Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

I have long maintained that the key feature of conspiracy theory logic, is you can conclude that evidence supports a conspiracy, no matter which way it goes. I have found another example. The 9/11 deniers insist that the fact that no clear video exists of the planes that crashed into the Pentagon or in Shanksville, indicates that there was a conspiracy.

Well, there is video footage of both planes which crashed into the World Trade Center, so we could logically conclude that this is strong evidence against their theories? Wrong, that too is sign of a conspiracy.

Calculate the odds. Two French filmmakers, the Naudet brothers, are filming a documentary about a young, probationary fireman, Tony Benetatos, on September 11, 2001. Before the awful events yet to come, Tony is left alone at the 100 Duane Street fire station while Jules Naudet, the firemen and truck swing left from station, drive to the first corner, turn right onto Church Street, and drive seven blocks north to Lispenard Street and Church to investigate the report of an exterior gas leak.

Then, while the fire team is investigating, Jules Naudet doesn’t film them. For some reason, he turns his camera south, carefully finds a clear view, past the 440-foot high AT&T building, of the Twin Towers. Then, with a nano-window of six seconds in which to catch Flight 11 stream from behind the AT&T building at 450 mph, he catches perfectly the last two seconds of the hit into the North Tower at 8:46.30 am, what’s commonly known in the film business as “The Money Shot.” So, calculate the odds.


This truther even manages to indict the firefighters along with his speculation that these filmmakers were part of the plot. It should come as no surprise, whichever way the evidence points, they will continue their nonsense. As Dylan Avery said, their beliefs are not falsifiable.

25 Comments:

At 21 February, 2007 23:10, Blogger Alex said...

I love this part:

To lend reality to the shot, Jules pans 90 degrees to the east. The pan ends with the exact centering of the North Tower in the frame (though the South Tower is right behind it, a degree more to the east). But the North Tower is centered pristinely before Flight 11 zooms from the north to southwest to slam the focused Tower at the 94th floor. Calculate the odds of putting your camera lens exactly where Flight 11 would make a perfect bull's-eye.

Now, calculate the odds of doing that, even if you knew exactly what time the plane was going to hit.

For his idea to be at all plausible, one of two things would have had to happen:

1) The Naudet Brothers would have had to know the exact time of impact, down to the second. It should be pretty clear why this is impossible.

2) There would have to be DOZENS of crews like the Naudet brothers in different locations, all trying to get the right shot, but at slightly different times. This ofcourse just adds another 50 or so co-conspirators to the list, and even then there is no guarantee of success.

So not only is there no evidence that the video was shot by someone who knew what was about to happen, but the "90 degree pan" tends to suggest the exact opposite. Perhaps if the video had stayed focused on that exact spot for a few minutes prior to the strike, then this accusation might not sound quite so silly. As it is, well, the guy is clearly a woo woo.

 
At 22 February, 2007 01:14, Blogger Richard said...

I actually own the documentary and nothing lends itself to a conspiracy. The scene starts with footage of firefighters using a "sniffer" to find the gas leak when you hear a VERY LOUD aircraft flying above. This is of course not common in downtown Manhattan. Pretty much everyone on the street stops what they are doing and look up and that's when the camera swings around. They just manage to get the Towers in focus when the plane hit. There was nothing preplanned or special about it. They just happen to be there when it happened.

 
At 22 February, 2007 03:31, Blogger Richard of 9 11 01 Hawkeyi said...

I'm sorry, Some guy named Ron Weike over at Conspiracy Smasher sent me here to this site that debunks Steven E. Jones... I didn't mean to crash in here unannounced... I'm Richard, and I believe there is more to 911 than the official story,

Conspiracy Smasher has tried for weeks and months trying to convince me I'm wrong, but they don't have a shred of evidence to back there argument. Anyways, thought I'd say hi, I won't bother you again.... blame Ron Wieke for giving me this wrong address....

Cheers!

 
At 22 February, 2007 05:07, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Welcome to where your beliefs come to die.

 
At 22 February, 2007 06:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Welcome Richard, where Tour Guides of New York City are treated like experts on 9/11 nay like gods!...where firefighters are right in one instance but completely wrong on another, where the "failure to imagine" is the excuse for the events of 9/11 ensuring no one's carreer is maligned and no one is to blame, where official reports are held to be the bibles of 9/11 but the data used to create the reports are only held by those who create the reports themselves, much like the Priests of old used latin to maintain power and control over the peasants belief and worship through ignorance...yes the place where believers in the official religion deny eyewitnesses, mainstream news reports, victims accounts, local first reponders, officials, and national heroes. Yes the blog that belives it is ok to spend $40 million on a blow job investigation but only $15 million on the investigation of America's worst mass murder in history is ok...
Yes SCL where the 9/11 Commission is the end all truth even when some of the members of said commission publically stated American's may never know the full truth.

Richard, you have now entered the dimlight zone...

 
At 22 February, 2007 06:28, Blogger Alex said...

Swing, you could have made millions as an author. Instead you're wasting your imagination on blog posts. It's sad. If you wrote a Tom Clancy style novel, even I'd buy it!

 
At 22 February, 2007 07:01, Blogger James said...

Dylan said on Truth Jihad radio that once he's exposed the 9/11 perpetrators, he wants to get back to a normal life.

Why doesn't he stop now, the hijackers were identified years ago.

He's gonna be chasing this all his life.

 
At 22 February, 2007 08:05, Blogger texasjack said...

Go Richard, where two-time college rejects are experts on 911, where firefighters statements are completely misinterpreted or taken out of context, where the "ability to fantasize" is a requirement for being in denial of the 911 Commission report, the NIST report, expert testimony, etc. Go to place where theologian's study 911 instead of the bible, where a person with a minor in Folklore is the leading authority of the truth on 911. Go to where national heroes are treated like pawns, or worse yet are treated like conspirators. Go to where to place where they get it wrong hundreds of times, while the victims of 911 only had one chance to get it right. Yes, go to the forums of prisonplanet, loose change, etc, to enter the twilight zone, or stay and educate yourself.

 
At 22 February, 2007 08:53, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Please sir, do educate us on the following...

where firefighters statements are completely misinterpreted or taken out of context

Your left out the mainstream press reports, first responders, FBI comments, policemen, and the historical record as well and video, first opinion of experts, etc. Or will you be leaving those out because they contradict your fairy tale?


ability to fantasize" is a requirement for being in denial of the 911 Commission report, the NIST report,

Yes, the NIST, where even the engineering community has issues with their reports which do not even explain the transition from fire and damage to global collapse, whose computer models will not be released to the engineering community to provide a check for accuracy.
Or is that what you call fantasy? The future safety of all persons working or living in high rise structures?

Or 911 Co-Commission Chairman, Lee Hamilton's own statments, unless you want to deny his own statements? Or does he partake in fantasy as well?

Speaking of 9/11 victims, don't forget to place the widows in the realm of fantasy as well.

No Richard, you won't be able to read anything of the above nature here because it doesn't support the "failure to imagine" conspiracy theory.

 
At 22 February, 2007 09:15, Blogger James said...

hey swing dong, what did the commission get wrong? Which scientists disagree with NIST?

 
At 22 February, 2007 11:13, Blogger Stevew said...

Good points James, don't expect a real answer.

The investigation around 9/11 was the most intensive and comprehensive investigation ever done. It involved 1000's of people who are a lot smarter than sd.

So sd please, enlighten us as to what happened and why you think the released version is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

Where did these 1000's of people go wrong?

What did they miss?

Why don't you give a detailed counter explaination with facts and experts to back it up

Where is your list of experts that will back up what you claim?

 
At 22 February, 2007 11:36, Blogger BG said...

James said...

hey swing dong, what did the commission get wrong? Which scientists disagree with NIST?


Yesterday, I posted a link to an article that described British engineers disagreeing with the 2005 NIST report.

Did you not see it, or does it not qualify according to your definition of "disagree"?

 
At 22 February, 2007 11:57, Blogger texasjack said...

"Your left out the mainstream press reports, first responders, FBI comments, policemen, and the historical record as well and video, first opinion of experts, etc. Or will you be leaving those out because they contradict your fairy tale?"

Ok, how many out of the fore-mentioned believe your ridiculous conceptions? It's closer to zero than it is to the hundred's that believe that the 911 Commission Report is materially correct.
It's time for you to learn how to evaluate evidence instead of cherry-picking, misinterpreting, twisting, relying on conjecture, sources that are reprinted sources that are unreliable and calling that mainstream media or taking mainstream media accounts completely out of context; your argument is about as strong as a disbarred, drug-impaired defense attorney, and that might be too generous.
There is a reason papers like the New York Times (who hate the Bush Administration and his cronies) refuse to print your garbage--because they are responsible, educated journalists who can't turn YOUR fairy tales into facts. This is a chance of lifetime for some reporter anywhere in the world to print a Pulitzer Prize winning story of at least a double-century. Why isn't that happening?
In the meantime, there are those that like Avery and Alex Jones who are making a living off the uneducated, the young, the misfits, and the gullible. The documentary they release should be titled: "Blood Money, I Want My Cut."

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:00, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Or you could read How Things Work to get a better view of conspiracies..

http://people.howstuffworks.com/
conspiracy-theory1.htm

Hey James, how can you agree or disagree with the report if you can't get the data?

New Civil Engineer Publication

NIST won't release visualizatons to leading strucutral engineers and fire engineers...

NCE..quote, "NIST should really show the visulaisations; otherwise the opportunity to coorelate them back to video evidence to identify any errors in the modeling will be lost." He said. University of Manchester Professor of Structural Engineering Colin Bailey.


Again how can SE's agree or disagree with the report if they can't error check???

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:03, Blogger BG said...

Reinforcing my Point about NIST critism:

from the NY Times:

David Scott of Arup, an engineering firm in New York City, who is chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, an international nonprofit professional organization, said, “A lot of people were disappointed by the NIST report because it was a bit vague and didn’t tell people what to do, and didn’t do the research to back up what it did tell people to do.”

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:04, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

It's time for you to learn how to evaluate evidence instead of cherry-picking, misinterpreting, twisting, relying on conjecture, sources that are reprinted sources that are unreliable and calling that mainstream media or taking mainstream media accounts completely out of context;

If you would educates us all, jack, please post where I have done the above. If not, you simply lie and deny like the rest.

I think it is time you rewind the press reports of the day that you copied during the attacks, or did you? I suppose you probably didn't. Then, I would encourage you to read the full transcripts of the firefighter's statements and their video testimonies. Or did you? I suppose you didn't. So please instead of criticizing my research methods, I would encourage you to spend that time researching the primary source material.

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:21, Blogger Stevew said...

http://jay-911.blogspot.com/
Transcripts

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:29, Blogger Manny said...

Reinforcing my Point about NIST critism:

from the NY Times:

"David Scott of Arup, an engineering firm in New York City, who is chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, an international nonprofit professional organization, said..."


Yup. There's a real controversy there. And it has important implications for all of us who work in high-rise buildings, particularly those with large column-free spaces.

And terrorist-supporting dirtbags like you are muddling that real controversies and preventing the dialogue from reaching the broader public. So not only is your crackpotism supporting terrorism, it is endangering me, personally. Get stomach cancer and die in agony, terrorist scum.

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:35, Blogger texasjack said...

Swing, supposing is the CF's M.O.

P.S. I have a strong background in evidence evaluation, do you?

P.S.S. I have studied and researched 911 properly, have you?

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:48, Blogger CHF said...

Yesterday, I posted a link to an article that described British engineers disagreeing with the 2005 NIST report.

Did you not see it, or does it not qualify according to your definition of "disagree"?


BG, they disagreed in that they thought the towers would have fallen with less damage than they had!

Explain to me how that supports the twoofers.

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:48, Blogger CHF said...

Hey Swing,

any luck finding yourself an engineer at long last?

One who is alive, I mean.

 
At 22 February, 2007 12:55, Blogger shawn said...

where Tour Guides of New York City are treated like experts on 9/11 nay like gods!

It just so happens all the structural engineers agree with said tour guide.

 
At 22 February, 2007 13:02, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Yesterday, I posted a link to an article that described British engineers disagreeing with the 2005 NIST report.

You did no such thing, BG. In fact it was pointed out to you almost instantly by someone, who unlike you, actually read the article you linked; that the british engineers are in complete agreement with the NIST that the towers collapsed as a result of aircraft impact and fire damage.

 
At 22 February, 2007 13:02, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

And you will note that NY Times article takes no issue with the findings of the NIST report

""The planes that day severed five of the six stairwells in the twin towers, fatally trapping as many as 1,500 people on the upper floors. Analysts have said many more might have escaped if there had been more stairwells and if they had been made of reinforced concrete rather than lightweight gypsum board.""

Only that recommendations of the report are not being taken fast enough for some. An important issue and far better thing to spend money on then rehashing the fact aircraft impact and fire brought down the towers in the first place.

So where does this show support for the great 911 CT?

 
At 22 February, 2007 15:30, Blogger Richard said...

I'm Richard, and I believe there is more to 911 than the official story

Well there's your problem. Believing or having a gut feeling about something is not the skeptical approach to something. Let the evidence speak for itself and judge the weight of the evidence and how it relates to other pieces of evidence. Don't isolate one "desperate fact" and work from there. Look at the evidence as a whole.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home