The problem of beliefs over objectivity

Allow me to begin by stating that I place this in Skunk Works for being a personal theory. Should a moderator feel it belongs elsewhere then feel free to move it appropriately.

Many newer popular Conspiracy Theories tend to divide between two main camps of belief of the “official” explanation (or the “cover-up” ) and the “theory” (or the “truth”). Now let me state that I use quotations so not as to give credence to which is real and which is not. This is where many arguments begin and objective study ends. An attitude of “us and them” begins the fallacy of a belief structure based on only two points: right and wrong (or black and white).

Now while these two camps are basic in formation, they often include sub-groups that may not completely agree with the main camp. These splinters within the camps still ally with their respective camp enough to remain inclusive and usually accepted.

Let us examine 9/11. The “official” story is that Islamic radical fundamentalist hijacked and crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon. And that the WTC collapse is a result of failed structural integrality caused by the combination of the plane impacts and fire. The main “theory” is that the buildings collapsed by controlled detonation and the planes were used as diversion (or convenient excuse) for the American people. Sub-groups of the “official” story debate on if the passengers rebelled or if the Air Force shot down the remaining plane. Sub-groups of the “theorists” debate actual planes, replacement planes, remote guided planes, missiles, holograms, explosives, termite, “energy beams”, etc. (ED--way too many too many sub-groups to represent every faction)

Now in order for an explanation to be good it must stand up to some scrutiny. As to why: Official says to attack America as an act of terrorism to cause economic and psychological harm. Theorists say as an efficient means to sell the idea of war to the American people for purposes of economic and political gain.

Neutral observation is that WTC is destroyed. Anything beyond that point is spin doctoring (a distortion of facts to support your position). My personal conclusion that 9/11 was an act of terrorism.

Aftermath of 9/11 is GWOT. Official: retaliation of 9/11 and removal of governments that harbor terrorists. Theorists: oil grab and US government increase of power local and abroad. Neutral: US lead war in Middle East and creation of DHS which consolidates various agencies of Executive Branch and changes various policies with the Patriot Act.

My personal conclusion is that maybe that Theorist view as to why 9/11 happened sounds more plausible. So now I must evaluate my position.

That is an example of objective thought, used in the course of historical perspective. To blindly follow one course of thought is akin to assigning a religious zeal to a conviction of a belief. So without subjecting false delusions of intelligence to fields that I am not in fact an expert in such as skyscraper infrastructure design and using judicious use of Occam’s Razor to cut through other people’s beliefs.

I can say with certainty that jet fuel fire did not weaken the supports as it does not burn hot enough. But other items inside a building do such as synthetic fibers in carpeting , plastics in the computers, copiers, et al. and the aluminum from the plane itself all burning INSIDE a building would concentrate and elevate heat levels like kiln.

More thoughts on other subjects to come in future posts.