|
But all the experts say ...
- why you should be careful about listening to the 'experts' too much when 'they all say' that the WTC collapses were as said in the 'official conspiracy theory'
by Dave Patterson, February 2007
(written in response to some discussion on an email list)
I think you are missing a couple of points in your 'discussion' with the
guy who endorses the official conspiracy theory (OCT). First, your
opponent declares that 'no engineer has ever objected to the official
theory' - well, the first question that comes to my mind is, how does he
know that? If he were to say that no 'official' source has ever published
an objection, then he might be on firmer ground, but as I am sure most of
us can attest to, writing letters to any mainstream newspaper disagreeing with the official conspiracy theory is basically a waste of
time, since they essentially never print letters contradicting the
official position, at least such is my experience - and I would strongly
suspect this would apply to the major journals as well, who all receive
government support one way or another. So for all we really know, perhaps
hundreds of engineers or architects or other related professionals have
problems with the official theory, but no mainstream journal or paper will
print their letters.
Secondly, his reliance on 'expert' opinion is a trap you need to avoid in
the first place, I think. 'Experts' can be simply wrong, 'experts' can be
bought, 'experts' can be intimidated, many 'professionals' simply don't
really have much of a clue about anything and stick like glue to safe,
conservative opinions held by the majority, unable to really decide for
themselves what is true or not, and unwilling to jeopardize their
positions by taking any chances about anything - the 'bandwagon' has ever been the place of choice for most people, including professionals, academics, and others who really ought to know better, as various fables and so on have been written to illustrate (think of The Emperor's New Clothes, for instance). Most professionals of any
field also have good middle class lifestyles they enjoy that rely on their
maintaining a good job to continue, and speaking out against 'established
policy' is not a good strategy for them, and they know it. Look what
happened to Steven Jones, for instance, when he dared question official
wisdom, as senior as he was - it is simply fact that most people, including most middle-class
professionals, do not have that sort of courage or integrity. So again, for
all we know there could be great numbers of such people who disagree with the OCT, but are afraid to
speak out, or try to speak out but are blocked by the gatekeepers. It
takes courage to stand up to bullies, and unfortunately not a lot of
people have that sort of courage in the modern world where everyone is very much
encouraged to defer to any 'authority' whatsoever (and 'professionals'
have gotten that title because they are skilled at doing so for their
careers), so the absence of dissenting professional voices is not really
indicative of much at all. One might say, for instance, finding Germans
who say they would have opposed Hitler is an easy job now - but your
opponent here, in 1935, might well have been saying "Hitler must be right
about anything or everything! Look around - nobody opposes him!"
(including in America, for that matter)
And simply turning to 'experts' to justify one's position is, as far as I
am concerned, pretty much meaningless anyway. I like to think for myself
(I suspect most on this list do as well), and make my own mind up about things, rather than blindly following anyone about anything. 'Experts' most surely disagree
on most everything - we have 'experts' telling us climate change is the
greatest problem we face, and 'experts' telling us it's all a leftwing
fantasy. We have 'experts' telling us that free trade will make us all
wealthy, and other 'experts' telling us free trade is a race to the
bottom. I could make a lengthy list easily, I am sure you could too. And
then we just get into some sort of 'my expert is better than your expert'
pissing match, and everything starts to look like a schoolyard argument,
can, can't, can, can't!! In the end, we have to rely on our own
intelligence and judgement as we listen to the opinions of everyone, and examine
whatever evidence they present, and come to our own conclusions. Some are
honest about such things, others aren't - I strongly suspect that many of
those who argue in favor of the official conspiracy theory are simply not
being honest, and there isn't much you can do with such people when they
look you right in the eye and loudly state that black is white. It's
troubling, though, because if we are ever to have a decent society, truth
and honesty will surely be at the heart of it. One of the reasons we have
so many problems in the world today is that lies and deceit are at the
heart of so many of the world's governments, and most powerful people.
To me, about the single most convincing argument about the destruction of
the WTC is simply this picture and my own sense of what is credible or not, in the light of everything I have read about it all - get your 'friend' to look at this, and with a straight face declare that "Yes, obviously, those two
buildings are so damaged, and the fires within so great, that anyone can
see they are about ready to crumble like a house of sticks held together
with rotton twine." or something. Is it the facade of those great
buildings that appear so solid that is the illusion - or is it your
friend's arguments that are the illusion?
(You might also take a look at 911 Thought Experiment for a longer piece that makes all the 'expert' opinions on the 'global collapse theory' of the WTC buildings look somewhat like the 'expert' opinions of all those who opined that the Emperor's New Clothes were the finest garments ever fashioned by human tailors! as well ....)
|