Skeptic Magazine’s latest bumbling foray into promoting “science and critical thinking through the use of humor, wit, and satire” is the video called “You Can’t Handle the Truther”. The gut bursting irony here is that the video consists entirely of logical fallacies, the complete opposite of critical thinking. There’s no science either just as there’s no science to support the official fairy tale of 9/11 which this asinine video is supposed to support.
Let’s examine these fallacies one by one by highlighting the statements made:
Explosives were planted in the Twin Towers via the elevator shafts under the guise of an elevator repair.
The only reason this explanation would be humorous is if were seen as implausible. Appeal to incredulity.
“Super thermite” (AKA nano-thermite) is mentioned as the explosive.
Would only be humorous if nano-thermite had no explosive applications. Nano-thermite however has many documented explosive applications. Appeal to incredulity I suppose. Most credible 9/11 skeptics presume traditional explosives were also used in the demolition with the nano-thermite more likely used only to weaken the steel. So it’s a straw man as well.
Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh is referenced as an undercover CIA operative.
This a theory is held by most if not all “skeptics” to be baseless. So this reference is a guilt by association fallacy.
“Super secret superthermite” is mentioned.
This could only be funny is it were true. It’s true that in 2001 at least, nano-thermite was only available in military-grade labs but the technology was far from secret. Several papers on nano-thermite had already been published by NIST scientists. So the “super secret superthermite” reference is a straw man. They are ridiculing the argument that nanothermite was a top-secret technology which no credible 9/11 skeptic has ever held. They fabricated an argument and attacked it instead of attacking an actual argument.
Explosives would be placed exactly where the planes hit.
Here the implication is that it would be next to impossible to have the planes hit right where the explosives were planted because the collapses started at the impact locations. This is another appeal to incredulity fallacy. In fact, explosives could easily have been pre-positioned all over the buildings and reconfigured after impact using software to match the impact location for example.
Remote controlled planes.
Another appeal to incredulity. Just because some can’t imagine passenger jets being remote controlled as drones are today does not mean it didn’t happen.
Passengers are kidnapped, gassed and transported to secret location so they won’t storm the cockpit as they would be expected to do.
Another appeal to incredulity. Also very few 9/11 skeptics credibly entertain this scenario. So it’s another guilt by association fallacy.
Pentagon hit with cruise missile made up to look like a jet liner.
Another appeal to incredulity.
Fake calls made from inside the jets using faked voice technology called Voice Altering Global Intersectional Neologistical Assistant (VAGINA). Those impersonated were monitored by NSA PRISM like program to get accurate personal details.
Appeal to ridicule. This acronym is the kind of crass juvenile attempt at humor you’d expect from drunken frat boys not science-literate critical thinkers. And we all know the US government wouldn’t stoop to spying on every detail of a person’s entire electronic footprint. Well except for PRISM. Voice mimicking technology was also quite advanced before 2001.
The hundreds to thousands of people involved silenced by NDAs.
Straw man. Violating an NDA can perhaps result in a lawsuit. Violating a gag order or deputization order can result in significant jail time without a hearing. If 9/11 was a US government conspiracy there’s no evidence at all that large numbers of people would have to be _directly_ involved. Through compartmentalization and need to know, processes common to military operations, only a few people at the top would necessarily require full details.
This video constitutes one big appeal to ridicule fallacy that relies on straw man fallacies and appeals to incredulity fallacies for its humour. This is all pseudo-skeptics can do to support the purely faith-based myth they fanatically believe in without question. They can only spew logical fallacies and falsehoods but never deal with legitimate science-based skeptical arguments against the official 9/11 fairy tale.
3. Kevin Ryan, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008
4. Peter Finn, “Judge’s Order Could Keep Public From Hearing Details of 9/11 Trials”, Washington Post, January 7, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010603374.html?
5. William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing”, The Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1999 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
6. Michael C Ruppert: Crossing the Rubicon, page 243.