= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
roland comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1329)
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.