We, the general public had to our use:
- photos - faked
- "witnesses" - faked
- videos - faked
- statements - faked, misinformation, contradicting information, interests, politics, etc.
So the material we have is very difficult to work with.
We do not have:
- live tests
- publications about the great scientific breakthroughs of all time (flying a heterogeneous plane into a heterogeneous building causing a completely smooth and homogeneous unrestricted entry)
So we have to work with what we have. Rowing with the peddles we have. You know the saying.
Then the first stage is observation.
Assuming the video was real and the statements (a quick search did not bring convincing information, more detailed search will follow) about the "hot steel 3 months after 9/11" are true, then the only two people who ever mentioned the pulverisation and thermal effects were the people I mentioned.
Wood was for me so the speak the prima inter pares
, so the only "good science" on that subject around.
Her statement that a "revolutionary" never seen before mechanism (I don't want to go into weapons or free energy or so, that's not the real point) must have been used to cause this never observed pulverisation effect, is of course convenient.
There is no way to test something that has never been seen before. And without access to the samples of the real event, how to prove that your never seen before hypothesis fits the never seen before pulverisation observation?
As I explained, and I am not the only one, my path into this world view is steep and confronting. Along that path you find people who explain things better, point at things and so on. Until a month ago I never heard of Cluesforum.
If you call me in the second post "someone who doesn't understand (good) science" then, yes, without knowing me or my backgrounds, I'd say that's quite agressive. And unnecessary. I sent you a private message, would be good to chat about it.
We, the 99% non-psychopaths (although with the huge media fakery scam it seems less) all have the same goal, right? Hence my example about the soldier. That was not meant to bring in military as such, more the metaphore of battle. Battle against the stories and for what is really true. And not against eachother.
To increase that force of people more, the good science here, but also an open view to people is required.
It is not easy to step into the rabbit hole and exit the Matrix.
In my eyes it should thus be inviting and not threatening to make this "giant leap for mankind".
If part of the people who are awakening but not (yet) seeing the full truth should be exposed in any way, I have no problem with that of course.
It's more the language and yes, I feel sometimes (not to me, more in general), agressiveness. Is that really necessary? Aren't we fighting for (mostly) the same cause? I would say so, even if people have other interests like selling water filterers.
I consider it so important to NOT build "conspiracy theories".
I see real thruth seeking as atheism. We do not believe in the stories we're told. That does not mean we have to have a full explanation on what and why things happen. So we do not have to be quantumphysicists explaining the nitty gritty detail of the Big Bang in order to reject the idea of a creator.
Yet, I can like people with scientific backgrounds who do make this effort and in the process of finding out simon was smarter than them, I followed some of these people, that's why I brought them up here.
No need to feel offended or anything. Just sharing my thoughts and (short) experience.
And for your second post; I am not looking for 'weaknesses' in your statements or so, that's not why I am here. Just don't consider "you don't know good science" and "you failed" if we -not even- know us so shortly very necessary.
No one saves us but ourselves,
No one can and no one may.
We ourselves must walk the path
Buddha (~563-483 B.C.)