Skip to main content

My challenge to YOU, if you fancy yourself as a modern skeptic.

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?

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…