Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Evidence Based "Conspiracy Theories" Beat Authoritive "Facts"

Considering the documentation of corruption in political, corporate and military (intelligence) circles it is irrational to exclude the consideration of high level conspiracy when evaluating the causes of recent conflicts. To a priori exclude a conspiracy hypothesis is naive and illogical.

Indeed, staged attacks, or the hyping of a danger posed by a potential, if not fictitious, enemy is a common method to motivate a population into accepting what would otherwise be an unpopular policy. Such methods allow for pre-emptive bombing, endless conflict (often designed to consolidate the power of a military industrial state at home) or territorial conquest.

For example, at the start of the Second World War the German Government faked an attack by Poland on their territory in order to justify the invasion of that country. In late 1941, after goading the Japanese into launching hostilities on the US, the Roosevelt Administration allowed itself to be "surprise attacked" at Pearl Harbour in order to sway public opinion. Underhanded policy making, in which thousands of peoples lives are put in jeopardy, is not uncommon - even from those nations considered to be the "good guys" (ie. democratic Republics).

So today, when we are faced with claims of "conspiracy theory", we must take into consideration the specific evidence being presented rather than blindly accepting any generalised (often wrong) statements put out by those in authority. Ultimately our beliefs regarding the validity of what may be happening should be built from the bottom up - via evidence- not from the top down. Working hypotheses are fine but they must be discarded or swapped according to the underlying data upon which they should be constructed.

In the case of government corruption and cover-ups, if the officially sanctioned account is unverifiable or shown to be outright false, then it MUST be rejected and seen for what it is. There should be no psychological need to cling onto the idea that "trusted" people in power wouldn't lie about matters involving the deaths of many thousands of people - or that they could not have a hand in such crimes (or in covering up such crimes).

Figures in authority can and must be held to account and questioned. The words, or reports, put out by figures in Government, whether by academics or esteemed professionals, do not constitute a Holy Grail. In fact, it DOES NOT MATTER WHO is putting out the information, ONLY that it is verifiable, logical and explainable. If you can't show how a conclusion was reached then it is not verified. It's unsubstantiated. It's as simple as that.

In the case of the 911 attacks we KNOW the official NIST Reports on the World Trade Centre building collapses cannot be readily accepted as true simply from the fact that their computer modelling data has NOT been released to the public. The NIST models are not backed up by anything we can verify.

More importantly we know that sections of the NIST reports contain key elements that consist of outright falsehoods, falsehoods that completely undermine their fire collapse explanations. Independent analysis of the WTC collapse investigations prove the official statements concerning these events can only be false:

So, regardless of what time in history you are living, beware the words and reports of those in authority -especially when it comes to highly "controversial" matters.

Never outright assume what the truth may be. Do your own research. If a "conspiracy theory" has been touted as an alternative narrative, then it is best to check the evidence.

Always remember Galileo when it comes to authority (and also public opinion) because; "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."