With the exception of photo no. 9, all of the others in your post are most likely stills made from computer generated fake videos of the claimed events [photos 2,3,4,5,6,8, 10], or simply still photos of planted evidence [e.g photos 1&7].
The gif of WTC7’s collapse [in another post] is also most likely just a computer generated fake, in my opinion.
Those are my conclusions, based on 7 years of continual analysis and much head scratching and back and forth. Of course I do not expect anyone else here to share my own conclusions.
Here, in part, is why.
Your “Favorite Mistake”
It seems to me that the number 1 “favorite mistake” of 99.99% of both “truthers’” and official conspiracy theory [OTC] believers, is the heavy use of photos and network video in support of their cases.
This is because both groups unquestioningly assume the authenticity of the photos and network videos they endlessly study.
On that assumption they then proceed with their “logic” to make/proove their cases.
Of course, anyone is perfectly free to assume whatever they want to when they start to look at the events of 9/11[ or of anything else], however they are fooling themselves if they believe that doing so has anything at all to do with a scientifically sound " search for truth".
However, it is perfectly understandable that us “laymen” would make such an obvious procedural error, simply because 99.99% of the mainstream “scientific community” are making the exact same error in procedure! [deliberately or otherwise].
Nearly all of them start with the unquestioned assumption that the photos/videos accurately depict real-time events, whether we are talking about a Professor Steven Jones, or the N.I.S.T., or some other “scientific” study group.
I propose that it is methodologically incorrect for any trained scientists to make such assumptions and then base their theories/proofs on these unproven assumptions.
Scientists “should” remain entirely neutral with regard to the truth or falsity of the various videos and photos, suspending judgement about their authenticity until they have all been rigorously examined , first of all, and most importantly, in the light of known laws of physics , and secondly perhaps, in light of all 911 theories, no matter how outlandish those theories at first might seem, either to scientists , or to none scientists.
Just as no photographic/video evidence should at the outset of a scientific investigation be assumed to be real, or fake, no 911 theory should be dismissed as fake or assumed to be “real” until it has been subjected to repeated, rigorous, neutral comparative analysis [both with other photos/videos and perhaps even other types of evidence], in light of known laws of physics.
“Eye Witness Testimony”?
For scientific and legal procedural reasons, I would also “lump” into that general wrong assumption the {unjustified} assumption as to the truth of supposed “eye-witness testimony” , any and every time such testimony has been used to support or contradict any particular 9/11theory, either by “scientists” or by laymen.
Such assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with a sound [and therefor useful], scientific method for attempting to uncover truth, as far as I can see.
[By comparison, and strictly for the Austrians here, it is no less of a procedural/methodological error than is the Classical and Marxists economists {false} underlying assumption of the truth of their “economic man” model - and most Austrians here are probably well aware of the real world consequences, to this day, of the “logic” built on top of that particular false assumption, despite the fact that it has been thoroughly discredited by Menger and Mises etc. ]
In the case of 9/11, [and as with economic science or anything else], in a quest for truth, if you start from even one false assumption , you end up proving nothing - all you accomplish is mostly no more than a further reinforcement of your own particular pre-existing beliefs .
When investigating 9/11, it should not be automatically assumed that the photos and videos and “eye-witness testimony” are genuine, and furthermore,I believe that it is methodologically incorrect for any claimed "scientist to so do.
But what do I know?
Regards,onebornfree.
With the exception of photo no. 9, all of the others in your post are most likely stills made from computer generated fake videos of the claimed events [photos 2,3,4,5,6,8, 10], or simply still photos of planted evidence [e.g photos 1&7].
The gif of WTC7’s collapse [in another post] is also most likely just a computer generated fake, in my opinion.
Those are my conclusions, based on 7 years of continual analysis and much head scratching and back and forth. Of course I do not expect anyone else here to share my own conclusions.
Here, in part, is why.
Your “Favorite Mistake”
It seems to me that the number 1 “favorite mistake” of 99.99% of both “truthers’” and official conspiracy theory [OTC] believers, is the heavy use of photos and network video in support of their cases.
This is because both groups unquestioningly assume the authenticity of the photos and network videos they endlessly study.
On that assumption they then proceed with their “logic” to make/proove their cases.
Of course, anyone is perfectly free to assume whatever they want to when they start to look at the events of 9/11[ or of anything else], however they are fooling themselves if they believe that doing so has anything at all to do with a scientifically sound " search for truth".
However, it is perfectly understandable that us “laymen” would make such an obvious procedural error, simply because 99.99% of the mainstream “scientific community” are making the exact same error in procedure! [deliberately or otherwise].
Nearly all of them start with the unquestioned assumption that the photos/videos accurately depict real-time events, whether we are talking about a Professor Steven Jones, or the N.I.S.T., or some other “scientific” study group.
I propose that it is methodologically incorrect for any trained scientists to make such assumptions and then base their theories/proofs on these unproven assumptions.
Scientists “should” remain entirely neutral with regard to the truth or falsity of the various videos and photos, suspending judgement about their authenticity until they have all been rigorously examined , first of all, and most importantly, in the light of known laws of physics , and secondly perhaps, in light of all 911 theories, no matter how outlandish those theories at first might seem, either to scientists , or to none scientists.
Just as no photographic/video evidence should at the outset of a scientific investigation be assumed to be real, or fake, no 911 theory should be dismissed as fake or assumed to be “real” until it has been subjected to repeated, rigorous, neutral comparative analysis [both with other photos/videos and perhaps even other types of evidence], in light of known laws of physics.
“Eye Witness Testimony”?
For scientific and legal procedural reasons, I would also “lump” into that general wrong assumption the {unjustified} assumption as to the truth of supposed “eye-witness testimony” , any and every time such testimony has been used to support or contradict any particular 9/11theory, either by “scientists” or by laymen.
Such assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with a sound [and therefor useful], scientific method for attempting to uncover truth, as far as I can see.
[By comparison, and strictly for the Austrians here, it is no less of a procedural/methodological error than is the Classical and Marxists economists {false} underlying assumption of the truth of their “economic man” model - and most Austrians here are probably well aware of the real world consequences, to this day, of the “logic” built on top of that particular false assumption, despite the fact that it has been thoroughly discredited by Menger and Mises etc. ]
In the case of 9/11, [and as with economic science or anything else], in a quest for truth, if you start from even one false assumption , you end up proving nothing - all you accomplish is mostly no more than a further reinforcement of your own particular pre-existing beliefs .
When investigating 9/11, it should not be automatically assumed that the photos and videos and “eye-witness testimony” are genuine, and furthermore,I believe that it is methodologically incorrect for any claimed "scientist to so do.
But what do I know?
Regards,onebornfree.
With the exception of photo no. 9, all of the others in your post are most likely stills made from computer generated fake videos of the claimed events [photos 2,3,4,5,6,8, 10], or simply still photos of planted evidence [e.g photos 1&7].
The gif of WTC7’s collapse [in another post] is also most likely just a computer generated fake, in my opinion.
Those are my conclusions, based on 7 years of continual analysis and much head scratching and back and forth. Of course I do not expect anyone else here to share my own conclusions.
Here, in part, is why.
Your “Favorite Mistake”
It seems to me that the number 1 “favorite mistake” of 99.99% of both “truthers’” and official conspiracy theory [OTC] believers, is the heavy use of photos and network video in support of their cases.
This is because both groups unquestioningly assume the authenticity of the photos and network videos they endlessly study.
On that assumption they then proceed with their “logic” to make/proove their cases.
Of course, anyone is perfectly free to assume whatever they want to when they start to look at the events of 9/11[ or of anything else], however they are fooling themselves if they believe that doing so has anything at all to do with a scientifically sound " search for truth".
However, it is perfectly understandable that us “laymen” would make such an obvious procedural error, simply because 99.99% of the mainstream “scientific community” are making the exact same error in procedure! [deliberately or otherwise].
Nearly all of them start with the unquestioned assumption that the photos/videos accurately depict real-time events, whether we are talking about a Professor Steven Jones, or the N.I.S.T., or some other “scientific” study group.
I propose that it is methodologically incorrect for any trained scientists to make such assumptions and then base their theories/proofs on these unproven assumptions.
Scientists “should” remain entirely neutral with regard to the truth or falsity of the various videos and photos, suspending judgement about their authenticity until they have all been rigorously examined , first of all, and most importantly, in the light of known laws of physics , and secondly perhaps, in light of all 911 theories, no matter how outlandish those theories at first might seem, either to scientists , or to none scientists.
Just as no photographic/video evidence should at the outset of a scientific investigation be assumed to be real, or fake, no 911 theory should be dismissed as fake or assumed to be “real” until it has been subjected to repeated, rigorous, neutral comparative analysis [both with other photos/videos and perhaps even other types of evidence], in light of known laws of physics.
“Eye Witness Testimony”?
For scientific and legal procedural reasons, I would also “lump” into that general wrong assumption the {unjustified} assumption as to the truth of supposed “eye-witness testimony” , any and every time such testimony has been used to support or contradict any particular 9/11theory, either by “scientists” or by laymen.
Such assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with a sound [and therefor useful], scientific method for attempting to uncover truth, as far as I can see.
[By comparison, and strictly for the Austrians here, it is no less of a procedural/methodological error than is the Classical and Marxists economists {false} underlying assumption of the truth of their “economic man” model - and most Austrians here are probably well aware of the real world consequences, to this day, of the “logic” built on top of that particular false assumption, despite the fact that it has been thoroughly discredited by Menger and Mises etc. ]
In the case of 9/11, [and as with economic science or anything else], in a quest for truth, if you start from even one false assumption , you end up proving nothing - all you accomplish is mostly no more than a further reinforcement of your own particular pre-existing beliefs .
When investigating 9/11, it should not be automatically assumed that the photos and videos and “eye-witness testimony” are genuine, and furthermore,I believe that it is methodologically incorrect for any claimed "scientist to so do.
But what do I know?
Regards,onebornfree.