EDIT: Btw, in case you don’t watch the whole interview, the explosion happened before any of the two main towers collapsed.
EDIT2(2010-03-15): Wow, once primary evidence that contradicts the LW orthodoxy is downvoted into oblivion what can we say about the epistemological waterline here? What about the trumpeted Bayesianism that says you have to take all evidence into account?
EDIT3(2010-03-29): I’m counting votes for the historical record: −13 now. Please don’t upvote this retroactively(EDIT: if you already downvoted it previously), I think this will be important for the future to gauge the rationality of this site.
The eyewitness in question was Barry Jennings who was Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. He was inside WTC 7 in the office of emergency management(OEM) during 9-11. Btw, afterwards he has died under mysterious circumstances, there is no explanation of how it happened.
That adds some weight. But it’s still not particularly convincing. Even assuming he’s not being intentionally deceptive or deceptively cut (which I’m not sure is true), it’s not anything close to extraordinary evidence, as a claim like that requires.
Remember that witnesses perceptions and memories will be distorted. Clearly, events were confused (look at his statement at 4:39, where he’s confused on whether he’s standing on a landing or hanging). He “knows” he heard explosions, apparently based on his experience as “a boiler guy”; even setting aside the possibility of actual explosions from (eg) fuel oil tanks, it’s certainly possible that he mistook other sound associated with a massive fire and collapsing building for explosions. The devastation, dead bodies, etc, are likewise consequences of the fires and damage.
There is some evidence supporting the conspiracy theory, but it’s not nearly enough to outweigh the low prior and evidence against it.
The kind that comes from more than a single person, for a start. An unequivocal sign of a conspiracy (like an actual explosive attached to a support).
Failing that, a report free of clear signs of confusion (like the aforementioned confusion at 4:39). Reports of explosions from people actually familiar with explosions, and/or experience and a track record of cool under threat (“a boiler guy” and bureaucrat don’t qualify, without more of a evidence). A witness who hasn’t changed his story back and forth. Etcetera.
This makes me think your website would be improved by some means of ordering quotes based on the relevance of the speakers’ expertise. In this case, it’s easy enough to tell that bin Laden claiming responsibility is more relevant than Jesse Ventura having watched a video on YouTube, but on other issues, it might not be as clear-cut, and could serve to promote a false equivalence between the “experts” quoted on each side.
The ordering algorithm currently works in two steps:
Expertise Relevance: If the topic of expertise the expert has matches the topic of the question, the expert quote ranks higher (sub ordering: a rarer topic match gets a higher rank than a common topic match, e.g. a match for “climatology” would outrank a match for “science”.)
Expertise Depth: An expert quote with more sub-arguments out-ranks an expert quote with fewer sub-arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI#t=4m00s
EDIT: Btw, in case you don’t watch the whole interview, the explosion happened before any of the two main towers collapsed.
EDIT2(2010-03-15): Wow, once primary evidence that contradicts the LW orthodoxy is downvoted into oblivion what can we say about the epistemological waterline here? What about the trumpeted Bayesianism that says you have to take all evidence into account?
EDIT3(2010-03-29): I’m counting votes for the historical record: −13 now. Please don’t upvote this retroactively(EDIT: if you already downvoted it previously), I think this will be important for the future to gauge the rationality of this site.
EDIT4(2010-04-27): downvoted to −15 now.
EDIT5(2011-08-23): −17
EDIT6(2011-08-24): −18
EDIT7(2011-08-24): −23
Downvoted for downvote-counting obsession.
A single eyewitness account, presumable handpicked and stagemanaged by people with an agenda, does not make particularly strong evidence.
The eyewitness in question was Barry Jennings who was Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. He was inside WTC 7 in the office of emergency management(OEM) during 9-11. Btw, afterwards he has died under mysterious circumstances, there is no explanation of how it happened.
http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/ http://www.groundreport.com/US/Barry-Jennings-Key-9-11-Witness-Dies/2869565
EDIT: The OEM is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including terrorist attacks.
That adds some weight. But it’s still not particularly convincing. Even assuming he’s not being intentionally deceptive or deceptively cut (which I’m not sure is true), it’s not anything close to extraordinary evidence, as a claim like that requires.
Remember that witnesses perceptions and memories will be distorted. Clearly, events were confused (look at his statement at 4:39, where he’s confused on whether he’s standing on a landing or hanging). He “knows” he heard explosions, apparently based on his experience as “a boiler guy”; even setting aside the possibility of actual explosions from (eg) fuel oil tanks, it’s certainly possible that he mistook other sound associated with a massive fire and collapsing building for explosions. The devastation, dead bodies, etc, are likewise consequences of the fires and damage.
There is some evidence supporting the conspiracy theory, but it’s not nearly enough to outweigh the low prior and evidence against it.
What kind of eyewitness testimony would be more convincing to you?
The kind that comes from more than a single person, for a start. An unequivocal sign of a conspiracy (like an actual explosive attached to a support).
Failing that, a report free of clear signs of confusion (like the aforementioned confusion at 4:39). Reports of explosions from people actually familiar with explosions, and/or experience and a track record of cool under threat (“a boiler guy” and bureaucrat don’t qualify, without more of a evidence). A witness who hasn’t changed his story back and forth. Etcetera.
Video footage.
Of course, video footage does exist and shows no explosions, but does show a plane hitting the tower.
My question was rhetorical. The point I’m trying to make is that you can’t choose your evidence.
Experts on both sides of the 9/11 conspiracy debate:
http://www.takeonit.com/question/46.aspx
I didn’t spend much time on this question, because there didn’t seem to be compelling enough evidence to warrant further research.
This makes me think your website would be improved by some means of ordering quotes based on the relevance of the speakers’ expertise. In this case, it’s easy enough to tell that bin Laden claiming responsibility is more relevant than Jesse Ventura having watched a video on YouTube, but on other issues, it might not be as clear-cut, and could serve to promote a false equivalence between the “experts” quoted on each side.
The ordering algorithm currently works in two steps:
Expertise Relevance: If the topic of expertise the expert has matches the topic of the question, the expert quote ranks higher (sub ordering: a rarer topic match gets a higher rank than a common topic match, e.g. a match for “climatology” would outrank a match for “science”.)
Expertise Depth: An expert quote with more sub-arguments out-ranks an expert quote with fewer sub-arguments.
Like many algorithms (such as collaborative filtering), the algorithm starts working better as the content is filled out, e.g.:
http://www.takeonit.com/question/5.aspx
P.S. I just tagged that question with the topic “War” so now Bin Laden bubbles to the top. Keep the feedback coming. It’s incredibly helpful.