In
Part 1 of my response to Myles Power’s YouTube video series, I examined his
arguments regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers and the evidence for
controlled demolition. Now I will focus on Mr. Power’s videos regarding the
destruction of World Trade Center 7, and why the arguments presented in those
videos utterly fail at debunking the Movement’s case for the building being
demolished.
Building
7 Overview
After
Mr. Power presents us with a number of rude and disrespectful comments he’s
gotten from people on YouTube (he doesn’t think at this point to mention my
lengthy critique of his first three videos), he gives an overview on why
Building 7 supposedly collapsed. Essentially, he simply presents a rehashing of
NIST’s assertions in their report on why the building collapsed.[1] But we
shall see that neither NIST nor Mr. Power are correct in their assessments of
the building’s collapse.
The
9/11 Commission Report
Though
it has been a concern for many in the Movement that Building 7’s collapse was
not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, Mr. Power sees nothing wrong with
it, reasoning (like many other debunkers) that the Commission Report was not an
engineering report, so it would have had no reason to make mention of it.
However, the Commission’s choice to not include Building 7’s collapse simply
reflects their unjustified pre-conceived conclusions on why the building came
down. As I explained in my response to Joseph Nobles on this same issue:
The Commission Report was not an engineering report, but they
didn't know that fire was the official explanation for its collapse yet. Again,
it goes back to assuming that fire brought the building down, which fire has never done before.[2]
And contrary to what Mr.
Power claims, Building 7 apparently was considered as a possible terrorist
target on 9/11, according to Richard Rotanz, the Deputy Director of the Office
of Emergency Management.[3] For the Commission to have omitted Building 7’s collapse
from their report was totally unjustified. Mr. Power also mentions that WTC
Building 3 collapsed on 9/11 as well, but was also not mentioned in the
Commission Report. However, Building 3’s collapse was dramatically different
from Building 7’s, as videos and photos clearly show the building being crushed
by falling debris from the Towers.[4] The building showed none of the
characteristics of explosive demolition which, as we shall see, were all
present in the collapse of Building 7.
The “Official” Explanation
We then get a discussion
from Mr. Power on what the NIST report claims was the cause of the building’s
collapse. Mr. Power correctly notes that normal office fires were said by NIST
to be the official cause of collapse, with no contributions from the diesel
tanks or the structural damage from fall of the North Tower. He explains that
falling debris from WTC1 did ignite the fires in the building, and that the
critical fires grew and lasted on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. However, Mr.
Power then discusses how even though the north side of the building was
essentially undamaged, the south side of the building “show[s] a very different
story.” He shows us photos taken from the south side of the building, which
show a large amount on smoke and some damage on the building’s south face. He
evidently does this to imply that Building 7 had severe fires and structural
damage which compromised the building. However, he previously noted that only
six floors in the building had severe fires which contributed to the collapse.
The large amount of smoke on Building 7’s south face was likely due to negative
pressure, which drew the smoke from the burning WTC complex. Videos and photos
show that the exact same this happened to WTC1 after WTC2 collapsed. As for the
structural damage, NIST makes it clear that the damage did not help to initiate
the collapse,[5] a fact that Mr. Power has acknowledged.
Though Mr. Power would agree
with NIST that the fires in the building were severe enough to cause the
building to collapse, other scientists have argued just the opposite. Scientists on both
sides of the argument have noted that NIST evidently exaggerated the
temperatures of the fires which initiated the collapse. Kevin Ryan, in response
to NIST’s assertion of fires in the 600 °C range, wrote:
[R]aising
those five floor beams to a temperature of 600 °C would require an enormous
amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office
furnishings underneath the floor beams.[6]
Likewise,
Dr. Frank Greening, a physical chemist who does not believe WTC7 was
demolished, wrote in his letter to NIST:
NIST’s
collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on
floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300 °C - a condition that could never have
been realized with NIST’s postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading.[7]
So,
while Kevin Ryan has asserted that the fires in WTC7 could not have reached 600
°C, Dr. Greening rejects the idea the fires could have reached even 300 °C.
Furthermore, researcher Chris Sarns has demonstrated that the critical fires
that were supposed to have caused the collapse were burned out before the time
of collapse.[8]
The
Collapse
Mr.
Power then proceeds to discuss the collapse sequence espoused by NIST in their
report. Thermal expansion of the girders on floor 13 are said to have caused
the collapse of this floor, initiating the buckling and failure of column 79,
which in turn caused columns 80 and 81 to fail, which then led to a chain
reaction that caused the rest of the interior columns to collapse. This left
the outer perimeter of the building a hollow shell, which eventually collapsed
now that it was unsupported by the interior. But this entire scenario has been
shown to be extremely problematic. For starters, we now know that the girders
in Building 7 would have been much more secure than previously asserted by
NIST.[9] Being more secure would have made them much more resistant to the
effects of thermal expansion, and thus would not have helped to initiate the collapse.
Second,
the description of Building 7’s collapse given by NIST is totally at odds with
what we actually see in the videos of the building’s destruction. After
discussing NIST’s explanation of how the interior columns collapsed, Mr. Power
asserts that “the effects of this can clearly be seen in the video, as the east
penthouse was directly above column 79.” Note that he says that the effects of
this event are seen in the video. He does not say that the event itself can be
seen, which it obviously cannot. In other words, Mr. Power assumes that the
fall of the penthouse was a result of NIST’s scenario, which requires him to
already take NIST at their word. But others have pointed out that the videos of
Building 7’s collapse strongly contradict NIST’s explanation of events.[10] As
noted by Dr. Frank Greening:
According
to NIST, the global collapse of WTC 7 began 6.9 seconds after the East
Penthouse collapse or about 23 seconds into the simulation. Now consider NIST’s
Figures 12-66, 12-67 and 12-69 and in particular the images showing the alleged
state of the core 17.5, 19.5, 20.7, 21.8, 24.1, 26.8 and 28.8 seconds into the
collapse simulation. These images represent NIST’s view of what the core looked
like at ~1-2 second intervals following the collapse of the East Penthouse.
What is most significant about these images is that around the time of global
collapse initiation NIST’s simulation shows that the eastern half of the core
had completely collapsed while the western half of the core remained standing
and relatively undamaged. This is quite remarkable since videos of the collapse
of WTC 7 show that up to and well beyond the moment that the roofline of
WTC 7 exhibited its first downward movement, the exterior of the building
revealed absolutely no signs of NIST’s proposed partial collapse of the core
even though the core was connected to the exterior walls of Building 7 by
dozens of horizontal beams on every floor.[11]
Dr.
Greening ultimately concludes that such extensive interior destruction prior to
the perimeter collapse “would have caused the eastern facade to buckle well
before global collapse ensued,” and that “this buckling would have been
visible as a bowing of the northeast corner of the building.” But as Dr.
Greening rightly observes, “such pre-collapse buckling or bowing of WTC 7 was
not observed.”[12] Though NIST asserts that the strength of the exterior
enabled it to avoid deforming during the collapse,[13] this still leaves open
the question of how Building 7 was therefore able to collapse as fast as it
did. In other words, defenders of the official story cannot have it both ways;
either the exterior was strong enough to avoid deforming during interior
collapse, or it was weak enough to allow the building to collapse at the rate
it did. Mr. Power also notes the apparent “dishonesty” of truthers for failing
to show the east penthouse collapse “in the majority their videos.” However,
many in the movement have discussed the fall of the east penthouse in great
detail, and several of the professionally made movies and presentations by the
Movement show and discuss the penthouse.[14] They have also explained why the
penthouse cannot justifiably be included in the total collapse time of the
building. As mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti explains:
The WTC
7 East penthouse had columns on its perimeter and none in its interior. On
three sides these columns mounted near the edge of the roof of WTC 7. It is
unlikely that a collapse of any core columns of the main building could have
pulled them completely down without the roof beams breaking completely loose from
the exterior columns and moving down completely also. It is unlikely that the
roof beams were severed from the exterior columns, which is what would be
necessary for a core collapse to cause the penthouse to collapse.[15]
In
other words, had the initial collapse of the penthouse been caused by a
collapse of the core of the main building, then the rest of the roof would have
collapsed at the same time as the penthouse. Because it didn’t, this is strong
evidence that the collapse of the penthouse and the collapse of the main
building were wholly separate events.
Free-Fall
The
issue of Building 7’s 2.25 second period of free-fall is then discussed, and
like many other debunkers Mr. Power asserts that this was caused by the
buckling of the building’s exterior columns between floors 7 and 14. However,
in my previous writings I have given four reasons to dispute this:
- We have no visual evidence of this
buckling occurring, so the claim is only based on NIST’s word.
- All of NIST's models show the buckling
occurring only on the west side of the building. However, the free fall occurs
over the entire width of the building. We know this because the roofline
remains essentially straight through the period of free fall. Other than the
slight kink, the roofline remains essentially straight for the first 4-5
seconds of its collapse.
- Even if the buckling did occur, there is
no evidence supporting that it would even cause the building to free fall in
the first place. We would only be looking at warped and twisted steel, but not
zero steel.
- NIST’s own simulations show that this
buckling would cause the building to fall in a different manner than what was
observed in the videos.[16]
It is
for these reasons that I reject the notion that the buckling of any of the
perimeter columns could have caused the building to fall at free-fall. As Tony
Szamboti explains regarding all three buildings:
The minimum resistance
during buckling is a function of the plastic moment and the unsupported length
of the column. In a one-story unsupported length of the Twin Tower box columns,
it was approximately 25% of the yield strength of the column. For the
wide-flange columns in the core it was lower, at about 14% of yield. The
wide-flange core columns at the 98th floor of the North Tower had a minimum
factor of safety against gravity of 3 and the perimeter box columns a minimum
factor of safety against gravity of 5. The core columns would have to buckle over
one story with their moment connected beams at each floor, so they would
provide a minimum resistance during buckling of about 42% of their load. A case
could be made that the perimeter columns initially buckled over two stories and
thus their resistance would be 12.5% of yield, so they would have still
provided a resistance of 65% of their load. The load split between the core and
perimeter was 42% core and 58% perimeter. The resistance during buckling would
thus be (0.42)(0.42) + (0.58)(0.65) = 0.55. So the resistance to the actual
load during buckling would have been a minimum of about 0.55g… Additionally,
WTC 7 could not come down in freefall while its columns were buckling for the
reasons I showed above, and it didn’t start to tilt over until it was about 60%
of the way down and well beyond that initial 8-story (100-foot) freefall.[17]
Other
Evidence
Mr.
Power finishes up his fourth video by re-asserting that there was no chemical
evidence of explosives/incendiaries found in the debris of Building 7. But as I
already explained in Part 1 of my rebuttal, the study that supposedly disproved
that there was any chemical evidence of explosives has been shown to be
unreliable.[18] Mr. Power also makes mention of the fact that there were
evidently no sounds of explosions heard when Building 7 collapsed. But this
argument is wrong for several reasons. For starters, there were several
eyewitnesses who did report hearing explosions when the building collapsed. For
example, first responder Craig Bartmer has testified that:
I was
real close to Building 7 when it fell down… That didn’t sound like just a
building falling down to me… There’s a lot of eyewitness testimony down there
of hearing explosions… I think I know an explosion when I hear it.[19]
A New
York University medical student also claimed that he and others “heard this
sound that sounded like a clap of thunder”[20] right before the building
collapsed. Furthermore, there are recordings from 9/11 in which loud explosions
can be heard (which were recorded after the Towers collapsed, but before
Building 7 collapsed).[21] There is at least one video of Building 7’s collapse
in which a sharp explosive noise can be heard as it collapses.[22] And
physicist David Chandler has analyzed one video of Building 7’s collapse and
has found sound evidence for explosions in the building.[23] But this whole
point about hearing explosions occur from the building is moot anyway, as sound
evidence is seen as insignificant according to official fire/explosive
investigation guidelines. According to the NFPA 921 Guide, section 18.1:
Although
an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise,
the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion.
The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an
explosion.[24]
So, as
stated by the official NFPA 921 Guide, the actual sound of an explosive is not
essential in determining if an explosive event took place. The very
characteristics of all three building collapses should have been reason enough
to believe that they were destroyed with explosives. The NFPA 921 guide also
notes that explosives should be considered whenever there is “high-order
damage, which is defined as:
High-order
damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small,
pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or
shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great
distances, possibly hundreds of feet.[25]
The
first two sentences of this description would apply to Building 7, and the
entire description would apply to the Twin Towers. Mr. Power’s rejection of the
evidence of controlled demolition for WTC7 is therefore totally unjustified.
Other
Steel-Framed Building Collapses
Mr.
Power starts off his next video by discussing other steel-framed structures
that have collapsed due to fire. His cites these as examples in order to add
validity to the idea that fire could also have caused the WTC buildings to
collapse. But his argument is problematic and very misleading. First off, he
misstates the Truth Movement’s arguments regarding fires in other buildings,
saying that the Movement believes that the three WTC buildings "were the first
steel-framed structures to collapse because of fire." This is not the position
that the majority of the Movement holds. Rather, the Movement maintains that
the three WTC buildings were the first steel-framed high-rise skyscrapers to ever collapse due to fire, which is a
definite fact.[26] Most in the Movement gladly accept that steel can be
weakened and fail due to fire. But what is not accepted is that fire would
cause the total, complete, and explosive collapse of the buildings on 9/11. As
noted by J. Plummer:
For the
record, few in the scientific community doubt that it’s theoretically possible
for a building to experience failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for
a sufficient period of time. And
additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems, insufficient
steel to “bleed off” heat or inferior construction greatly increase the
possibility. However, what is “doubted” (or more accurately; considered
downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what
was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over
time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving
a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.[27]
Mr.
Power then goes on to discuss some of the examples he cites as evidence that
steel can fail due to fires. He focuses particular attention on WTC5, which
suffered a partial collapse on 9/11 due to fires. However, all of the examples
he cites have already been addressed in another article of mine, and I
encourage readers to view that in order to understand why these smaller steel
structures cannot justifiably be used as fair comparisons to the Towers and
Building 7.[28] In the case of WTC5, I give the following reasons why its
partial collapse is not even remotely comparable to the other buildings:
- It was
not a total building collapse.
- The
fires in the building were far more severe than the fires in the Twin Towers
and Building 7.
- The
building was constructed differently than the Towers and Building 7.[29]
Mr.
Power also briefly mentions Judy Wood’s nonsense theory regarding Directed Energy
Weapons, a theory discredited and disproven by other members of the
Movement.[30] We then get a discussion of the BBC’s early report of Building
7’s collapse on 9/11. Mr. Power dismisses this anomaly, rationalizing (like most debunkers) that the BBC simply made a
mistake. To back up this assertion, he provides a short list of other false
reports given on 9/11 as evidence that the media was making mistakes that day.
However, this argument completely misses the point. The BBC’s mistake was not
like the other mistakes Mr. Power mentions, as the BBC was not wrong about
what they reported. It’s that they reported the event too early. But the event
did in fact happen. The overall question the Truth Movement has asked in
regards to this issue is who reported to the BBC that Building 7 had collapsed.
Though it has been revealed that this was reported to the BBC by Reuters,[31]
the question still remains why Reuters had the official explanation of Building
7’s collapse—fire and damage—seven years before NIST released their report. As
noted at 911review.com:
The question still remains as to the
actual source of the report! The only thing the BBC can say is that it was an
erroneous local story - but of course that day EVERY story from New York City
was a local news story! Therefore the source of the report is still left unanswered.
Why can’t the BBC simply investigate the matter with the supposed due diligence
they are famed for? Simply track down the original source - who it was and
where it came from. This is exceedingly simple - and yet the inability of
anyone to take any responsibility is amazing.[32]
Personally, my own views on the BBC’s
early report of Building 7’s collapse are agnostic. However, I find Mr. Power’s
dismissal of this incident to be extremely disingenuous. Mr. Power questions
why the BBC would be given this information by the conspirators, as he finds
this unlikely to happen. Mr. Power is not the first to make this sort of
argument, and it once again highlights the absurd circular logic that so many
debunkers use. The early report of Building 7’s collapse, if it did play some
role in the conspiracy, was likely a mistake on the part of the conspirators.
But debunkers often dismiss this possibility, claiming (as Mr. Power
essentially claims here) that the conspirators wouldn’t have made mistakes like
that. However, we often also hear from debunkers that the events of 9/11 could
not have been some sort of “inside job” because the conspirators would have
made mistakes and let things slip! In other words, debunkers are trying to have it both ways; 9/11
couldn’t have been an inside job because the conspirators would have made mistakes,
and that incidents like the BBC’s early report are not evidence of a conspiracy
because the conspirators wouldn’t have made mistakes like that.
Mr.
Power then discusses Larry Silverstein and his infamous “pull it” quote. Many
in the Truth Movement have interpreted this statement as an admission from
Silverstein that he ordered Building 7 to be demolished. However, defenders of
the official story insist that he was actually talking about pulling the
firefighting efforts. While there is strong evidence to suggest that
Silverstein was referring to the firefighting efforts when he spoke of the
decision to “pull,”[33] there are several points to keep in mind:
- Silverstein claims to have spoken with
the fire department commander on 9/11, which would have been Chief Daniel
Nigro. However, Chief Nigro has denied that he spoke with Silverstein,[34] and
has confirmed that the FDNY would have no reason to contact him about pulling
the firefighting operations.[35]
- When Silverstein was asked who he
conversed with on 9/11 about the decision to “pull,” he refused to answer.[36]
To this day, no one from the FDNY has corroborated Silverstein’s story.
- Regardless of what Silverstein really
meant by “pull it,” we now have confirmation that he did in fact discuss
demolishing Building 7 on 9/11.[37]
Mr. Power finishes his discussion of
Building 7 by questioning how the building itself is even evidence of a
conspiracy in the first place. As far as he’s concerned, there was no logical
reason for the conspirators to bring the building down in the first place.
However, the building did contain a number of suspicious tenants, and financial
records stored in the building have been cited as reason to bring the building
down to destroy said records.[38] Of course Mr. Power rejects this assumption,
arguing that simply shredding the documents would have been far more efficient.
This issue could be debated forever, but I would argue that just having
the documents shredded and having them disappear all of the sudden would have
caused an investigation into why the documents went missing. However, since the
building collapsed on 9/11 (supposedly) due to a terrorist attack, there was no
question of why the documents went
missing, so an investigation into their disappearance was not needed. But Mr.
Power’s focus on the issue “why” is severely fallacious. Regardless of why
Building 7 would have been demolished, the important question here is whether
or not it was a demolition in the first place. This is a scientific question,
and the science ultimately decides what happened to the building that day. The
“whos” and “whys” simply delve into the speculative politics of the matter,
which are clearly secondary to the issue at hand. As a scientist Mr. Power
should know this, and his failure to see this is very troubling.
The Pentagon
The issue of the Pentagon is then
discussed, and here is one area where I agree with Mr. Power for the most part.
While many in the Movement still maintain to this day that a plane did not
crash into the Pentagon, the evidence definitively indicates otherwise.[39]
However, I do maintain that the alleged pilot of the plane, Hani Hanjour, was
not experienced enough to perform of the maneuvers Flight 77 pulled off that
day.[40] Having now finished his (mostly) scientific discussion of the WTC
building collapses, Mr. Power then treats us to a different kind of discussion
in his next video.
Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists
In what is probably his weakest video,
we are given a discussion of the psychology of conspiracy theorists by Mr.
Power’s friend Dave, who is a Ph.D. psychology researcher. Instead of examining
any more of the evidence provided by the Truth Movement, this video is meant to
examine the psychological reasons people in the Movement have for believing
what they believe. In other words, it’s another rehashing of the stereotypes
leveled against anyone who happens to believe in a “conspiracy theory.” To
address this particular video, I’ll mostly be quoting from the excellent
article posted at Gatecreepers.com titled Debunking
Myths on Conspiracy Theories.[41] Each assessment presented by Dave will be
paraphrased based on arguments discussed in the Gatecreepers.com article, but
each one will have a hyperlink to the appropriate timestamp in the video so
that the full context of his statements can be heard. Each point quoted from
the Gatecreepers.com article will be assigned to an assessment made by Dave
based on how much I think it matches to the particular issue he’s discussing.
If anyone thinks I’ve assigned the wrong point to his arguments, please let me
know.
(Though
most of this section is not comprised of any original arguments I’ve made, the
video is primarily made up of arguments not original to Mr. Power either, so it
seems fair is fair.)
1:31 Myth #21 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS FEEL POWERLESS AND BLAME THE
ESTABLISHMENT FOR THEIR FAILURES
This is not logical. Powerlessness alone
does not cause people to question their leaders. However, observation and study
of the political and economic causes of powerlessness can lead to acceptance of
conspiracy theory. In other words, it is not the powerlessness of the
individual which enables suspicion, but rather the systemic causes of that
powerlessness.
The same goes for claims that conspiracy
theorists distrust their friends, which conflates suspicion of government with
paranoid delusion. Suspicion is targeted specifically towards the political
elite, while in many cases friendships may be strengthened out of solidarity in
its opposition. Likewise, whether the conspiracy theorist will fight against the
system or use the knowledge as an excuse to justify their apathy depends on the
personality of the subject.
7:48 Myth #32 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SELECT EVIDENCE AND FIX IT
ACCORDING TO PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS
Contrarily to media-spread stereotypes,
conspiracy theorists don’t make up theories just for fun. They are prompted by
the existence of important evidence that contradicts the official story, or
points at actors other than the ones being accused. Although they believe that
all things presented as facts by the establishment should be questioned and
taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, it does not mean that they will cling
to the first theory they encounter. Often times they judge other alternative
theories involving different actors and eliminate them when they cannot be
sustained with evidence.
Pro-government researchers themselves
may start from the conclusion because they are under pressure to prove the
government's story. In these cases, the scope and methods of their
investigations are pre-decided and faulty - this can result in the creation of
alternate theories which include evidence and research not carried out by
official representatives.
Myth #34 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ONLY LOOK
AT EVIDENCE THAT CONFIRMS THEIR THEORIES
This phenomenon is called confirmation
bias. While systemic bias can be found in any area of research, especially when
dealing with politically charged subjects, it is not a feature particular to
conspiracy theories. This claim assumes that conspiracy theorists have an
inherent motive to predetermine the outcome of their research, a falsehood
addressed in Myth #32.
Furthermore, this claim wrongly assumes
that because there may be omitted evidence, that this evidence is both relevant
and damaging enough to confront the conspiracy theory.
9:27 Myth #12 CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE BASED ON FAITH
…Another reason this argument is made is
because atheists believe that conspiracy theorists are absorbed in their
beliefs in the same way that religious people believe in their religion based
on faith rather than reason. Such cases are not specific to belief in
conspiracy theories; rather they are an ego reaction inherent to the underdog
status of conspiracy theories conferred by the media.
Most conspiracy theorists do not feel
emotional attachment to their theories; only some of them do after being marginalized
for promoting an alternative view. Ridicule targets the theorist personally, by
attributing the silly aspects of the theory to him, and thus the ridicule
defines his relationship toward the proponents of the status-quo. The theorist,
on some level, links the ridiculed theory to his integrity and honesty and so
strives to prove its validity, in order to clear his smeared name.
Similar irrationality can also be seen
with official story proponents who are unwilling to believe that authority
figures may conspire to harm their citizens, and would have much to lose from realizing
that the world they are living in is far more corrupt than they want to
believe.
11:22 Myth #22 CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE REASSURING BECAUSE THEY GIVE A
SENSE OF ORDER
The claim that conspiracy theorists
crave order is based on the erroneous belief that conspiracy theorists suffer
from a perceived absence of central authority. In fact, the majority of
theorists prize individuality and freedom more than the average person, and
will therefore be more sensitive to systemic abuse.
Furthermore, reassurance isn't possible
because most conspiracy theories refer to corrupt dishonest leadership, and/or
semi-secretive criminal activities which are damaging to society.
Myth #30 CONSPIRACY THEORIES GAIN
ACCEPTANCE BECAUSE THEY MAKE SENSE OUT OF TRAUMATIC EVENTS BY DESIGNATING
SCAPEGOATS
While this theory sounds very academic,
it is a carefully crafted spin. It is true that people need to make sense of
traumatic events, but in a state of panic people will usually cling to the
first explanation they hear, which is the reason why such events are so often
and easily exploited (and in many cases staged) by governments for their own
agendas. Hence, it is the government theory, which, often being itself a
conspiracy theory and designating scapegoats, accomplishes the role of making
sense out of the traumatic event, while alternate theories are shut out of the
debate, and only gain acceptance much later when the shock effect settles down.
11:41 Myth #14 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE ANTI-SEMITIC
Most conspiracy theorists are not
interested in the conspirator's origins or religion at all. They wish to study
and expose a corrupt system. They do this by pointing out special and
suspicious relationships, not culture. This is an important difference. Many of
the organisations mentioned in conspiracy theories lack any religious or
cultural identity. They are corporate, military, financial or petroleum-based.
That being said, Jews engage in conspiracies like other people, and are not
immune from criticism.
While a minority of conspiracy theorists
do believe that there is a specifically Jewish elite, most conspiracy theorists
are far more concerned by political agendas, such as Zionist and Israeli
influences in national governments, than Jewish cultural and racial issues.
Many conspiracy theorists are not concerned with Jews or Zionism at all, but
are accused of anti-semitism because they denounce the excessive power held by
international bankers (which is claimed by organisations like the ADL to be
'code' for Jews).
In turn, the stereotype is used by some
people as an ad hominem attack on conspiracy theorists and critics of Zionism,
as well as a straw man, much like the Jewish conspiracy originated as an ad
hominem attack on communists, as many of them were Jews at the time.
Disinformation agents can also publically pose as anti-semitic conspiracy
theorists in order to get all conspiracy theorists smeared with these
characteristics.
It is up to the accusers to prove the
presence of anti-semitism in specific relevant cases, and furthermore to prove
the theory wrong. Pointing out anti-semitism does not render a theory false.
12:52 Myth #4 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE IN UFOS / ALIENS / APOLLO
MOON / HOLOCAUST DENIAL
This is a straw man and an ad hominem
fallacy. Not all conspiracy theorists believe in the same things, nor does
believing in aliens invalidate their arguments on other theories. The only
thing linking these things is that they are all perceived to be conspiracy
theories. Each should be evaluated on its own merits.
However, if a theorist bases their
beliefs on poor argumentation, then other conspiracy theorists may want to
distance themselves from him/her or question that theorist's ability to support
their own ideas. Many such people are accused of being deliberately planted to
discredit other theories, a technique called the 'poisoned well'. The media
then proceeds to discredit an entire investigative movement based on a few
silly theories - a strawman attack.
When the media lumps anybody who doesn’t
trust the government version of 9-11 into the category of flat earthers and
holocaust deniers, any real conspiracy there might have been is given the
ultimate defense. Namely, a pre-emptive, universal ad hominem on anyone who
would dare talk about it publicly, the archetypal ‘tin foil hatter’.
14:55 Myth #36 CONSPIRACISM RESULTS IN AN EXCESSIVELY DIVERSE SET OF
DIFFERENT NARRATIVES BASED ON DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS
This is usually argued as opposed to the
idea that so-called 'scientific' process would lead to a streamlined or
'united' theory. In fact, there are many examples in the domain of scientific
research that show that this is not necessarily the case.
As in any ongoing investigation, a
number of hypotheses are formulated and, over time, some are disproven whilst
others are strengthened or proven. Of particular importance is the slow,
ongoing release of evidence which helps or terminates these investigations. It
is unscientific to demand the removal of narratives before evidence is found to
prove or disprove them.
Indeed, the motivation behind this myth
may be a dishonest one: to convince theorists to narrow the set of narratives
until what remains is easily disprovable or dismissable due to lack of
supporting evidence, or due to vagueness.
17:29 Myth #13 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE PARANOID AND ENGAGE IN
FEARMONGERING
The news media engages in far more
fearmongering than do conspiracy theorists, by making people believe that
criminals and terrorists are out to get them. The difference is that conspiracy
theorists say that the government is usually the cause, and not the solution to
those problems.
Politicians use fearmongering to make
people accept their rules about how society should be controlled, and the
mainstream media helps them do this. Conspiracy theorists have no such goals of
control, nor the means to achieve those goals.
Paranoia is a mental disorder - and so
this myth suggests that conspiracy theorists are inventing enemies and
tormentors, when in fact many theories arise as challenges to percieved
impossibilities or inaccuracies in an official story, rather than non-existent
entities.
This myth by itself neither proves nor
disproves any proposed theories. This myth also contradicts the idea that
people use conspiracy theories to assuage their fears of social problems (Myth
#5).
These are all the assessments I could
see. Again, if anyone thinks I’ve assigned the wrong point to any assessment,
or that there are significant points I’ve left out, please let me know. In the
meantime, I encourage Mr. Power, Dave, and anyone else to read the full article
at Gatecreepers.com to understand why all these psychological evaluations are
insignificant. I would also encourage them to listen to the evaluations of
other psychologists on how these psychological roadblocks apply just as much to
people who believe the government’s stories.[42]
Flight 93 and Final Thoughts
The last video in Mr. Power’s series is
simply a rehashing of the feedback he’s gotten on all his previous videos. This
feedback includes comments he’s received on YouTube, video responses, and Part
1 of my critique of his series. His brief mention of my rebuttal is
astoundingly weak, and I have already addressed his comments and his attempts
to defend his comments.[43] He also speaks briefly about Flight 93, which is a highly disputed issue in the 9/11 Truth Movement.[44] As we’ve established, Mr.
Power’s video series falls well short of refuting the Truth Movement’s case.
Though he seems right on a number of small issues, he has failed at refuting
the Movement’s overall premise; that the attacks of 9/11 were some kind of
inside job, and that a new investigation is still needed. While Mr. Power
acknowledges that he doesn’t expect to change anyone’s mind with his series, I
sincerely hope my critique of his series will make him rethink his position,
and see that the evidence just might be as strong as the Movement asserts. I
encourage him to evaluate the claims of the official investigators, such as
NIST, just as thoroughly as he has evaluated the claims of the Movement. Doing
anything less would be inconsistent, and represents bad reasoning and bad
science.
One final thing I’d like to mention, Mr. Power has an interesting post
on his blog titled Debunking 9/11
Conspiracy Theorists [sic] Claims
with Simple Google Searches.[45] There’s nothing he discusses in it that I
haven’t already addressed in my rebuttals, so I won’t bother critiquing any
arguments he makes. Rather, I note with amusement that he thinks that debunking
conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 takes nothing more than a simple Google
search. However, if Mr. Power’s research into this subject is any indicator, it
is going to take far more than just Google searches to debunk the case for
controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers. And on that note, I finish with a
quote from one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, and hope that Mr.
Power will consider his words as much as I have.
A fair result can be obtained only by
fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each
question. –Charles Darwin
References:
[9] Ibid.
[12] Ibid. pg. 315-316
[13] See: Questions and Answers about
the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, question 29
I feel no shame in admitting that I haven't read Judy Wood's book Where Did the Towers Go?. Nor do I feel shame in admitting that I'm likely never going to read it. I've said as much before. I made it crystal clear to her followers that if there's some new ground-breaking information in her book that proves DEWs were used to "dustify" the Towers, then maybe I'd take a look. But since her book came out they've been trotting out the same claims we've heard for years, which are all easily refutable. 
That being said, there's a few things I felt were in need of critical assessment in regards to his review of Judy Wood's book. You can see everything he's said or written about the book by following this link. From the start, it's obvious this isn't the comprehensive, point-by-point refutation that I was hoping for, but that's sort of understandable when you consider what exactly he's working with here. His reviews demonstrate that, despite its size, the book contains an enormous amount of padding, filled with large pictures and irrelevant material. He describes it as basically an "adult picture book," and from what I've seen so far that seems like an accurate assessment. There probably just isn't as much to go on as the book's size suggests, so I shouldn't be that surprised that his critiques are fairly short. That's probably all it takes to debunk her anyway.
Myles also does a decent job of explaining why Wood's claims about the Towers being "dustified" is total bollocks. Wood apparently presents this photo of Ground Zero to demonstrate the supposed lack of steel debris at the site. Myles counters by pointing out that Wood never spoke with a single first-responder or member of the clean-up crew. This is a very significant point I've been making for years: neither Dr. Wood nor her followers have, or ever will, talk with the hundreds of workers who spent months clearing out the tonnes of steel that was present at GZ. I do think Myles could have rebutted this claim a bit more thoroughly had he shown other photos of GZ, rather than just the one aerial shot presented by Wood. The photographic record indisputably shows large sections of steel everywhere at GZ, which should be all the rebuttal one needs to show the steel wasn't "dustified." By all means, review the photos yourself. (And if you want to see a massive picture book that is worth buying, I highly recommend Joel Meyerowitz's Aftermath. Anyone who can look through that book and still believe the Towers were turned to dust is deluded beyond any hope.)
In conclusion, Myles' review of Judy Wood's book is decent, but not the slam-dunk refutation I would prefer it to be. In other words (Myles' words in fact), it's not fantastic, but it's OK. Despite the points I've disputed above, I still enjoy and appreciate Myles' review, and would definitely recommend it to people who consider the book to have any sort of credibility. What other sorts of insanity dwell within its pages? If Myles reviews more of the book, we may just find out. Stay tuned.
