What's The Difference?

[poncho]

Rob said this in another thread and it made me wonder . . .

I've visited the main NIST campus. Stood on their reactor and everything. The work those guys do is simply amazing. I cannot fathom taking the ramblings of some conspiracy website over what NIST reports.

Why is it that we put so much trust in experts and scientists?

On the one hand there are many people who can't fathom taking the ramblings of what they call "climate change deniers" over the supposed amazing work the IPCC scientists who claim their theory on climate change is scientific, based on facts and irrefutable evidence. There are many "world leaders" including our own president that presumably believe the IPCC theory of "climate change" and the mass media people report on it as if the "science is settled" and anyone that questions it is "out of their mind".

This theory of "climate change" is being used to push new regulations and laws that will fundamentally change our way of life.

On the other hand there are many people who like Rob can't fathom taking the ramblings of what he might call a "conspiracy theorist" over the supposed amazing work the NIST has done in it's investigation of 9/11 that says it's theory is scientific, based on facts and irrefutable evidence. As with the IPCC there are many "world leaders" including our own president that presumably believe this theory and the mass media people report on it as if the "science is settled" and anyone who questions the theory is "out of their mind".

This theory has already been used to pass regulations and laws that have fundamentally changed our way of life.

In both cases there are many questions left unanswered and in my mind we should be just as skeptical of one theory as the other but the respective believers of these theories will deny there are unanswered questions by telling us the "case is closed" and even use the same tactics to dismiss and disparage the "deniers" who may still have questions and point out the flaws, inconsistencies and anomalies in these theories.

So my questions are what's the difference between one who believes the "official theory" of climate change and one who believes the "official theory" of 9/11?

And why do the people who approach the "climate change" theory with healthy skepticism and question whether the experts, scientists, politicians and mass media "have it right " refuse to approach the "official theory" of 9/11 with the same healthy skepticism?

Below is a quick recap of the government and mainstream media's official government approved 9/11 conspiracy theory and the manner in which they have dealt with the skeptics of the official government approved 9/11 conspiracy theory.

 

[InTheLight]

So my questions are what's the difference between one who believes the "official theory" of climate change and one who believes the "official theory" of 9/11?

It's like comparing a pea pod to a watermelon. They are two entirely different things.

There is no "theory" about 9/11. Millions of people saw it happen with their own eyes. People saw planes crash into the WTC towers. People saw a plane fly into the Pentagon. Thousands of people are dead.

And why do the people who approach the "climate change" theory with healthy skepticism and question whether the experts, scientists, politicians and mass media "have it right " refuse to approach the "official theory" of 9/11 with the same healthy skepticism?

There is no "theory" about 9/11. Millions of people saw it happen with their own eyes. People can't see CO2. Unlike the truthers, there are legitimate skeptics on the side of climate change doubters.

Occam's Razor. People saw airplanes fly into the WTC towers. People saw the towers fall. A reasonable conclusion would be that the planes caused the towers to fall.

It is unreasonable to assume that hundreds of pounds of explosives were situated in critical positions of the World Trade Center during the construction process back in the Nixon era with no one seeing it happen, no one breaking the secret, so that at some point in the future the US government could execute a false flag attack on the largest buildings in the nation, in order to create citizen outcry against a group of previously non-existent terrorist cells, with the express purpose to line the pockets of defense contractors, further the agenda of neo-cons, and usher in a new political dynamic known as nation-building.

 

[poncho]

It's like comparing a pea pod to a watermelon. They are two entirely different things.

There is no "theory" about 9/11. Millions of people saw it happen with their own eyes. People saw planes crash into the WTC towers. People saw a plane fly into the Pentagon. Thousands of people are dead.

The theory: 19 Muslims 15 of them Saudis conspired with Osama Bin Laden to carry out a devastating terror attack on America. We know this is so because we were told it was so before the first of the three buildings in NYC one of which was not hit by an airplane suffered total collapses which displayed all of the 11 characteristics one would expect to see in a controlled demolition.

There is no "theory" about 9/11. Millions of people saw it happen with their own eyes. People can't see CO2. Unlike the truthers, there are legitimate skeptics on the side of climate change doubters.

I think what you meant to say here is that you will not admit to the existence of the hundreds of legitimate skeptics because it doesn't fit your paradigm or help support your argument. The climate change believers use the same argument of having no legitimate skeptics only they substitute the term "climate change denier" for "truther" and "conspiracy theorist".

Occam's Razor. People saw airplanes fly into the WTC towers. People saw the towers fall. A reasonable conclusion would be that the planes caused the towers to fall.

People saw airplanes fly into two WTC towers and three WTC towers collapse with all 11 of the characteristics that one would expect to see in controlled demolitions. The reasonable conclusion would be three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition after airplanes hit two of the three buildings.

It is unreasonable to assume that hundreds of pounds of explosives were situated in critical positions of the World Trade Center during the construction process back in the Nixon era with no one seeing it happen,

That would be a reasonable argument if in fact legitimate skeptics (see Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, Pilots For 9/11 Truth and Patriots For 9/11 Truth, along with the families of victims calling for a new investigation) made that claim however none of them have made that claim so it's reasonable to assume that claim is a red herring. Or a strawman one of the many "9/11 conspiracy debunkers" made up in order to easily knock down to avoid addressing the evidence legitimate skeptics provided.

no one breaking the secret,

In other words you are claiming here that a large number of people couldn't keep a secret. That argument is only reasonable if you fail to consider or intentionally overlook the fact that 100,000 people were able to keep the Manhattan Project so secret that Harry Truman didn't even know about it until he was in office for a week.

You would also have to fail to consider or intentionally overlook the fact that the US government was able to decode the Japanese communications during WW2 which enabled the US Navy to surprise and a put a "big ole hurtin" on the Japanese fleet at Midway Island and continue to decode the Japanese communications until the end of the war without revealing the knowledge that the US had cracked the Japanese code either before or very early in the war.

You would also have to fail to consider or intentionally overlook the fact that the British government was able to keep the cracking of the Nazi "enigma" code secret until well after WW2 was over.

so that at some point in the future the US government could execute a false flag attack on the largest buildings in the nation, in order to create citizen outcry

Part of this statement is a red herring as none of the legitimate skeptics in the afore mentioned groups have made the claim that the US government was the perpetrator. It is not unreasonable to assume however that elements within the US government were involved or at the very least had foreknowledge of the event. It is reasonable to conclude that if a legitimate criminal investigation had taken place the investigators would have looked into these possibilities and gathered evidence.

No criminal investigation legitimate or otherwise was allowed to take place.

against a group of previously non-existent terrorist cells,

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129563&page=1

http://www.newsweek.com/saudi-arabia-911-cia-344693

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Naval-officer-says-Atta-s-identity-known-pre-9-11-2614972.php

with the express purpose to line the pockets of defense contractors, further the agenda of neo-cons, and usher in a new political dynamic known as nation-building.

This myth was reinforced by The 9/11 Commission Report . While explaining why al-Qaeda had ample motives for carrying out the attacks, this report mentions no motives that US leaders might have had. But the alleged motive of al-Qaeda—that it hated Americans and their freedoms—is dwarfed by a motive held by many members of the Bush-Cheney administration: the dream of establishing a global Pax Americana , the first all-inclusive empire in history.

This dream had been articulated by many neoconservatives, or neocons, throughout the 1990s, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union made it seem possible. It was first officially articulated in the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney—a document that has been called “a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony” 10 and Cheney’s “Plan . . . to rule the world.” 11

Achieving this goal would require four things. One of these was getting control of the world’s oil, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East, and the Bush-Cheney administration came to power with plans already made to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. A second requirement was a technological transformation of the military, in which fighting from space would become central. A third requirement was an enormous increase in military spending, to pay for these new wars and for weaponizing space. A fourth need was to modify the doctrine of preemptive attack, so that America would be able to attack other countries even if they posed no imminent threat.

These four elements would, moreover, require a fifth: an event that would make the American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies. As Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard , the American people, with their democratic instincts, are reluctant to authorize the money and human sacrifices necessary for “imperial mobilization,” and this refusal “limits . . . America’s . . . capacity for military intimidation.” 12But this impediment could be overcome if there were “a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat”13 —just as the American people were willing to enter World War II only after “the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” 15 This same idea was suggested in 2000 in a document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses , which was put out by a neocon think tank called the Project for the New American Century, many members of which—including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz—became central members of the Bush administration. This document, referring to the goal of transforming the military, said that this “process of transformation . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”15

When the attacks of 9/11 occurred, they were treated like a new Pearl Harbor. Several members of the Bush administration spoke of 9/11 as providing opportunities. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” 16 It created, in particular, the opportunity to attack Afghanistan and Iraq; to increase the military budget enormously; to go forward with military transformation; and to turn the new idea of preemptive warfare into official doctrine. This doctrinal change was announced in the 2002 version of the National Security Strategy , which said that America will “act against . . . emerging threats before they are fully formed.” 17

So, not only did the Bush administration reap huge benefits from 9/11. These were benefits that it had desired in advance. The idea that it would have had no motives for orchestrating 9/11 is a myth.

http://www.911truth.org/911-the-myth-and-the-reality/

 

[Rob_BW]

You may want to read up on Occam's Razor.

 

[poncho]

Which version are we to apply?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

 

[InTheLight]

Who put the explosives in the WTC, and when did they do it?

 

[Rob_BW]

Which version are we to apply?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

The version where [planes] is considered a simpler explanation than [planes and explosives].

 

[poncho]

Who put the explosives in the WTC, and when did they do it?

The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company---now called Stratesec but then called Securacom---that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, was one of the company’s directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).[57] One would think these facts should have made the evening news---or at least The 9/11 Commission Report.

These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by people who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly said that although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security alert that mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted five days before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001).

Also, a man named Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust---the company for which Kristen Breitweiser’s husband worked---has written:

On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a “power down” condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many “engineers” [were] coming in and out of the tower.[58]

Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a financial analyst with Fireman’s Fund in the south tower, was quoted in People Magazine as saying that during the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated “a number of times” (People Magazine, 2001).

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

The architectural drawings of the WTC North Tower have been leaked from an individual associated with the Silverstein-Weidlinger Report. They reveal that the large box columns of the core maintain their 30"x16" and 52"x22" dimensions at least up through the 66th floor. They also indicate that most of the core columns would be easily accessed from the elevator shafts in order to plant explosives. We know that the elevators were being modernized by Ace Elevator during the 9 months prior to 9/11.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

Fast Forward to approx 14:30

 

[poncho]

The version where [planes] is considered a simpler explanation than [planes and explosives].

It's less complicated (simpler) to use the version that says "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . it's most likely a duck".

In other words if the complete collapse of three buildings in which only two were hit by airplanes exhibit all 11 of the characteristics one would expect to see in a controlled demolition the three buildings were mostly likely brought down by controlled demolitions.

Pretty simple eh?

 

[InTheLight]

The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company---now called Stratesec but then called Securacom---that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, was one of the company’s directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).[57] One would think these facts should have made the evening news---or at least The 9/11 Commission Report.

So, guilt by association.

These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by people who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly said that although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security alert that mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted five days before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001).

So, hearsay evidence that bomb sniffing dogs were removed; no evidence that bombs were planted.

Also, a man named Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust---the company for which Kristen Breitweiser’s husband worked---has written:

On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a “power down” condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many “engineers” [were] coming in and out of the tower.[58]

So, innuendo.

Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a financial analyst with Fireman’s Fund in the south tower, was quoted in People Magazine as saying that during the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated “a number of times” (People Magazine, 2001).

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

So, routine evacuation procedures.

 

[Rob_BW]

Look, you are free to have your opinion. But you are not using Occam's Razor, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[poncho]

So, guilt by association.

I never claimed to know who planted the explosives. And I haven't accused anyone of planting the explosives. Any one who says he knows who planted the explosives is either a "9/11 conspiracy debunker" building a strawman to knock down as they are fond of doing, one of many misinformation artists trying to "poison the well" or someone who is making a false claim. No one could know who planted the explosives other than those who planted them until there is a legitimate criminal investigation.

So, hearsay evidence that bomb sniffing dogs were removed; no evidence that bombs were planted.

There is evidence that explosives were used. Traces of thermate (a highly advanced form of thermite) in dust samples and much evidence of thermitic reaction have been found. If you saw any of the video from ground zero on 9/11 or up to 21 days after you witnessed this thermitic reaction taking place.

So innuendo.

You asked me . . .

Who put the explosives in the WTC, and when did they do it?

I admit to not knowing "who did it", but I did give you a time frame of at least 9 months in which it could have been done

So, routine evacuation procedures.

It could have been routine but it still gave whoever planted the explosives 9 months to do it without
looking suspicious.

 

[poncho]

Look, you are free to have your opinion. But you are not using Occam's Razor, in any way, shape, or form.

Look, I let you pick which version of Occam's razor we should apply. You said . . .

The version where [planes] is considered a simpler explanation than [planes and explosives]

The problem with your version is it requires leaving out evidence that is plain to see and easy to identify to reach your conclusion. In my opinion (you said I was free to have one) leaving out vital evidence to reach a certain conclusion doesn't seem very scientific to me.

BTW, my version doesn't even need to include the two airplanes to reach the same conclusion.

 

[Rob_BW]

You are really making Occam's Razor out to be more complicated than it is.

Event A. Causes 1. and 2. Which is simpler.

But I reckon you have an innate bias against simplicity.

Edited to add: Oh, Occam's Razor is not a tool of empirical science.

 

[poncho]

You are really making Occam's Razor out to be more complicated than it is.

Event A. Causes 1. and 2. Which is simpler.

But I reckon you have an innate bias against simplicity.

Edited to add: Oh, Occam's Razor is not a tool of empirical science.

Event A. Explosives went off which caused all 11 characteristics of a controlled demolition. More simpler.

Leaving out evidence to reach a conclusion isn't a tool of empirical science either even if you work for Popular Mechanics.

 

[Rob_BW]

 

[poncho]

I agree.

Okay I must be dense I'm afraid you'll have to explain to me in very simple terms how ignoring evidence that happened right in front of your own eyes supports your conclusion.

 

[Rob_BW]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Occam's Razor and the towers coming down. You know, the one verifiable event captured on camera.

As for your original purpose, you fight mainstream experts with your own experts. All of us are making the choice of what experts to choose. Acting like only one side is relying on expert opinion is not a good representation of what is going on.

 

[poncho]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Occam's Razor and the towers coming down. You know, the one verifiable event captured on camera.

As for your original purpose, you fight mainstream experts with your own experts. All of us are making the choice of what experts to choose. Acting like only one side is relying on expert opinion is not a good representation of what is going on.

That's what I keep trying to get across to ITL. But then I've been trying to convince him for years that "the rich rule over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender" with no success at all.

If by "mainstream expert" you mean someone that works for a government agency that tells me I have to ignore evidence like this . . .

1. Sudden Onset:In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden.

2. Straight Down:The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings.

3. Almost Free-Fall Speed:Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance.

4. Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high.

5. Sliced Steel:In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces.

6. Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles.

7. Dust Clouds:Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy.

8. Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off.

9. Demolition Rings:Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building.

10. Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions.

11. Molten Steel:An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel.

To believe their conclusion is the only one possible then I'm afraid they aren't acting in a professional manner one would expect from someone calling himself an expert.

Edited to add . . . so far in this debate neither you or ITL have introduced any evidence to support your arguments nor have you provided any empirical data from your own experts so that we might be able to compare what both sides have to offer.

This has so far been a one way street in which your experts haven't even showed up to defend themselves and their conclusions. Inferring that I am not willing to examine what your experts have to offer seems a bit strange.

I am more than willing to see what your experts have to offer. I'll just pretend like I haven't seen it already. In other words, don't be shy . . . "bring it on!".

 

[poncho]