Shattering World Views

This is a piece intended to try and pry open 911 truth deniers by showing that our worldview has evolved greatly over time, and how did our world view evolve? using science. Any constructive comments are welcome.

Shattering World Views
Throughout history, humans have created their own worldview or a belief system which provided a sense of existence in our world. In simple terms, this worldview provided a framework for why they were here and why the world around them appeared as it did. This worldview has been passed down from generation to generation without much thought or reflection. The creation of organized religions is an excellent example of creating a worldview to explain our existence. People were taught their local cultural and religious worldview, and these views changed little, if at all over time. The social norm was to accept these worldviews without question; the local worldview was accepted as truth.

But there have always been a handful of trouble makers, thinkers, and tinkerers who have challenged their worldviews and of those around them. Through a process of observation, experimentation, and analysis, slowly a scientific method was developed to unravel how the world worked. A scientific process began to evolve where the fundamental laws of nature were found to be predictable. Not only were the fundamental laws of physics established, but they could be used to build on one another leading to a growing scientific understanding of how our physical world worked.

As the understanding of how our physical world around works, our overall worldview has changed as well. But significant changes in the accepted worldview were almost universally rejected when they were proposed, particularly by those who felt threatened by these views, or those who did not understand how our understanding of the physical world were beginning to evolve. People who challenged the accepted world view were rejected, ridiculed, or worse. It has always been unpopular to challenge long held worldviews.

You can go right down the list of major scientific shifts in worldview; from the world being flat, the earth rotating around the sun – those who challenged the prevailing world view were mocked, criticized, and derided. It was always easier, even within the scientific community, to go with the flow – the currently accepted worldview.

One of the more interesting stories of the 20th century on shattering worldviews is the history of theory of Plate Tectonics (the theory that the earths continents shift across the earth). Proposed in 1915 by the German Meteorologist Alfred Wegener the theory of plate tectonics was attacked virulently by the geologists of the time. Did you know that it was not until the 1960’s that the scientific community widely accepted this theory?

As our understanding of the world around us (from a scientific perspective) has increased, the many challenges to the accepted worldview have intensified. But as our understanding of our physical world increases, we are given a growing set of scientific tools: mathematics, physics, and biology to better understand and challenge the accepted worldview. Challenges to the prevailing worldview are not always correct, and these refined rigorous scientific methods are used to confirm or reject challenges to worldviews. Our understanding of our physical world has evolved to a fair sophisticated state. Our high technology industry could not have created the iPhone and its entire supporting infrastructure without a sophisticated understanding of physical laws of nature.

What can we learn from the history of one world view shattered after another? While we can never know for sure at the time someone proposes an alternate view to the currently accepted world view, whether this is correct or not, we do know that if you hold firmly to all accepted world views, you will be one step behind reality in some area, and in many cases hold the incorrect view about something. We know that we can prove certain things correct or incorrect with the laws of physics because certain physical things happen in perfectly predictable ways, or your next web search on your iPhone would never work.

So when you are confronted with a theory, opinion or other idea; if it conflicts with your worldview you have to take the position that it could be correct, and yours could be wrong no matter how strong you hold your views.

So now that we have discussed some history on how our worldview has evolved, let’s take a look at a contemporary worldview, and see if we can get a better understanding if our worldview is valid. Let’s address the widely accepted worldview that the corporate media provides an object assessment of our government’s performance.

For starters, many things have happened recently that should sharply draw into question that worldview. How about the Iraq War? Reviewing now, what was known then, has shown that the case to go to war was flimsy at best. Our corporate media failed in asking the hard questions, and in presenting the case for and against war.

The crash on Wall Street, yes I am still waiting for someone at CNBC to say they completely dropped the ball on that one. It is a complete myth that “no one saw” the housing bubble induced market collapse coming. If you have not seen the Jon Stewart versus Cramer interview, it is a classic why does it take a show on Comedy Central to call out the corporate Medias failure to present a clear picture leading up to the panic?

And what of the corporate media’s coverage of the recent statements, and books, by members of the 911 Commission; that have called into question the veracity of their Report? Here is story on what John Farmer - Senior Counsel to the 911 Commission wrote about in his book

We have many reasons to question the prevailing worldview that our corporate media provides a clear and objective view of our government. But we need to go beyond a casual tour of US History and various political viewpoints over the past 8 years or so; we need to be able to use science and physics, and the tools this provides to separate myth from reality about our corporate medias presentation of current events.

The event of 911 provides an excellent chance to apply the laws of physics to a current event, and see what physics tell us. We can then compare what physics tells us about 911, to that what our corporate media, and the government itself told us. Using the laws of physics objectively can be challenging to many, as most have a worldview that we already know what happened on 911, or our understanding of the use of scientific methods is limited. But, there is perhaps no better recent example to compare what physics tells us to the corporate media, than the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 911. This event can be analyzed against well understood engineering principles and the laws of Physics.

As many of the readers may have a strong worldview that 911 was caused by 19 Arabs with box cutters, and that I belong in a padded cell, I ask you to take a look at the various government and military officials thoughts on the events of 911 at this website . Spend some time here and I think you will be very surprised at some of the statements made by people who worked in our government on the events of 911. I think most will think these opinions are reason enough to re-evaluate the prevalent worldview on 911.

The laws of physics work in well defined and understood ways. Solving an engineering problem requires that you work from known physical truths and work backwards from there. By looking at 911 on the basis of purely the physical evidence, and creating models based on this, you can leave speculation and preconceived worldviews behind. You can get a cleaner path to the truth.

I have had to solve many difficult problems as an engineer. I learned many years ago that if you start off by making assumptions about a problem (they could not keep it a secret, Bush was too incompetent, etc.) you are already in trouble. You need to go straight for observations can be compared directly against the laws of physics. Forget things that you need to speculate on (how could this be “covered up, etc), solve as many details that can be compared directly to the laws of physics as you can, then use these facts to build your model to better understand what could or could not have happened on 911.

How did these massive towers collapse? The collapse of the WTC’s left behind much physical evidence to understand why; the way the buildings collapsed, the remnant structural materials, and dust from the collapse. The key features of the collapse were the planes impact and how heat from the resultant fires affected the buildings structural integrity. No steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire itself, so it is key to understand the temperatures the structural steel was exposed to. The impact of the planes, while significant, did not by themselves knock the buildings down as the towers withstood the initial impact.

The following link contains evidence summarizing the temperatures experienced by the structural steel that far exceeded that which could be found in an office fire, even assuming the jet fuel load. This report details the temperatures seen by the structural steel based on the material properties of the steel. These same findings were reported in a US Geologic Survey (USGS) report as detailed in this link. It is noteworthy that these findings were never included in the Official Government National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) report on the collapse of the Towers nor in any corporate media.
This evidence has not been refuted by the government; it is actually confirmed within a government report. Here is one notable quote from the USGS report:

The phrase “Swiss cheese appearance” was also used by a team from Worcester Polytechnic Institute led by Prof. Jonathon Barnett in describing steel from WTC 7.
The significance of the work on a [steel] sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal. A one inch [steel] column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

Why is the extreme temperatures in the WTC Towers significant? One, it provides for a temperature reference point for the steel in the towers, as a fire of jet fuel and office building materials will only burn up to a specific temperature. Two, it aligns with an alternate theory for how the towers collapsed in the fashion they did.

So where did the higher temperature come from? Early 911 researches theorized that controlled demolition brought the buildings down. Controlled demolition employs explosives that would be used to sever the massive structural steel columns. The controlled demolition theory was difficult to fathom because how could you possibly plant explosives, and wire a building the size of WTC 1, 2 or even 7? This is a question that has been debated at some length, but this is a logistical question, not one that can be compared to the laws of physics.

Further analysis of the dust had the answer. Not just residue of explosives, or the metal signature from its use, but the actual high tech explosive itself:
click green box that says download. Yes, 911 researches have been analyzing the actual explosive used in the controlled demolition of the towers.

Like the evidence of the metal spheres and structural steel, the actual analysis included in this peer reviewed paper has not been refuted with a plausible alternative explanation. You can find hit pieces which attempt to discredit the individual authors of the papers, but you will not find an explanation for why there is a highly engineered explosive material in the dust. One common point brought up again and again by the corporate media is that there is no physical evidence which contradicts the official version of events. This statement is completely false.

The physics of what has been found in the WTC dust is as close as we can get to the truth about 911. We have solid physical evidence for something that does not fit with the prevalent “worldview” of 911, and evidence which provides a better overall explanation for how the towers collapsed. A great summery of all the facts regarding the towers collapsed is included in this letter.

I did not easily come to the conclusion that the worldview of 19 Arabs with box cutters was false. This could be one of the hardest worldviews to abandon for the average American. The implications of this shattered worldview are numbing, frightening, and infuriating. I would not expect average Americans to accept this shattering without looking at all of the evidence themselves. I only ask that you take in the physical evidence and question the worldview of 19 Arabs.

Great Article

I may use this the next time I encounter a closed mind that doesn't realize it's closed.

Does ground zero debris onStaten Island contain these nano-ther

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,
Does ground zero debris on Staten Island contain these nano-thermite chips ?

Yours John


And exactly why they are using criminal means to squash the NYC investigation petition and remove it from the ballot.

Teams of individual investigators should go in there and dig up the sediment.


Gotta say these theoretical

Gotta say these theoretical articles are the easiest to derail and a waste of time.

People respond to hard, indisputable facts. If your article is light on facts and heavy on opinion, you won't win them over (unless you're a far right demagogue with an existing audience of idiots).


I think it depends upon the person.

Everyone is different. That's the beauty of so many people contributing to this cause in so many different ways.

In the end, facts may be bear out what my common sense has already told me but sometimes the way they are presented is not at all "user friendly." While it doesn't have to be this way, often objective analyses are presented in formats that are dry, complex, and statistical. I get the info., but my eyes completely glaze over.

Subjective thought pieces, on the other hand, offer me opportunities to think deeply, reflect, and question. Despite the objective world view, that's dominant at this point in history, in reality not everything that "counts" can be counted.