they agree that this is what happened. | ||
| − | * '''Distortion''': Why should we expect a faked collapse to use standard CD techniques? Wouldn't it make sense, if someone was trying to it ''look'' like the buildings had collapsed because of the impact, that they would demolish the buildings from the impact point on down? | + | * '''Distortion''': Why should we expect a faked collapse to use standard CD techniques? Wouldn't it make sense, if someone was trying to make it ''look'' like the buildings had collapsed because of the impact, that they would demolish the buildings from the impact point on down? |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
For our special 9/11 issue of Skeptic (https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=c87b04f1741b6411293eee53ccfedc39&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=magv12n4&Category_Code=BI) we consulted a demolition expert named Brent Blanchard, who is Director of Field Operations for [[Protec Documentation Services]], a company that documents the work of building demolition contractors. Since the rise in popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories, he too has been inundated with requests to explain why the buildings appeared to have "collapsed as if by a controlled demolition."</blockquote> | For our special 9/11 issue of Skeptic (https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=c87b04f1741b6411293eee53ccfedc39&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=magv12n4&Category_Code=BI) we consulted a demolition expert named Brent Blanchard, who is Director of Field Operations for [[Protec Documentation Services]], a company that documents the work of building demolition contractors. Since the rise in popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories, he too has been inundated with requests to explain why the buildings appeared to have "collapsed as if by a controlled demolition."</blockquote> | ||
| − | Poor guy, being asked to explain stuff in his field of expertise -- to which nobody else in the field seems to be willing to give a straight answer. Maybe | + | Poor guy, being asked to explain stuff in his field of expertise -- to which nobody else in the field seems to be willing to give a straight answer. Those skeptics can be ''soooo'' pesky sometimes, eh, Dr. Shermer? |
| + | |||
| + | Maybe Protec should give Blanchard a raise and some cookies, especially if he can manage to brush those annoying skeptics off one more time. Shall we see if he earns his cookies? | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 134: | Line 141: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | The whole thing with Brent Blanchard, [[Protec Documentation Services|Protec]], and [[ImplosionWorld]] is a bit peculiar. Ignoring the obvious ties between the three of them, what we do have is | + | '''Distortion''': These are not anywhere near the nine best arguments put forth by 9/11 truth advocates. Maybe they're just the best ones Shermer is aware of -- though I note in some cases he has taken a good argument and salted it with a weak one, then primarily addressed the weak one... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and call this a distortion rather than an error. |
| + | |||
| + | A brief aside: The whole thing with [[Brent Blanchard]], [[Protec Documentation Services|Protec]], and [[ImplosionWorld]] is a bit peculiar. Ignoring the obvious ties between the three of them, what we do have is | ||
* A company claiming to be internationally prominent in the field of explosive demolition | * A company claiming to be internationally prominent in the field of explosive demolition | ||
| − | * An online magazine widely cited by 9-11 debunkers and often [[wikipedia:Special:Search/ImplosionWorld|referenced on Wikipedia]] (in relation to 9/11 and other things) | + | * An online magazine widely cited by [[9-11/anomalies/debunking|9-11 debunkers]] and often [[wikipedia:Special:Search/ImplosionWorld|referenced on Wikipedia]] (in relation to 9/11 and other things) |
| − | ...yet no major source, including Wikipedia and SourceWatch, seems to know anything about them. | + | ...yet no major source, including Wikipedia and SourceWatch, seems to know anything about them. Wikipedia's article on [[wikipedia:building implosion|building implosion]] references Blanchard as a source, but says nothing about his standing in the field. |
| − | But okay, Blanchard is an industry expert, so we'll see what he has to say. | + | But okay, Blanchard is an industry expert, so we'll see what he has to say, and if he gets cookies for successfully evading the evil Truthites. |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>'''Claim #1''': The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions.</p> | <p>'''Claim #1''': The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions.</p> | ||
| Line 146: | Line 155: | ||
<p>'''Protec''': No they did not. The key to any demolition investigation is in finding out the "where" – the actual point at which the building failed. All photographic evidence shows World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 failed at the point of impact. Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above.</p> | <p>'''Protec''': No they did not. The key to any demolition investigation is in finding out the "where" – the actual point at which the building failed. All photographic evidence shows World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 failed at the point of impact. Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above.</p> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | This is yet another a straw man. Nobody is denying that the collapses started at the point of impact. This has no significance whatsoever. If someone wanted to fake a collapse-by-plane-impact, of ''course'' they would start the collapse at that point. | + | This is yet another a straw man. (Blanchard gets a cookie.) Nobody is denying that the collapses started at the point of impact. This has no significance whatsoever. If someone wanted to fake a collapse-by-plane-impact, of ''course'' they would start the collapse at that point. |
Protec also doesn't mention that the WTC collapses were a lot sloppier than a properly-done [[controlled demolition]] -- but that might have called unwanted attention to the multi-ton steel girders which were thrown hundreds of feet horizontally... supposedly just from the sheer energy of the collapsing interior floors. | Protec also doesn't mention that the WTC collapses were a lot sloppier than a properly-done [[controlled demolition]] -- but that might have called unwanted attention to the multi-ton steel girders which were thrown hundreds of feet horizontally... supposedly just from the sheer energy of the collapsing interior floors. | ||
| Line 156: | Line 165: | ||
<p>'''Protec''': They did not. They followed the path of least resistance and there was a lot of resistance.</p> | <p>'''Protec''': They did not. They followed the path of least resistance and there was a lot of resistance.</p> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | Falling through intact, essentially undamaged lower floors is the path of least resistance? | + | Falling through intact, essentially undamaged lower floors is the path of least resistance? (Blanchard gets a ''big'' cookie, with chocolate chips.) |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Buildings of 20 stories or more do not topple over like trees or reinforced towers or smokestacks. | Buildings of 20 stories or more do not topple over like trees or reinforced towers or smokestacks. | ||
| Line 163: | Line 172: | ||
Looking at other [[steel-frame building collapses]], there isn't anything remotely like what happened with the Twin Towers. Even other buildings in the complex (buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6) which were heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers, did not collapse -- except, of course, for [[WTC7 collapse|WTC7]], which was unmistakably a controlled demolition. | Looking at other [[steel-frame building collapses]], there isn't anything remotely like what happened with the Twin Towers. Even other buildings in the complex (buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6) which were heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers, did not collapse -- except, of course, for [[WTC7 collapse|WTC7]], which was unmistakably a controlled demolition. | ||
| + | |||
| + | (I'll give Blanchard half a cookie for implying that buildings turn to pulverized concrete when they fall over if they're over 20 stories, and the other half for completely ignoring WTC7, which did fall "into its own footprint" as well as any controlled demolition does.) | ||
<blockquote>Imploding demolitions fall into a footprint because lower stories are removed first. WTC debris was forced out away from the building as the falling mass encountered intact floors.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Imploding demolitions fall into a footprint because lower stories are removed first. WTC debris was forced out away from the building as the falling mass encountered intact floors.</blockquote> | ||
| − | Ahh, here we have mention of the sloppy scattering of debris. This part of Protec's response is at least somewhat reasonable -- but it still ignores the fact that the vast bulk of collapse was seen to proceed straight down, and the parts which didn't go down were thrown outwards at velocities which can't be explained by mass and gravity. | + | Ahh, here we have mention of the sloppy scattering of debris. This part of Protec's response is at least somewhat reasonable -- but it still ignores the fact that the vast bulk of collapse was seen to proceed straight down, and the parts which didn't go down were thrown outwards at velocities which can't be explained by mass and gravity. (Half a cookie, I guess.) |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>'''Claim #3''': Explosive charges are seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.</p> | <p>'''Claim #3''': Explosive charges are seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.</p> | ||
| Line 170: | Line 181: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | Protec is just blowing smoke here. When has this phenomenon ''ever'' been observed anywhere but in cases of controlled demolition? | + | Protec is just blowing smoke here. When has this phenomenon ''ever'' been observed anywhere but in cases of controlled demolition? (Blanchard gets a cookie with frosting for making a claim without evidence, thus helping to train people not to expect any.) |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>'''Claim #4''': Witnesses heard explosions.</p> | <p>'''Claim #4''': Witnesses heard explosions.</p> | ||
| Line 178: | Line 189: | ||
* '''Changing the subject''': Explosions might not register on seismic instruments; the point is that people ''heard'' them. | * '''Changing the subject''': Explosions might not register on seismic instruments; the point is that people ''heard'' them. | ||
* '''Error''': There ''is'' seismic evidence which has been interpreted as indicating explosions prior to the collapse. They need to address this evidence and explain why their interpretation is correct. | * '''Error''': There ''is'' seismic evidence which has been interpreted as indicating explosions prior to the collapse. They need to address this evidence and explain why their interpretation is correct. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Two cookies for Blanchard. | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>'''Claim #5''': A heat generating explosive (thermite?) melted steel at ground Zero.</p> | <p>'''Claim #5''': A heat generating explosive (thermite?) melted steel at ground Zero.</p> | ||
| Line 185: | Line 198: | ||
'''Severe error''': Molten steel was reported by James Fallows writing in the Atlantic. There are multiple ''photographs'' of steel girders with one end red-hot as they are pulled out of the rubble, at least one photo of diagonal cuts in the steel at ground zero, and multiple reports of puddles of molten steel. Videos even show molten steel pouring out of one corner of WTC2 shortly before it fell. | '''Severe error''': Molten steel was reported by James Fallows writing in the Atlantic. There are multiple ''photographs'' of steel girders with one end red-hot as they are pulled out of the rubble, at least one photo of diagonal cuts in the steel at ground zero, and multiple reports of puddles of molten steel. Videos even show molten steel pouring out of one corner of WTC2 shortly before it fell. | ||
| − | As HistoryCommons observes, Protec does not identify with whom they spoke, so that this claim can be checked. Perhaps they simply didn't ask very many workers, or only spoke with workers who didn't happen to report seeing molten steel | + | As HistoryCommons observes, Protec does not identify with whom they spoke, so that this claim can be checked. Perhaps they simply didn't ask very many workers, or only spoke with workers who didn't happen to report seeing molten steel. |
| + | |||
| + | (Blanchard get a frickin' angel food cake for this one... and another large cookie for making an uncheckable claim.) | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| − | <p>'''Claim #6''': Ground Zero | + | <p>'''Claim #6''': Ground Zero debris – particularly the large steel columns from towers 1 and 2 – were quickly shipped overseas to prevent scrutiny.</p> |
<p>'''Protec''': Not according to those who handled the steel. The chain of procession is clearly documented, first at ground Zero by Protec and later at the Fresh Kills site by Yannuzzi Demolition. The time frame (months) before it was shipped to China was normal.</p> | <p>'''Protec''': Not according to those who handled the steel. The chain of procession is clearly documented, first at ground Zero by Protec and later at the Fresh Kills site by Yannuzzi Demolition. The time frame (months) before it was shipped to China was normal.</p> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | In what sense is it "normal" for 130,000 tons of WTC steel to be [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html hauled off to China for recycling] off in two weeks? This is hardly enough time to even begin | + | In what sense is it "normal" for 130,000 tons of WTC steel to be [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html hauled off to China for recycling] off in two weeks? This is hardly enough time to even begin cataloging it, much less doing proper forensics. Where are the lists of items recovered from ground zero? How was each piece inspected before being hauled off? '''Who signed off on each piece, declaring that it was no longer needed for investigation?''' |
| + | |||
| + | (Cookie with antennae on it, for having a funny idea of "normal".) | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 198: | Line 215: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
This response is so completely hollow. First, the ''substantial'' allegation is that WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolition; Protec does not address that question at all, instead focusing on the allegation (helpfully included by Shermer) that building owner Larry Silverstein said on camera that "we made the decision to pull". While Silverstein's choice of words is [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html rather peculiar and opens many questions], the essential question of how to explain WTC7's collapse remains -- regardless of Silverstein's intent or involvement. | This response is so completely hollow. First, the ''substantial'' allegation is that WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolition; Protec does not address that question at all, instead focusing on the allegation (helpfully included by Shermer) that building owner Larry Silverstein said on camera that "we made the decision to pull". While Silverstein's choice of words is [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html rather peculiar and opens many questions], the essential question of how to explain WTC7's collapse remains -- regardless of Silverstein's intent or involvement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | (Blanchard gets a donut, for his successfully hollow straw-man demolition.) | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>'''Claim #8''': Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.</p> | <p>'''Claim #8''': Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.</p> | ||
| Line 204: | Line 223: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
[[Steel-frame building fires|They have]]? Name '''one''' steel-framed high-rise that collapsed primarily because of fire. | [[Steel-frame building fires|They have]]? Name '''one''' steel-framed high-rise that collapsed primarily because of fire. | ||
| + | |||
| + | (This one gets another cake.) | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>'''Claim #9''': Anyone who denies that explosives were used is ignoring evidence.</p> | <p>'''Claim #9''': Anyone who denies that explosives were used is ignoring evidence.</p> | ||
| Line 210: | Line 231: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
This is a pretty weak claim, taken by itself, but Protec's response is not only irrelevant but substantially wrong. No, I don't feel like digging up the dozens of interviews with witnesses who said they saw or heard explosives (maybe I'll add it later), because the point is irrelevant: whether or not the clean-up crew saw any evidence of explosives, such evidence does exist in abundance. | This is a pretty weak claim, taken by itself, but Protec's response is not only irrelevant but substantially wrong. No, I don't feel like digging up the dozens of interviews with witnesses who said they saw or heard explosives (maybe I'll add it later), because the point is irrelevant: whether or not the clean-up crew saw any evidence of explosives, such evidence does exist in abundance. | ||
| − | {{ | + | |
| + | (Blanchard earns his final cookie) | ||
| + | ==Summary== | ||
| + | Shermer makes ''at least'' 6 false claims, 8 distortions, 5 [[straw man]] attacks, and commits 15 other [[rhetorical deception]]s and abuses of logic ([[red herring]], [[claim-smuggling]], [[double bind]], [[argument from incredulity]] (2), [[antiskepsis]], [[guilt by association]] (2), [[denialism]], 2 logical errors, 1 omission, changing the subject, and 3 Highly Questionable Statements). I didn't have time to count carefully or list/label each item, so these numbers are approximate -- but I tried to err on the side of caution. Some of them could probably be better classified, too. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The point is, though, for someone claiming to be a supporter of skeptical inquiry, Shermer seems to be using the dark arts to the best of his ability when it comes to squashing skepticism on this one subject. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, Blanchard gets 9{{frac|1|2}} cookies, 2 cakes, and a donut for his work in driving off the Skeptic Hordes. Heaven knows if it weren't for trusted professionals like him, civilization might topple over on its side and promptly turn to fine powder. (Blanchard could then enhance his reputation explaining why this was not at all unusual and totally something you would expect a civilization to do if hordes of skeptics got their way.) | ||