(anything else is just too uncomfortable)
Lately I’ve been asking questions, only to be labeled a tin foil hat wearer or conspiracy theorist. If I had a position on a particular topic, I could understand that label, but to get labeled just for asking what seem to be obvious questions that should be asked, that is when I scratch my head with puzzled wonder. One example is when scientists bring up a theory contrary to the status quo, such as man being the tipping point for an unalterable course for climate disaster, it is met with heresy. Advocates are labeled science deniers or conspiracy theorists spreading “fake news”. Isn’t science by definition supposed to be open to questions and contrary views in order to promote critical thinking? Why is it that the same people who claim that the science is 100% certain that man is responsible for global warming, abandon science altogether when asked to consider how the Trade Towers went down in free fall on September 11th 2001? Over 3000 architects and engineers, who know the science, challenge the engineering firm that was paid $20 million by the government for their report. Publications like Popular Mechanics seem to be an echo chamber to silence any discussion to the contrary. Even Mr. Michael Shermer, considered the grand poobah of all skeptics embraces the official narrative over the skepticism of the architects and engineers who are challenging the official report. The science in question is the physics that even a high schooler studying Newtonian motion can understand, which contradicts the official report. So, has science become a subset of political science? Is science only science if it supports a political agenda? Let’s examine the established narrative and compare it to the evidence supplied by the “conspiracy nuts”.
Let’s start with the official version Michael Shermer and other debunkers such as Popular Mechanics share. Here is Michael’s statement on the 911 subject, “But I never imagined such an ‘appalling deception’ would ever find a voice in America.” He is quick to equate and compare those who believe there is more to the 911 story than what the official narrative states to Creationists who ignore the evidence posed by the science of Evolution or the Holocaust deniers who reject actual history. Imagine that, comparing the “911 Truthers” to Holocaust deniers. (That should shame anyone wanting to be part of the “911 Truthers” group, right?) Just making false equivalencies and marginalizing a point of view is propaganda, Michael, not evidence. But what is Michael’s actual scientific evidence when he isn’t insulting the true skeptics? He states that at the heart of the controversy is the melting point of steel. Here is where he quotes (agreeing with) Thomas Eager, an engineering professor at MIT, who explains the official report:
Steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag — straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered the 500,000-ton building to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.
This is the official report for the reason the buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001. But the official narrative is what brings up the contradiction to the Newtonian laws of motion; “When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered the 500,000-ton building to crumble.” To emphasize, the official report says it went down with a “pancaking effect”. That, not the temperature that steels melts, is the science which must be answered Mr. Shermer, not melting metal! Currently, over 3,000 prominent architects and engineers are challenging the notion that the buildings could have collapsed in “free fall” time, 9 to 11 seconds, if the buildings collapsed with the pancake effect. And the official report states that the buildings did go down in free fall time. Any high school physics student can tell you that when one floor hits the next, energy must be absorbed, thus delaying the time it takes for the collapse. No experiment has been conducted to prove the official narrative (it can’t, it defies the laws of physics), yet there are many experiments demonstrating the challenging argument. And Mr. Shermer, if the buildings did go down in free fall, then something such as a controlled demolition had to be responsible which begs for more questions to be answered, such as who had access to prepare those buildings for demolition? And the elephant in the story is building 7. The official statement has no answer why building 7 collapsed in a controlled demolition style free fall, especially when the fire was about burned out. Get your best scientists Mr. Shermer and explain how the laws of physics can be conveniently ignored by the official political report.
Even Noam Chomsky doesn’t have an answer for building 7, yet he sees no evidence that the Bush administration was involved. (I didn’t even know that was at the heart of the issue?) He stated that if it was an inside job, the perpetrators had to be lunatics or they didn’t do it and he didn’t believe they were lunatics. Now that Trump is president, Mr. Chomsky, what is your view on lunatics today? But, who did what, Bush or Arabs isn’t the immediate question. And Mr. Chomsky wasn’t even addressing that. If the buildings did go down in free fall, then the official version is as worthless as the paper it’s written on and by their own official admission, the buildings did go down in free fall speed, so who is responsible? Who had access? And Mr. Chomsky recommended that those who challenge the narrative write peer reviewed articles for publication. I suppose the 3,000 signatories of professionals who stake their reputations to ask the question isn’t enough? And again, Mr. Chomsky, to totally ignore building 7’s collapse means there is no scientific or professional curiosity on your part (even though you seem to be interested in everything else). To ignore building seven is like coming home from work and your house literally melted into a goo, but you have no curiosity how or why it happened. And with the sound of applause, after Mr. Chomsky answered the question, the moderator expressively mandated that no more questions on the 911 subject were permissible. So much for free speech. Just as Michael Shermer stated the reasons for those wanting to believe a conspiracy theory, the same logic seems to apply to those who don’t want to be disturbed if the conspiracy theorists are correct. Michael Shermer states:
“Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.”
Michael Shermer, Popular Mechanics and those supporting the official story are doubling down despite the overwhelming need to question the official narrative raised by observable evidence. Anyone can witness the collapses of the buildings including building 7 as there is a plethora of videos. On the date of the collapse – on about every network – by every newscaster – all stated that the collapse appeared to be just like a controlled demolition. So Michael and even my beloved Noam are asking you to believe the official story, not what you can see and hear with your own eyes and ears. Perhaps Mr. Shermer, it is now you who is leading the “appalling deception”, not those questioning the official narrative. Don’t question authority, don’t think for yourself. And evidence is only evidence if it came through the official channels, right? (For me, any time any purveyors of established dogma go out of their way to over-protect their ideology; that is the dogma I want to investigate even deeper.)
Now, consider climate change, the other science influenced by political necessity. Who hasn’t heard, “the science is in – global warming is caused by man”. Then they quote something like that is the consensus of 97% of all scientists. That conclusion came from the question asked to scientists which was, “Does man influence climate change”? The answer is almost universally and obviously, yes! But the next part is never considered part of the debate, but which is where all the controversy lies; HOW much does man contribute to climate change? Sure we all contribute in some amount, but are we responsible for the tipping point and what exactly defines the tipping point? For those questions, the science is NOT in! The dogmatically held belief is that climate change is the result of increasing green house gases, mainly CO2, (carbon dioxide). The increase of CO2 and increase of temperature seems to have a correlation. But even in the massive temperature chart that Al Gore had across the stage in his first movie, CO2 shows to be a lagging indicator, not a leading one. If it’s a lagging indicator, then there is something missing in the analysis. Does an increase in temperature cause an increase of CO2 or vice-versa?
A Danish physicist, Henrik Svensmark has demonstrated that the sun and cosmos and clouds, together, have the prerogative over earth’s temperature. And Mr. Chomsky, despite Svensmark’s writings and evidence, and his status in the scientific community, the journals refused to publish his findings for peer review simply because it was too disruptive to the status quo. It seems the established dogma had no desire to be challenged by evidence, because, as Shermer stated, their “worldview {would be} perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data”! Just ask one of my favorite comedians, Bill Maher or the science guy, Bill Nye or my buddy Neil deGrasse Tyson. Such data by Mr. Svensmark would just be too disturbing to their worldview! Mr. Svensmark’s clear cut data, also seems to prove Mr. Shermer’s observation that “In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them”. I don’t think Mr. Shermer knew when he wrote it that he was referring to himself and those who challenge the status quo.
Another scientist, who claims the influence of the sun over climate change, challenging the CO2 theory, is Piers Corbyn, who has already been labeled a fraud, although he has more credentials than those who are labeling him. Plus his ability to predict weather patterns has been quite accurate. He has shown a direct correlation between climate temperature and sun activity with temperature, correctly being the lagging indicator or result of the sun’s activity, unlike the CO2 theory in which CO2 is the lagging indicator. But why look at his evidence if he is a fraud, right? Perhaps he doesn’t get a break because he is also the brother of the controversial English Labor Leader, Jeremy Corbyn. There are those politics again. Why are people’s credibility challenged rather than their evidence? Isn’t science about evidence regardless of where it came from?
And I haven’t even mentioned HAARP which has been trying to mess with our weather patterns for decades. When asked what they expect to happen when they blast billions of watts of energy into OUR ionosphere, they respond that they don’t know, even if it could be catastrophic. Or how about the theories of mad scientist David Kieth who believes that Climate Engineering can save us from global warming (based on the CO2 theory) by spraying poisonous aerosols into the air (basically chemtrails) and also admits by doing so, the process would kill tens of thousands. These are the official “scientists” who are actually messing with climate change. So if climate change is man-made and to what degree, this is the first place I would look as they are FUNDED by the government and could easily be turned off.
So should I quit asking questions because I too might (oops, too late) be labeled a tin foil hat wearer? I think not and anyone who says that there is a dumb question just proved their curiosity IQ. So is there a conclusion to what I’m trying to say in this rant. You may read into it that I’m saying that I’m not concerned about climate change or that I believe the Twin Tower collapse was an inside job. If so, then you’re an idiot and missed the point. Hey, I can label too! What I’m saying is that belief has nothing to do with anything when compared to what actually is. Belief is worthless and usually destructive when it is connected to certainty and deadly when connected to absolute certainty. We can have faith that the worldview we have is viable and verifiable. But if we close our mind to other views through fears that our beliefs may not be sacrosanct, then we lack the love for others necessary to embrace the hope that open discussions, questions and imagination may lead us to discover. Right now, if we are to survive as a species, the first thing we need to do is to stop, look and listen and quit being a dip shit. Open your mind, look at all sides, make honest arguments based on wanting a solution, not NEEDING to be correct or on the right side, but actually wanting an inclusive solution that can only come when you are able to articulate both sides of an argument and find consensus. When people like Shermer say, shut up and read my script or your stupid, then that should be your first dead canary in the coal mine. Reach out and discover what is motivating a notion that is causing you to go apoplectic over or your response will just instill the same in another. When you find someone totally unwilling to even listen or desire an inclusive solution, then you have found your true enemy and true dip shit.
And another point that I’m really more than hinting at is that when science and politics merge, then the truth of both come into question. Is Al Gore motivated by his desire to save the planet or by the billions he will make if carbon credits become the answer to fight global warming? Was 911 part of a false flag event that led to a war in Iraq and billions being made by the weapons industries or just some crazy, religious lunatics from Saudi Arabia, our “ally”. If questions cannot be asked without being labeled “fake” or “conspiracy nuts”, then true journalism is dead and with it, liberty and freedom. So please answer the dumb questions with verifiable answers rather than deflecting with denigrating and shaming remarks and labels. If the questions are so dumb and obvious, then prove they are dumb with transparency, not deflection, obfuscation and denigration.
Below are some sources and references:
https://michaelshermer.com/tag/911/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/