If you think living in our age of enlightenment means that you wield the faculties of critical thinking like warrior wields an Axe, think again.
If you think you've escaped the trappings of religious faith, the purposeful suspension of logic and reason to accept the narrative of the establishment, think again.
Allow me to demonstrate. Even though I research my strange little hobby of world Geopolitics typically on more recent events, I've deliberately chosen this 2001 example because its the most emotionally loaded, and best illustrates my point.
Below is commonly available video footage of WT7 going down:
Casual research will allow anyone to grasp that buildings don't go down like that due to proximity, fire and rubble. We know fire can't melt the structural support, and there is barely any fire on the building anyway. I put forward that not only engineers like the group of 2000 engineers who have challenged the narrative as (basically) impossible, but we all should because its actually common sense.
Of course we can all easily see that this is a controlled detonation, without demolition training. But will be admitt it without context?
Yet the power of the establishment can make you watch this and somehow have faith that fire did this, fire dropped the huge fireproof building, for the first time ever, like a demolition job. Fire. Not that there was any visable.
Add the famous BBC reports that WT7 went down before it did, twice, while it was still up and visible in the background, was ultimately and weakly explained away as a quirk:
The "Debunking" vids on youtube are like the official narrative, similarly weak.
The journalists themselves ascribe it to a freakishly unlucky coincidence, which is possible, but lets build our perspective.
Add the testimony of the Emergency Services at WT7, who all say they were evacuated just before hearing multiple blasts and personally witnessing the detonations, were dismissed as confusion:
This is damning stuff and there is no excuse for leaving the claims uninvestigated. I cant think of one benefit.
Fast forward to late 2014, Here is what the Engineers are now saying:
This case is FAR from solved. FAR.
Lets be serious here people! Is it possible that if you are against reopening the investigation then you are no different to the witch-burners of old?
There is only one sensible take on the issue, lets face it. Call it common sense, Occams Razor etc, I call it obvious.
Many of you may be exposed by this exercise. Exposed to the harsh reality that an implausible establishment narrative IS accepted over the clear and simple facts right in front of your eyes, due possibly to the stress inherent in rejecting the narrative.
Let me draw a comparison between the draconian church of old and the current establishment. Lets look at how if truth goes against the narrative its treated the same way the church used to treat scientific heretics. "Truther" became a dirty word somehow, akin to the label assigned to a whack job.
I've had my sanity questioned many times since addressing these issues and its endlessly fascinating. I'm almost always right with time proving it and I post it weekly online in black and white to back myself, but I no longer expect vindication, just like with religion it only makes people dig their heels in deeper.
Ask yourself honestly, which scenario below, looked back on from 200 years in the future, will be considered the least sane:
1) Despite clear evidence to the contrary, the narrative is WT7 collapsed evenly and symmetrically at the rate of gravity due to fire for the first time in history, yet it was somehow anticipated for evacuation purposes and reported on in advance. Any further investigation into the issue must be as a result of crazy Truther mischief only, and those people must be treated, for some reason, as if they are proposing something ridiculous. All you little zombies must smile knowingly every time someone raises any call for clarity on the issue we must laugh at them as if they are all fools.
2) There are clearly some inconsistencies in the official narrative. Not resolving them is not only disrespectful to those that lost their lives, but it may allow criminal elements to remain un prosecuted, free to repeat such crimes in the future. Is there really harm in raising questions? What is the real argument for avoiding searching for truth?
