Conspiracy v. fact 9/11

[tomk52]

6. The right way to ask questions...

"how can I ask a question about something like building 7 falling into it's own foot print after being hit with "falling Debris" from one of the towers with out being labeled a conspiracy crack pot."

It's not asking the question. It's more "who you ask, and what you do when you're provided an answer" that will be the determinant.

The process of finding correct answers to these questions is absolutely no different than that for any other important question. The methods are clearly defined in the study called "epistemology". I suggest you learn its methods well. It will serve you throughout your life.

In short:
Ask the right people & listen carefully to their answers. You would be very wise to provisionally accept an expert's answer while gathering confirmation from a consensus of experts.

Note that a well developed epistemology acknowledges the existence of small groups of contrarians, mavericks, etc., especially when they self-select into an agenda-driven organization. You would do very well to ignore the conclusions of these groups.

"For every crackpot that turned out to be an Einstein, there are 10,000 crackpots who turned out to be crackpots."

If you're really impressed with the fringe group's issues, take their questions to the experts.

For the question above, you should ask multiple respected structural engineers who have extensive experience in the collapse of large structures, preferably modern office buildings.

People that you should NOT ask: architects (they make buildings look pretty, engineers make sure they stand & analyze why they occasionally fall down), particle physicists, high school physics teachers, religious studies professors or angry young boys on the internet.

Asking the question should not get you labelled "crackpot", unless the framing of the question is wildly biased.

Rejecting the consensus conclusion of real experts without a rock-solid basis, or attaching evil and/or cowardly motivations to those persons, etc. will, AND SHOULD, get you labelled a crackpot.

Frequently you will not have access to such experts. Their time tends to be quite valuable. Fortunately, they frequently publish their opinions on the matters in question. In the matters listed here (the Pentagon damage & fall of WTC 1, 2 & 7), many experts, real experts have, in fact, published their findings. They are referred to as the NIST Report & FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team's Report. I encourage you to check the credentials of the engineers who produced that document. The documents themselves are superbly done.

Your post indicates a distinct bias in your views on these matters. I am confident that my post does, as well. This is not a symmetric situation. I've earned my bias.

The following statements in your post are simply incorrect:
"What I did see was the "official" story debunked by the evidence..."

"...sky scrapers fall into their own foot print at free-fall speed..." (if I were feeling unkind, I'd say that anybody who used the expression "free fall speed" instantly renders their opinion on any physical event irrelevant. No building fell "at free fall acceleration" (correct terminology). Not even the outer shell of WTC7.)

"... building 7 was brought down by 'Falling Debris'..." Nobody said this.

"... it is not possible that a 757 hit [the Pentagon]." Yup, it is not only "possible". It's a certainty.

"... may be the wings didn't penetrate" (They did not penetrate.)

"... may be the engines didn't penetrate..." They did, and the evidence is crystal clear.

"...is it even possible for a 757 to travel at 450 knots that low? " This is a question, which cannot be wrong. The answer is "absolutely no problem flying that fast, that low. Those that told you it was impossible are incompetent.

"So the gov. is basically telling me that a 757 folded it's wings and engines at the moment the nose hit and all of that metal, including the engines some how fit in a 10 foot hole." Nope, nobody with any knowledge ever said that.

"How much evidence do we need before we can question any of it?" Again, a question. A highly leading question that implies a false situation. Truthers have been questioning for over a decade, with zero evidence. Just questions & suspicions & a wholly undeserved sense of technical & moral superiority over some of the world's real experts.

I'll be happy to embellish any point on which you are unclear.

Regards,


TomK