Are you smarter than a fifth grade science student? Starting in kindergarten, students are taught that the best explanation for something is the explanation that has the most supporting evidence. When you have two competing explanations you are supposed to favor the explanation which has the most supporting evidence. Students are taught that an explanation with no supporting evidence is an explanation you cannot ever accept as true. Up until grade 12 students are taught a progressively more complex version of this important concept. The scientific method itself is taught starting at least in grade five. They learn that you must have evidence before putting forth an explanation for a phenomenon. They learn that if you start with only a belief you are not doing science. They learn that if you ignore evidence that does not fit with your belief you are not doing science. In fact, a fundamental part of the scientific method taught in grade five is that facts that an explanation cannot account for actually prove that the explanation is wrong. Not understanding these elementary scientific principles makes you science illiterate. Portraying something as science when it is not, is pseudo-science. People that claim to follow the scientific method but do not are pseudo-scientists.

Let’s apply these principles to the 9/11 event. For the main and most horrific event of 9/11, the fall of the Twin Towers, there is not a single solitary shred of valid scientific evidence to support the official story of how they came down. All models and analyses concocted to date to support the official story of the collapses cannot provide scientific evidence-backed explanations for many key observations. Two examples of the many such observations are the explosive dust ejections (often referred to as “squibs”) and the multi-ton sections of structural steel ejected laterally at up to 70 MPH. In other words, the official story cannot explain key evidence and therefore ignores that important evidence. Note that this ignoring of disconfirming evidence is an egregious violation of the scientific method. The scientific method is telling us that the official story is false.

The controlled demolition hypothesis can explain these two observations and every other observation that exists. If explosives were used in the Twin Tower destructions they would produce a very strong force that could propel the large sections of structural steel latteraly. Currently this is the only known way that such heavy pieces of steel could behave this way. As for the explosive gas releases, many of these releases look very similar to the gas releases in explosive controlled demolitions (CDs) that are caused by explosives.[2] Some of the releases also look very similar to the effects created by Jonathon Cole’s thermate experiments.[3]

Grade five students are taught that severely incomplete explanations like the official 9/11 story of the Twin Tower falls are crackpot pseudoscience. Grade five students should know that the official story is purely faith-based nonsense. All mainstream skeptics believe unquestioningly in the official 9/11 story which as we clearly see is horrifically unscientific. These “skeptics” wholeheartedly believe in and portray a wholly non-scientific explanation as scientific. All mainstream skeptics are therefore, at least with 9/11, seemingly science illiterate pseudo-science advocates.

Earlier I asked you if you were smarter than a fifth grade science student. Which explanation has more evidence? The official story with only highly flawed incomplete analyses to support it or the CD hypothesis that has actual scientific evidence? Which explanation gathered data first before producing a hypothesis? The official story which was pronounced immediately and which never ever had any evidence or the CD hypothesis which was introduced only after evidence was found that the official story could not explain? Which explanation can explain all available evidence with actual scientific support as opposed to entirely unsupported pronouncements and other logical fallacies? Which explanation does not ignore evidence it cannot account for? If you can honestly answer all these questions with the CD hypothesis you too can be as smart as a fifth grade science student.

Notes

1. “FAQ #5: What Caused the Ejections of Dust and Debris in the Twin Towers?”, Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, December 8, 2011 http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/585-faq-8-squibs.html

2. JohnSmithFunnny, “Building Collapse Only in 5 seconds”, Sep 30, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_2_XgTicAo

3. physicsandreason, “9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate”, November 10, 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g (11 min. mark)