Just thinking out loud . . .

I've been wondering why people have such a hard time even thinking about the POSSIBILITY that 911 was controlled demolition. There are so many reasons why it would be hard for people to even look at with an open mind; it made me think of this:

If the shooting of an apparently healthy individual, by a known criminal is captured on video and shows the bullet hitting the victim's upper right shoulder (far from the heart), most viewers would assume the wound would not be fatal.

BUT if the person does die, then the viewer would assume that it was the shot after all, despite the fact that normally such a shot wouldn't be life threatening.

The viewer assumes the shot killed the person because A) It is obviously a traumatic event, and B) from the viewer's current perspective, it is the only possible cause.

Now, if a well respected doctor comes to the scene and proclaims the bullet responsible for the victim's death, the viewer's opinion is set in stone. Not only did the viewer see the bullet (on video) hit the victim, but his assumptions are cemented by an "authoritative source," who couldn't POSSIBLY have ulterior motives.

But what if some viewers learn that no autopsy was performed, that the doctor did have nefarious motives and that there was much evidence for another (more plausible) cause of death.

The viewers that learn the truth will have a devil of a time convincing other viewers because of the fixed "paradigm" that has been set and the conventional wisdom that has taken over - ESPECIALLY if the public has already taken the "obvious" assailant to court, found him guilty and sent him to prison.

Add to the difficulty when the original video is replayed, the doctor's testimony is oft-quoted and the unconvinced viewers are ridiculed.

Re-examining our basic worldviews and admitting that we may be wrong is one of the most difficult things possible, especially when there's an emotional reason to cling to the original, more comforting suppositions.