Hypothesising About Conspiracies

Today is April 24th, 2013. I think. I think so because the computer says it is this date and I assume the computer is correct. Sometimes computers are wrong though, like my last smartphone. It would randomly screw up the date by a day or two, confusing me. So sometimes computers malfunction. Nevertheless, it’s probably April 24th, 2013. Unless I’m dreaming. Maybe it’s 2063, who knows?

Anybody who knows me knows I am obsessed with the truth surrounding September 11th, 2001. I generally believe that it was an “inside job” carried out by somewhat unknown members of “the military-industrial-complex.” There are a couple dozen people that I consider to be top suspects, and I acknowledge that there may have been many others involved whose identities I do not know. In studying 9/11, I have become a student of philosophical theories of truth. How do we know what we know? Why might I be able to say what I believe while many others may say what they believe? Is there a way to discern actual truth?

Most scholars and scientists and reporters adhere to the scientific method. Basically, you present an idea, find evidence to support your claims, determine the logical consequences of your claim, and a bunch of other brain stuff (Ow, my brain). I used this method in researching 9/11. It all started when I was a bright-eyed transfer student to UC Berkeley in 2004. I thought to myself one day, “You know, I’ve been hearing a lot about this ludicrous theory that the government did 9/11. Maybe I can use my new awesome college brain to logically disprove these claims.” So I started reading the internet and watching conspiracy videos. Within a short amount of time, I was watching WTC Building 7 crumble into the earth. I basically thought, “WTF?” I had no understanding of how this building could have collapsed that way, or why it might be important. This oddity, and other oddities that seemed to be rallying points of “conspiracy theorists” seemed to be of little consequence to me. After all, I thought, if there really was a conspiracy, the New York Times or CNN would have discovered it.

The leaseholder of WTC7 was Larry Silverstein. On video, he describes how they “pulled” the building. What did this mean? He couldn’t have just admitted to demolishing the damn thing could he have? It was time to get empirical. Could office fires have brought down a 47 story skyscraper? Turns out that had never happened in history. Doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen that day, but… Was there another way it could have been brought down? Perhaps controlled demolition, like all these wierd-masterbating-conspiracy-bloggers-who-hated-themselves-and-lived-in-their-parent’s-basements were talking about?

I eventually began to suspect that 9/11 was done by “the government.” I was horrified and outraged. I began discussing and sharing info obsessively. This was back in the pre-historic days of Myspace. I couldn’t get over WTC7. It just looked way too much like a controlled demolition. Also, there were no plane parts in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Also, no plane parts at the Pentagon. Meanwhile, the official story of 9/11 was based on improbable facts, such as a passport found at the site of ground zero. The passport was allegedly found on the day of 9/11 before the twin towers collapsed. How could it be that a hijacker’s passport escaped the flaming wreckage of the twin towers, fluttered down to rest on the ground, and while bodies were still hitting the ground, became discovered by an unnamed passerby?

Feeling relatively sure of my hypothesis, I began to discuss the theory with the esteemed professors at UC Berkeley, one of America’s top public universities. After all, I assumed, these masters of scholarly research would help me sort out the truth about what I was discovering. I was totally pissed then to find that these professors would dismiss the idea as a “conspiracy theory” without even beginning to examine the evidence that I had become aware of. They were showing contempt prior to investigation, and were behaving as if certain questions were obviously too ridiculous to even acknowledge.

Well fast forward seven years. How could all the strange anomalies surrounding 9/11 be true while so many people would not believe it was an inside job? The masters of the military-industrial-complex own all significant mass-media outlets. Fox News broadcasts from Rockefeller center. NBC News broadcasts from Rockefeller Plaza, in the General Electric building. GE makes bombs, Rockefellers sell oil. Don’t give me any of your A=B but not C garbage, this is an extensive hypothesis and I don’t have all the smoking facts to completely validate it to you at this very moment. At some point, it becomes clear that the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job is definitely tenable.

The mass media channels have very rarely broadcast the WTC7 footage. Yet the unusual collapse of the building led a professor named Steven Jones to hypothesize that perhaps it was demolished. In looking at ground zero dust under a microscope, he found that it contained a substance that appeared to be thermite. Thermite is a demolition material. In fact, when this substance in the ground zero dust was heated up, it exploded. There was demolition material in the World Trade Center. That means someone put it there. The logical consequences of the initial hypothesis were being laid out. Turns out, L. Paul Bremer, who was the right hand man of Henry Kissinger, who in turn was the right hand man of the Rockefellers, and who wound up being the leader of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority, was one of the first persons to appear with confidence on NBC and proclaim that 9/11 was the work of Osama Bin Laden. He did that on the day of 9/11. He was not at his office in the North tower. His office had been directly where the first plane had entered the building. Why would Bremer and the Rockefellers want to do 9/11 and invade Iraq, where $2 trillion worth of oil was under the ground? Oh.

Well, I’d love to go on typing about all these “facts,” but I’ve got to go conspire to theorize about some new reality. The Boston Bombing! Could these brothers have been framed? How would we know?

Hypothesising About Conspiracies

2 thoughts on “Hypothesising About Conspiracies

  1. “…Most scholars and scientists and reporters adhere to the scientific method. Basically, you present an idea, find evidence to support your claims, determine the logical consequences of your claim, and a bunch of other brain stuff (Ow, my brain). …”

    Sorry but that’s not the scientific method.

    That’s just a method for testing a hypothesis in a controlled experiment, such as “I wonder what happens if I put an egg in a microwave and turn it onto full power”. In a controlled experiment you already know what is being done (egg in microwave) and who is doing it (you are). IOW you already know the ‘crime’, the ‘murder weapon’ and the ‘perpetrators’. You’re just studying the effects of a controlled experiment where YOU set up the parameters … ie an egg in microwave (or whatever).

    With an event like 9/11 we start off NOT knowing exactly what was done, how it was done, who did it or why. We do not know any of the parameters. All we really know for sure is that the towers were there on the morning of 9/11 and by the afternoon they were gone!

    This means a full forensic investigation is needed to collect ALL the evidence first, before we even think about anything else.

    This evidence needs to be collected meticulously and must not be connected to any theory, otherwise that theory will bias your data collection. For example if you’re collecting evidence in a murder case and you already have a theory that the victim was beaten to death with a stick (because there is a wound on his head) you might overlook the traces of poison in half half eaten sandwich on the floor, and the blood on the corner of the table where he banged his head as he collapsed from poisoning. It’s very important to forget all about theories when collecting evidence, or at least keep theories separate from the evidence gathering process.

    After collecting ALL the evidence you should then let the evidence itself tell you WHAT happened.

    Only after you’ve let the evidence tell you WHAT happened can you go to the next step which is to figure out HOW it happened, and only then can you begin to think about WHO did it and WHY they did it.

    For example many people think the towers were brought down by controlled demolition using thermite (a welding material). So they go looking for evidence to support this theory …… but because they’ve got thermite on the brain they overlook important evidence such as the 16 people who survived inside the core of WTC1. These people were not melted by thermite or molten metal and the tower did not collapse on their heads and kill them and then bury them under 110 floors of rubble. They walked out alive as soon as the dust cleared!

    This evidence rules out the presence of extreme heat, bombs, thermite, nukes or molten metal in the core of WTC1 between floors 2 and 22 (where the people survived). This evidence also tells us hardly any debris collapsed onto this area (the core of WTC1), and certainly not the entire tower above (110 stories tall).

    We can also look at the seismic evidence which also tells us the seismic signal was far too small to account for each tower collapsing and slamming into the ground.

    Next we can look at the debris and see there is not enough ‘stuff’ on the ground, the debris ‘pile’ hardly reaches the top of the lobby!

    Next we can look at evidence of the huge dust cloud which was created BEFORE the material hit the ground. In fact a lot of the steel can be seen turning to dust in mid air. We already know that jet fuel, nuke or thermite can’t turn steel to dust in mid air so something else must be going on.

    Just by looking at these simple bits of evidence we’ve already ruled out a lot of speculative theories in just a few paragraphs. That is how the scientific method works 🙂

    The evidence described above (and much more besides) is all verifiable and is presented here LINK

    The people who promote the thermite theory admit to censoring this evidence and banning members for discussing it. Censoring key evidence is NOT the scientific method.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s