{"id":19911,"date":"2018-03-02T09:00:04","date_gmt":"2018-03-02T17:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.consensus911.org\/?p=19911"},"modified":"2021-09-20T03:07:55","modified_gmt":"2021-09-20T10:07:55","slug":"why-do-self-styled-skeptics-believe-in-their-own-brand-of-miracles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.consensus911.org\/es\/why-do-self-styled-skeptics-believe-in-their-own-brand-of-miracles\/","title":{"rendered":"Why do self-styled \u201cskeptics\u201d believe in their own brand of miracles?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
By Petra Liverani
\nOff-Guardian<\/a>, February 27, 2018<\/div>\n

\"I\"find it such an interesting phenomenon that of all the self-styled skeptics I have corresponded with or whose opinions are aired online, every single one swallows the miracles, told to us by NIST, of the three high rise steel frame building collapses on 9\/11 being caused by fire when the evidence clearly shows that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition. Moreover, the $5,000 10-point Occam\u2019s Razor challenge<\/a> on the cause of collapse of the third building, WTC-7, that I\u2019ve issued personally to a significant number of these self-styled skeptics, has been very loudly ignored.<\/p>\n

As Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, infamously said when asked if she were xenophobic, \u201cPlease explain\u201d.<\/p>\n

Please explain why it is that the most prolific scholar \u2013 by far \u2013 on 9\/11 is a Christian and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, David Ray Griffin, and why this scholar, highly-esteemed within and without his own academic field, does not swallow the collapse-by-fire miracles? He has written over 10 books on the subject of 9\/11, his latest being Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World<\/a>. He has also recently authored and co-authored two books on climate change. So he\u2019s on the same page as most of the self-styled skeptics (in no way referring to the so-called climate skeptics, of course) with climate change but not with 9\/11.<\/p>\n

As summarised by Edward Curtin in his review of Griffin\u2019s book<\/a>, here are the 15 miracles that Griffin identified that the self-styled skeptics have swallowed:<\/p>\n

\n
    \n
  1. \n

    The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were the only steel-framed high-rise buildings ever to come down without explosives or incendiaries.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    The Twin Towers, each of which had 287 steel columns, were brought down solely by a combination of airplane strikes and jet-fuel fires.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, so it was the first steel-framed high-rise to be brought down solely by ordinary building fires.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    These World Trade Center buildings also came down in free fall \u2013 the Twin Towers in virtual free fall, WTC 7 in absolute free fall \u2013 for over two seconds.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Although the collapses of the of the WTC buildings were not aided by explosives, the collapses imitated the kinds of implosions that can be induced only by demolition companies.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  6. \n

    In the case of WTC 7, the structure came down symmetrically (straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline), which meant that all 82 of the steel support columns had to fall simultaneously, although the building\u2019s fires had a very asymmetrical pattern.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  7. \n

    The South Tower\u2019s upper 30-floor block changed its angular momentum in midair.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  8. \n

    This 30 floor block then disintegrated in midair.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  9. \n

    With regard to the North Tower, some of its steel columns were ejected out horizontally for at least 500 feet.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  10. \n

    The fires in the debris from the WTC buildings could not be extinguished for many months.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  11. \n

    Although the WTC fires, based on ordinary building fires, could not have produced temperatures above 1,800\u00b0, the fires inexplicably melted metals with much higher melting points, such as iron (2,800\u00b0) and even molybdenum (4,753\u00b0).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  12. \n

    Some of the steel in the debris had been sulfidized, resulting in Swiss-cheese-appearing steel, even though ordinary building fires could not have resulted in the sulfidation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  13. \n

    As a passenger on AA Flight 77, Barbara Olson called her husband, telling him about hijackers on her plane, even though this plane had no onboard phones and its altitude was too high for a cell phone call to get through.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  14. \n

    Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour could not possibly have flown the trajectory of AA 77 to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, and yet he did.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  15. \n

    Besides going through an unbelievable personal transformation, ringleader Mohamed Atta also underwent an impossible physical transformation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

    Now could it be that self-styled skeptics all over the Anglo world (Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and Richard Saunders being notable examples) are suffering from a severe case of skeptic groupthink? You\u2019d think one of them would deviate from the flock in their concept of truth, wouldn\u2019t you?<\/p>\n

    An example of the faulty reasoning used by skeptics is displayed by Michael Shermer in this interview where he employs a common logical fallacy of 9\/11 argument, argumentum ad speculum, by putting forward the seemingly great implausibility of the conspirators\u2019 ability to lay explosives in the twin towers.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    This hypothesis ignores the reality of how the buildings collapsed and also displays ignorance of information indicating how the task of laying explosives could have been achieved, as in Jeremy Rys\u2019s 45 minute film, Conspiracy Solved!<\/a><\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    There is much study in social psychology on why people believe things and what approaches to take to help them out of their entrenched beliefs (see presentation In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9\/11<\/a>, by neuroscientist, Laurie Manwell) but it truly baffles me that when you ask a self-styled skeptic to provide even just a single point to justify their belief and they fail, this stark confrontation with their inability to support their belief has no impact.<\/p>\n

    It truly astounds me. I\u2019m not talking here about aggressive confrontation, in which case one can comprehend a psychological resistance. I\u2019m talking about asking someone, with pretensions to operate in a realm of reason and logic, simply to provide support for their belief.<\/p>\n

    Occam\u2019s Razor is a tool of logic that can be applied in different ways. In my appplication I take the approach: what hypothesis fits the piece of evidence in question with the fewest questions and assumptions. It works like magic. If a self-styled skeptic cannot use the tool to support their belief nor poke a hole in the points provided for the opposing view<\/a>, surely reason and logic dictate that the skeptic must change their mind. If not, their claim to skepticism is utterly fraudulent.<\/p>\n

    Interestingly, Griffin divides the world into three types of people<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    \n