On the anniversary of 9/11, an excerpt from Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational, from the chapter "Truthers and Birthers"
The truth or falsity of what actually happened that day is of secondary interest. The really important question is why do so many people, a significant portion of the population, think the government lies to the public? Is it because the government has told so many lies they know it should never be trusted?
The credibility of the United State government is at so low a point that ANYTHING it says, on ANY subject, must be treated as the statement of a convicted perjurer. Fine points of detail do not matter.
The author of this article, Michael Shermer is IMO a sleazeball, a liar and a disinformationist. I scanned through this article and found too many lies that completely proved what I'm saying. I've watched this jerk for years and he never changes - he is always trying to debunk the truth. I've been a researcher for 25 yrs, and I am fact-based. I also know many scientists, and they knew from the get go that it had to be explosives - as did many architects, airline pilots and engineers. In fact, a number of people from these 3 groups got together - at least 1,000 IIRC, and PROVED it had to be explosives. I was a flight attendant for many years and was taught in training that airplanes are made of very light metal because they need to be lightweight so they can fly; there is NO way an airplane of such thin metal would have brought down a steel structure such as the WTC towers that day. NO WAY IN HELL. I was a flight attendant for many years and was taught this in training. In addition, there is a ton of evidence PROVING it had to be explosives that were used. Shermer is an arrogant liar and a traitor to truth, I've caught him in numerous lies.
Michael, I'm curious about your thoughts on the U Alaska report on building 7: https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ . In particular: "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
Love Bret -- but his take on the WT7 issue left me scratching my head. How on earth could anyone rig three buildings in a union town, in downtown Manhattan, with literally tons of explosives and det cord is just too much to ask. Similarly, the hostages and highjackers that disappeared that day -- were they on the planes? Was the "Let's Roll" phone call from the Pennsylvania jet spoofed as well?
Re. the impacts of planes hitting buildings, this article also lists eight or so other plane/high rise building impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
As I understand it analysis of the debri from the collapse of the WTC twin towers showed the fingerprint of thermite, a demolition explosive that cuts steel. I believe the New York firefighters union is still pursuing this matter!
Also there were live TV reports being given at the time saying WTC 7 had collapsed. In one instance the reporter was giving this news report live with WTC 7 clearly visible an the shot behind him/her, and still stand ing . Figure that one out!
At first glance, it seemed you did a fantastic job gathering engineering and metal experts to explain the physics behind the melted steel. It honestly made me feel much better to understand how plausible their explanations are.
And in my haste, I prematurely cross-posted it to my audience. However, I have reconsidered the plausibility of the buildings turning to dust, finding that the biggest gap in the above isn't what was said. It is in what is missing: the math.
I'm not a mechanical engineer but if I were, the first thing I would supply would be: the math. I want to see formulae.
The second thing conspicuously missing: the authors answers to questions. This is what all legitimate Substack authors do: answer questions.
And the third missing point is providing expertise or explanation for additional occurrences outside of 9/11 (i.e., by answering questions)
Because if you have expertise or insight in one area, you should have it in another. Appreciate the thought-provoking exercise but like @BobSchubring above, am left with more questions than answers. And a lack of interaction defies credibility.
Have you written anywhere about your conversation on Bret Weinstein’s podcast about conspiracy theories? I would love to hear your take on that conversation.