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."

9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert - Aluminum Water Explosions Took the Towers Down?

I'm glad Jonathan Cole included the part about the new theory that water and melted aluminium from the aircraft was the cause of the explosions in the Twin Towers. I just recently learned of this myself and was planning on posting about it anyway.

I found the theory interesting because in purposing that aluminum water explosions took the Towers down, scientist Christian Simensen is acknowledging (unlike the government and "debunkers") that explosions equal in power to those observed in controlled demolitions did indeed take place.

As noted in a 2009 paper entitled Safety Coatings to Prevent Molten Aluminum-Water Explosions:

Aluminum Water Explosions

Casthouse explosions are occurring at a significant rate. There were at least 18 deaths reported last year, all which are attributed to molten aluminum trapping water. Any time you mix two liquids with vastly differing temperatures an explosion can occur. Mixing liquid aluminum (1300F-700C) and water (50F-10C) results in a steam explosion. This explosion is rated as Force 1 through Force 3. A Force 1 causes metal, less then 10 pounds (4.5Kg), to be thrown a short distance, usually up to 15 feet with little if any property damage. A Force 2 is a violent steam explosion. The metal is thrown 15 to 50 feet (6.4m-12.8m) and involves a considerable amount of metal. Fatalities and serious injury can result from this type of explosion. A Force 3 explosion is a catastrophic event. Metal is thrown more then 50 feet and extensive property damage and injury can result. There will be a white powder present indicating the reaction of aluminum with oxygen. In this reaction every pound of aluminum equals 3 pounds of TNT.

When I asked blog contributor Adam Taylor if he had heard of this he replied:

Here's what I wrote to someone who initially sent me the article:

I don't think this guy's theory makes much sense. According to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the sprinklers were not operating on the main fire floors because the planes severed the water lines. There was water running down through the building from the severed water pipes, so the molten aluminum could theoretically have gone down through the buildings. But the problem there is that the collapses did start near where the planes impacted, i. e. the fire floors. Plus, the collapse of the North Tower started on the 98th floor, and only the tip of the starboard wing went into that floor. Also, this person doesn't seem to understand NIST's theory on the cause of the collapse. It's not the beams that were supposed to be over-heated, but the floor trusses, which then pulled on the exterior walls, causing them to bow inward and then break. Now I don't believe fire caused that, but I don't see how his aluminum-water theory accounts for that. This just seems to be a weak attempt to explain the accounts of explosions in the Towers that could be evidence of demolition. I've seen similar arguments in the past.

Cole wrote at the time:

Remarkably...

...that airplane aluminum, after it was initially shredded precisely like shot from 15 blasts from a 12 gauge shotgun, ripping off every stitch of insulation even on the backside of the columns, reformed itself into larger pieces as it heated up in that fateful hour. Suddenly the sprinkler system sprang to life, with its soothing water focused directly on that molten aluminum which had ample time to coalesce into series of pools at critical columns, creating a cacophony of explosions that previously went undetected by NIST.

Coincidently one intrepid aluminum pool managed to escape that cooling water, and poured outside about 7 minutes before the south towers final destruction, combining with wood paneling and desks, causing it's molten flow to look exactly like molten iron. Incredibly the pulsating jets of water, synchronistically timed as it exploded those aluminum pools, blew out the floors thrusting massive perimeter panels hundreds of feet, while turning acres of concrete into powder. Yet small gobs of aluminum doggedly clung to key points on the spire of core columns which stood tall long after the main floors fell, finally exploding from the humidity, dropping those very last remnants of a once proud icon, straight down.

Alas dear reader heed my warning, and be ever vigilant when flying a jet plane with hot engines through a rainstorm, or this same tragic fate could happen to you.

On an article from physorg.com "amhippi" comments:

Well, well, well. Seems the establishment needs a new theory to explain the volumes of molten metal seen and hundreds and hundreds of explosions heard. Remember, none of this is the official story on what cause the collapse as the official story denies that there even was any molten metal. The problem with this whole story is that the idea that the molten metal seen and discovered was actually aluminum has been tested, peer reviewed and falsified (even by a NIST scientist himself working independently with Steven Jones). Sorry, molten aluminum is not orange / red as the molten metal found in the WTC. Organics and aluminum do not mix and aluminum is ALWAYS silver in lab experiments, no matter what is mixed with it. The official story has crumbled so much so now that people are turning to pure fantasy.

In short, Simensen's theory is untenable, but in his attempt to account for the actual collapse features, he at least shows that he has an understanding of what 9/11 "debunkers" can't seem to grasp. But it doesn't take a scientist.

Even Children Understand What 9/11 Debunkers Can't Seem To Grasp

Related:

Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time