Thank you to my friends AH and JM for guiding me to this writing. Here goes.
Since I began reading into 9/11, I have never been all out confident with what I've thought about. The fact that it is such a hugely polarized issue makes me weak in the knees talking about it at all. I have rarely felt a deep confidence on this issue.
For me, the kicker with 9/11 is not the conspiracy theories. It’s not about the theories. It’s not the evidence either. I’m not an architectural engineer or a pilot, so the details that speak to experts in these fields elude me. But what I am good at is asking questions. It’s the insufficiently answered and unanswered questions (that I can simply ask myself) about 9/11 that never cease to rattle me, and with an event of this magnitude, that seems unbelievable to me, but there it is.
There is ample evidence on both sides of the coin on this issue now. By both sides of the coin, I am referring to whether the official story is true, or whether it is not. So there’s tons of evidence to support either side of this. It’s not about the evidence.
It’s about discernment, and the method of that discernment. Since there is evidence on both sides, it comes down to a matter of – how do we discern which evidence is valid, and/or even makes sense, and which is/does not? And, for me, at this time, and for the past several years, I have discerned that the official story is not true.
The reason I have discerned that the official story is not true is because, when evidence on both sides is examined, the side that would purport that the official story is true has a number of holes in it to the tune of a degree that, again, leaves me endlessly rattled. So does the side that purports that the official story is not true. There are many, many holes in the conspiracy theories out there. But the problem is that the side that purports the official story to be true is the mainstream side, the largely scientific, political, and socio-economical side that has been used to justify a war that has gone on for a decade now, and I ask myself – how is it possible that this side, with its budgets, supporters, politics and method, contain such a number of holes in what it is affirming if it is, indeed, actually telling the truth?
I wonder – how can I, David Ward Mitchell, break down these questions in such a way that I know, for my own self, leaves so many holes in the official story that I have to ACTUALLY WONDER if it is not true? I don’t WANT to wonder if it isn’t true. But I have to. To not do so would be inauthentic on my part. I can’t do that.
To put it in perspective, allow me to adopt my hat as the Agatha Christie detective Hercule Poirot (just for fun). Here I go.
Scene 1
In the official story, it has been brought forth that jet fuel ignited from the airplanes in the first two towers was sufficiently hot enough to melt the steel structures of these towers. Without the heat required from the jet fuel, the heat that was present would not have been hot enough to melt the steel and thus collapse the buildings. Wonderful. I’m no chemist nor structural engineer. I will take this as truth.
Scene 2
Building 7, the third building to collapse on that day, was, according to the official story, brought down by falling debris from the first two buildings which ignited fires on several floors which ran for many hours and, eventually, brought down the steel structure of Building 7. Wonderful. Again, I am no chemist nor structural engineer. I will take this as truth.
Scene 3
This is where I have to ask a question. If jet fuel is apparently required to heat steel enough to collapse a building in the manner of the first two towers, but there was no jet fuel present in Building 7, why are we going down another line of reason, absent of this apparently crucial element, to explain why Building 7 collapsed?
Scene 4
For me, the three pictures I’ve put forth above revolve around the reasoning itself. I’m asking why this reasoning is being used. When people began to look into detail about how the first two towers collapsed, answers appeared that were very straight forward – jet fuel is hot enough to melt steel. When this is brought over to Building 7, it is absent and replaced with an alternate reason, that is not at all straight forward. Jet fuel was absent – it must be something else. But that something else, to me, is questionable and has not been sufficiently responded to from the official outlets.
Scene 5
So I must ask another question. How is it possible, that an institution that includes the government, media, architects and engineers, scientists, and a whole conglomerate of intelligent and reasonable people, come up with “that” (prolonged fires in the absence of steel-melting heated jet fuel) as the explanation for why Building 7 collapsed?
Final Scene
I’ll take a page out of the book of the skeptics – The principle of parsimony (or simplicity), better known as “Occam’s Razor”. Occam’s Razor recommends that:
“Plurality should not be posited without necessity.”
“If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along.”
“The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations.”
“If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest.”
“The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.”
Theory 1 (Official Story) – Falling debris, which came from another building already on fire, landed on several floors of Building 7, causing it to catch fire, which ran for several hours, and eventually collapsed it in a manner that is visually similar to a demolition, for the first time of such an event in recorded history.
Theory 2 (Conspiracy Theory) – Building 7 was brought down by demolition.
This doesn’t mean that the simpler theory here is necessarily better or true. But I’m willing to dive further into it if need be.
Done
My question to everyone who believes in the authenticity of the official story of 9/11 is – how far can we, observers of this event and discerners of the evidence, given our faculties of intelligence and knowledge, reasonably stretch our line of reasoning to explain this story in favor of the truth of the official story?
For my own self, I cannot stretch my reasoning to that extent. I can’t do it. To do so, for me, would be inauthentic. And this line regarding Building 7 is just the tip of the iceberg. I won’t go anywhere else on this. My point has been made. Whether I am correct or not matters to me and me alone. I know I am not 100% confident but I have thought about it enough to say what I’ve said above. I also have to really wonder why there are so many people on the side of the fence that believe that the official story is false. I don’t believe they are all just conspiracy nuts, or depressed people looking for an outlet, or somebody with a dishonest agenda, especially when I apply my method of discernment as I have.
Closing
What I think makes 9/11 such a difficult subject in trying to discern the truth is the implications that are represented. If the official story is indeed false, what does this mean? What are we doing? If all of the people and the institutions that have insisted and stood by the side that the official story is true, and it isn’t, what does that mean for them?
To me, one of the major reasons that we have not been able to come to an agreement on this is because the implications of the potential falsehood of the official story are so massive, so colossal to the mind, a lie of a depth that involved the deaths of thousands of people and a decade-long multi-multi billion dollar war, that to accept the official story as false is to potentially swallow a very large and nastily-tasting pill that, really, I don’t blame anyone for wanting to avoid.
If the official story is actually true, then there are a lot of people wasting their time and energy, and they should stop and move on, myself included. We should realize that our method of discernment has led us astray, that there is no lie here, to release any of our paranoia, and find a way to better ourselves, especially in taking in information and using it to try and find and establish truth both within and without.
That’s my take on 9/11. Thank you.
~D
