So my new boss, a former Navy man, was in the Pentagon when 9/11 happened. He has the stuff hanging on his office wall to prove his career and his time in the Pentagon at 9/11. He explained why so few died because the section of the building that got hit was under reconstruction. He said he was sitting at his desk working on budget cuts, and he felt the building shake, he looked out the window (he said they all face interior) and saw flying papers and smoke.
I forgot exactly how he mentioned it as part of the story, but he was friends with a Navy captain who said he saw the plane itself hit the building. I stopped him in the middle of his story, and confirmed this, and we both referenced the only video. At this point, he let me know how much he argues with his cousin the conspiracy theorist, about 9/11.
Now, this is just one data point, and even more so it's second hand. But he trusted his friend and coworker who said he literally saw the plane hit the building with his own two eyes. Given the context of the conversation, and who this man is, my boss isn't lying. It is possible he was lied to, or the captain was mistaken, or even a missile was disguised as a plane.
Just thought I would share. I'd give more information, but I don't want to be doxxed. It's not to often you meet people on the scene, so to speak.
I bet those big turbine engines ripped big holes in the wall.
... before they disappeared.
The disturbing conclusion I draw is that human consciousness is capable of recalling vivid first-hand experience of events which simply did not happen.
The mainstream minimizes discussion of the concept of "confabulation", and tries to make out like it's a handful of kookoo birds. I believe it is prevalent.
That sounds controversial but I think many (dudes, at least) will be able to regrettably recall one of more arguments with a female romantic partner in which she told you that you that you said or did something you definitely did not say or do.
It might be a "he said, she said" type of situation, but sometimes you might have been able to provide other evidence or reasoning to show that it was illogical or irrational or impossible that you did as she claimed.
Did that not settle the point? Not at all. You got the, "Well, that's the way I remember it" statement, as if personal recall controls Reality. Which statement, in itself, is a demonstration of the point that some people live in a reality partially or largely of their own construction.
How many people? Too long to go into, but I believe about 95% of the population. I also fear I am underestimating.
Intentionally or unintentionally.. https://youtu.be/q-woH_sI-cg?t=51
To establish the truth, we must start by considering what is possible, what is probable and what is likely. If we keep our minds open and discuss the various theories, but not so rigid that we can't alter our beliefs, we may narrow our focus on the target. I believe that extreme scenarios were promoted early to get people to "lock in" and keep them from ever discovering the truth.
We have a lot of facts, but it's important not to draw conclusions based upon those facts alone. We need to explore the unknown variables that would factor in to the final equation.
I wonder if anyone has gathered just the facts regardless of if they support a desired result and fed it into an AI model to see what an unbiased assessment might be. I'm not talking about a commercial AI that most likely has gatekeepers programmed into it.
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him,and he shall direct thy paths." ~Proverbs 3:5-6
Trusting another implies fiduciary (holding in trust) which permits another to BANK ones TRUST. To hold implies taking into possession (suggested) while ignoring how all procession (perceivable) gives each one potential (perception).
You are lying to yourself by believing that another can be ones boss/baas - "master"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/boss
Your "boss" cannot speak truth, because you hold "boss" as a lie within yourself.