Re your original 10 jan post I am broadly with you, tho I think you make only one strong point here, namely that the more elaborate a conspiracy is, the more unlikely it is. That obvious piece of common sense is dismissed as common delusion, I notice, in the psychological annex to the video Experts Speak Out. (Conspiracy theorists can be every bit as tiresome as people obsessively hostile to conspiracy theorists. Both parties explain disbelief as bad faith, often enlisting that highfalutin “Cognitive Dissonance” on their own own side. And both can then cry out: look at my evidence not my motives)
Your point about “distraction” is not so strong. No doubt the Pentagon would be happy, say, if stories about little green visitors distracted the public from any real secret military research going on near Roswell; or,in the case of Kennedy, if enormous verifiable crimes in South Asia got less public attention than a putative crime against one of the perpetrators. But to claim that powerful agencies deliberately “stimulated” such distractions is itself a conspiracy theory that requires proof, and such proof would not say anything about 9/11. And I don’t see what a posse of experts arguing a minority case has to do with “the wisdom of crowds”. The wisdom of crowds, I thought, was found by averaging inexpert guesses in conditions where deviations from the truth will tend to cancel out. And I doubt if the sceptics are in it for profit. These ideas are not likely to advance their careers.
Moreover, the engineers and architects who speak in the main part if Experts Speak Out are not so manifestly silly as the psychologists who speak at the end of it. They argue that the collapse of Building 7 was a controlled demolition, not explicable by pancaking caused by the office fires caused by debris blasted out from the giant towers above. They seem cogent and lucid to me, but I am no engineer; I do not know what they have left out and what they have got wrong. These qualified experts are outnumbered by the qualified experts who take the opposite view. With your scientific background and your interest in the subject you may have come across an equally cogent and lucid by point specific rebuttal of this video. The link you give does not seem to work. If have found such a link, we would be curious to see it. (The embattled and and ill-tempered rebuttals found in Skeptic and Popular Mechanics are too technical and tiresome to earn my time)
However, I should frankly state to all obsessives that I shall remain unconvinced that 9/11 was an inside job, even if it be the case an expert consensus has not yet provided a banal explanation of all the Building 7 phenomena. Some of us refused to believe that the moon landing was a hoax even before NASA, belatedly and with ill grace, explained apparent anomalies in a manner I could understand. More to the point, I would still remain unconvinced even if Nasa could offer no explanation those fluttering flags etc. In the balance of evidence, unanswered technical questions should not outweigh totally implausible human behaviour. Such is the case here. In order to frame some Saudis - citizens of staunch US ally – we are asked to believe that some unnamed powerful agency secretly installed thousands of explosives fuses and detonaters inside in the walls of the three towers. At the same time they arranged for planes to crash into the buildings. The hundreds of agents needed to carried out this vast logistical operation did so without raising suspicions of the office workers or security staff and without ever betraying a word of the conspiracy. I shall never buy it.
Still, every argument has a right to a fair hearing and deserves to be met on its strongest ground. Building 7 seems to be the truthers strongest ground. Perhaps you can link to an expert source specifically giving a point by point rebuttal of this video, preferably one honest enough to own up to any puzzles that remain. (Every complex event leaves a trail of unanswered puzzles). Perhaps eg the questions about molten steel have not been satisfactorily dealt with. Possibly many of those expert signatories who merely ask for “further independent investigation” would find the idea of a gigantic conspiracy as implausible as I do.
I have not time to read any other contributors to this thread, and I shall attend to yours, Yusef, only in so far as deals with points I have raised.
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!