It’s high time science got back on course. The Citadel has been utterly overrun with fairy stories, pseudoscience, fallacies... But the situation is very easily solved.
Tim, the citadel of science is money. There is exceedingly little objective science "for the sake of knowledge and truth." The corporations that proffer poisons pay "science" to confuse the issues or cover them up. People who graduate with STEM degrees generally are going to get the highest paying job they can. A few will be librarians and illustrators, at the parts-per-million level.
The history of science, esp in the late 19th C. through present, is the history of scientific fraud. The success of this project is a testament to the power of sales figures and also the lack of any credulity in most of the public and mezzo-elite. It's more convenient to believe the BS as well.
Are radioactive gases dangerous? What's the truth and what's the BS?
Take the "Three Mile Island Accident" of 1979, for example.
One interpretation of the massive fraud of science during the last 140 years or so, is that the corporations will pay a lot of money to sociopathic sophists to confuse everything and everyone, forever, with the purpose of avoiding legal responsibility. In this view, a sentence like "the dangers of radioactive gases have been greatly exaggerated" would be a product of the mind of one such intellectual henchman.
But a different interpretation of the fraud of science is that the entire story of radioactive activity is false. Which opens the door to at least two possible scenarios: the nuclear accidents are a cover story for something else, perhaps a real danger that almost nobody knows about. And the second scenario: it's all fake, it was a psychological operation designed to create a generation of highly paranoid environmentalists who would lobby for bigger government, which would enable fascism on every aspect of life and impunity for corporations. (Incidentally, we are exactly here, but that is no proof that this scenario is the correct one, or that the premise is true)
In general, it's extremely disturbing for any believer to even begin to consider that his entire faith is wrong. And asking them to do that is usually felt as an insult (unless the believer is from NYC, because the NYC people take everything as an insult, so their feelings do not count)
The easy answer: everything is as screwed up as always, no need to revise any data.
The hard answer: actually, everything is more screwed up than we always thought it was, and we are too fucking old and weary to consider that facts and data may be complete hogwash. Younger generations will have to undo all our errors.
--
What kind of man rejects all the truths of his life when he is in his seventies or eighties? Who loves the pursuit of what is real so intensely to be willing to commit the great sin of killing his persona or his mask, which implies social and professional death, and then to simply continue living as a nameless skeptic monk?
I think it's too much to ask of mere more mortals to choose the path of hard skepticism.
Which means that most facts are ***potentially*** mere opinions that will not be revisited until everyone responsible is long dead.
I'm still a beginner in this topic, so I have more questions than answers.
No, I'm not old enough to remember the case.
But my comment was not centered on that case, it only featured it as an example. The goal of the comment is to focus on the greater topic that is always avoided: the use and abuse of horror stories that feed on people's biases for catastrophic events, as a very clever method to cover the real story.
Another example: what if Fukushima was used as part of the cover story of the global banking meltdown? Is it really necessary to have actual radioactive decay in the Ocean to gain control over sea commerce and travel without people asking questions?
Are some tragedies merely a diversion based on the nocebo effect? Like the Sarin gas events in Tokyo subway of 1995?
Anyone who is that into what if should write science fiction.
With nuclear power, I choose the precautionary principle.
And my first response to anyone who says something is not dangerous, drink a glass of it. Maybe...secondary loop water. Do you know how a nuclear power plant works? Without looking it up, what is the control rod issue on the Mark IV?
If you only know that radioactive gases (or anything) are dangerous because you believe the words the scientists, then your knowledge is only based on belief, and your reasonings have a weak spot at their foundation.
Moreover, if you only believe that radioactive gases are dangerous because that idea satisfies your need for excitement, then your knowledge would have a worse foundation than the case of the person who just believes whatever official information he is given.
It's weird that you, of all people, operate from either of those two cases. I assume, and maybe I'm wrong, that you have actually verified that notion in some way. You've been doing research on that for decades, right? How about you give me a hint on how to verify that claim?
And how about you comment on my real question: the possibility of compounded psyops. The idea that they pile lies upon lies upon lies to confuse everyone and divide all researchers over nonsense, to cover the real reason why they create tragic events.
--
To your questions, I don't know about the control rod issue on the Mark IV.
My vague idea of how a nuclear power plant works is that they use electric generators that transform the kinetic energy of water vapor into electric current. The water vapor is formed in boilers with heat, which is produced supposedly by nuclear fission of nuclear "fuel." I have read that they start a self-sustaining fission reaction, but I don't know how they do that. And that the main problem of this technology is that the nuclear operators spend almost all their time trying to keep the reaction under control so that the whole thing doesn't blow up, but I don't know if that's true. Supposedly they have an emergency system to shut down the reaction.
But all that sounds like the plot of a comic book. It's weird that they created a technology as dangerous as that. It's easier to say that they exaggerate to create a mystery and the lay the foundation of fear, to mind control the masses and keep the prices at the right level.
This entire scheme violates Murphy's Law. Which is a semi-serious argument. The serious part is: how can such a dangerous way of producing great amounts of electricity have given use so very few accidents over so many decades? Humans cannot be that consistently careful. We should have seen many more tragic accidents in many countries. It makes no sense.
It's 2024. It's not that queer to say that they must have lied about something. Maybe the lie is as simple as this: the security of nuclear power plants depends mostly on automated processes that eliminate the human factor. Perhaps that could explain why we've suffered so few accidents. That's the simplest conjecture I can come up with. How do I prove it? I don't know. It's 2024 and it's very difficult to find any information about anything on the internet. Everything is political and as clear as mud.
How have we come to this, to have created the greatest research tool in all human history, and we have managed to make it as dull as an Armenian manuscript of the 12th.
Listen, you're not really understanding how these things are documented...by correct investigative reporting...and who gets the benefit of the doubt. I do not use the term or the concept "scientists."
Your essay above is a heap of speculation and no technical knowledge. I would suggest you not comment on nuclear power until you know something about its history, starting with the first atomic pile.
Dr. Stefan Lanka said it's every scientist's job to doubt every result & conclusion -- especially his favorites.
There is Science and there is Corporatized Science >> There is Antoine Béchamp and there is Louis Pasteur.
Science aims to be objective, right? And yet each of us is a multifaceted subjective being...I have to say that the subjectivity of this temporary life considerably outshines most illusions of objectivity...Objectivity appears to be simply nothing more than an agreement between 2 or more persons..."and the shotgun sings the song".
“The microbe is nothing, the environment is everything!”
( probably by Antoine Béchamp, 1816–1908 )
Antoine Béchamp and Louis Pasteur were bitter opponents. The latter relied on the pathogen, the former on the host as the main cause of the development of disease. It is not considered certain, but it is often rumoured that Pasteur is said to have proved his opponent right on his deathbed. If you look at today's discussion about the alleged "SARS-CoV 2" and "corona infections", the last hundred years of infectiology and immunology are reduced to absurdity. Have we learned nothing from the bitter debates in the 19th century?
I fear that the idea of radical constructivism could further complicate the distinction between science and nonsense and make people feel insecure ("everything is subjective"). But I suspect that a kind of self-doubt can be the first and very useful step towards scepticism. The most terrible thing that I have unfortunately only noticed since 2020 is people's unshakable belief that they are 150% right. Small particle physics has already shown that everything can be different than we thought. Suddenly things and connections were discovered for which we still have no terms and therefore have difficulty classifying.
The unshakable faith I saw since 2020 was mainly related to one's own intelligence and discernment, and also affected people who were well educated. How good that I was not of the "smart" and "knowing" ones. Before, I didn't really know the benefits of humility. Constructive disintegration / self-doubt does not always have to be pleasant. But maybe it is the condition / precursor to new and constructive self-integration? Of course, you can feel stupid from time to time. The fear of being stupid and being wrong would be such a prerequisite for being able to understand something new. Someone who is absolutely sure that they are smart will probably not know much about the "green area". I thought the article was very well done. It is certainly worth discussing how much, for example, the confusion between the two areas depends on who a person receives their salary from and what benefit they can derive from this great theoretical basis. I can already see how they will try to swap the coloured areas ( ha ha ha ! ). But seriously, swapping the two coloured areas can cost lives or health. That's why I find the article extremely useful. I would like to thank you very much for that.
Tim, I changed the sentence afterwards and I was very happy that the mistake went unnoticed. When I had finished correcting it, I saw your comment. My joy was premature. I was unlucky because my stupidity was discovered. I will now draw the consequences and resign from all my board positions. 😃
I have to tell you, Tim, why I wrote "pink" instead of "brown" before. As I was writing, I was thinking that EVERYTHING about the plandemic was made up and a lie. None of it was green. In this context, the colours could not have mixed to create brown. Still, it was a mistake on my part. I read your article very carefully.
That's true. Today, bird flu is treated in the same way. Finland is starting to make this fraud their official policy. I just wonder if this would be possible if your article was compulsory reading in every Finnish school? The legal ABC ( “Only you decide about your body. Anything else is a crime against humanity” / Nuremberg Codex ) is also missing from basic training.
At your beginning, the use of the word "story" to mean "made up, false, unreal, fantasy" is an unfortunate choice of wording, because we know that "stories" can be real or imagined. You clarified that distinction later on by contrasting Science & Fantasy. Starting with the word "story" as something unreal caused unnecessary cognitive dissonance that I had to fight, because obviously stories are fact, fiction, or mixed. A story about Dad's fishing trip may be completely true, partially true, or entirely fiction, so "story" should not be used to indicate something that's only false - At least, that's the way it appeared to me at the beginning of this Article. Other than the seemingly arbitrary common definition change at the Starting Line, I am with you!
The Creation stories generated much Pink “science” regarding the nature of our universe, for example mult-verses, string theory and eternal expansion/contraction models. There were all designed to refute the Big Bang theory which is now considered to be ‘verified science’(ie, True)
Delusion has been around since Eve bit the apple. Science perfected it. But in public life, in government and eventually in media, where it came to really matter the most, it was Edward Bernays who baked it and systematized it for the masses. He is called the father of Propaganda, which he transformed into Public Relations. He is most accurately labeled as the father of systemic propaganda in America, which was eventually headquartered on Madison Avenue in New York City. It was government that was furiously taking notes. In 1929 Bernays famously led the campaign to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist “torches of freedom”. There you have it.
Great article, and segue into WTC building #7. The historical data clearly shows there is not one example of a modern steel and concrete building collapsing due to fire in the world. Not one. And upon further examination many of these fires showed every floor fully engulfed in flames, of these only a small handful had a partial collapse or buckling. Whereas WTC #7 was hardly burning at the time of collapse. The failure of WTC #7 was significantly worse than WTC #6 which was between #7 and #1.
The collapse of WTC #7 is a story, not based on any known fact or experience.
We must keep in mind all chimneys are made of either concrete/brick or steel reinforced concrete/brick, they are designed to not fail due to fire.
Interesting, and so fo example: does the beliefs in Santa Clause and so forth or all the cartoons actually warp the reality of a child's perception throughout their lifetime? Because that would explain a lot.
Interesting, and I guess that depends on how long it takes the individual to recover from the trauma that comes from the disappointments of their own reality. Therefore exasperating escaping backwards to their comfortable fantasy worlds.🤔
Wow, your benign answer allowed me to actually answer my own question. Damn, you're good. Carry on.
Great article, and segue into WTC building #7. The historical data clearly shows there is not one example of a modern steel and concrete building collapsing due to fire in the world. Not one. And upon further examination many of these fires showed every floor fully engulfed in flames, of these only a small handful had a partial collapse or buckling. Whereas WTC #7 was hardly burning at the time of collapse. The failure of WTC #7 was significantly worse than WTC #6 which was between #7 and #1.
The collapse of WTC #7 is a story, not based on any known fact or experience.
We must keep in mind all chimneys are made of either concrete/brick or steel reinforced concrete/brick, they are designed to not fail due to fire.
Tim, the citadel of science is money. There is exceedingly little objective science "for the sake of knowledge and truth." The corporations that proffer poisons pay "science" to confuse the issues or cover them up. People who graduate with STEM degrees generally are going to get the highest paying job they can. A few will be librarians and illustrators, at the parts-per-million level.
The history of science, esp in the late 19th C. through present, is the history of scientific fraud. The success of this project is a testament to the power of sales figures and also the lack of any credulity in most of the public and mezzo-elite. It's more convenient to believe the BS as well.
Interesting.
Are radioactive gases dangerous? What's the truth and what's the BS?
Take the "Three Mile Island Accident" of 1979, for example.
One interpretation of the massive fraud of science during the last 140 years or so, is that the corporations will pay a lot of money to sociopathic sophists to confuse everything and everyone, forever, with the purpose of avoiding legal responsibility. In this view, a sentence like "the dangers of radioactive gases have been greatly exaggerated" would be a product of the mind of one such intellectual henchman.
But a different interpretation of the fraud of science is that the entire story of radioactive activity is false. Which opens the door to at least two possible scenarios: the nuclear accidents are a cover story for something else, perhaps a real danger that almost nobody knows about. And the second scenario: it's all fake, it was a psychological operation designed to create a generation of highly paranoid environmentalists who would lobby for bigger government, which would enable fascism on every aspect of life and impunity for corporations. (Incidentally, we are exactly here, but that is no proof that this scenario is the correct one, or that the premise is true)
In general, it's extremely disturbing for any believer to even begin to consider that his entire faith is wrong. And asking them to do that is usually felt as an insult (unless the believer is from NYC, because the NYC people take everything as an insult, so their feelings do not count)
The easy answer: everything is as screwed up as always, no need to revise any data.
The hard answer: actually, everything is more screwed up than we always thought it was, and we are too fucking old and weary to consider that facts and data may be complete hogwash. Younger generations will have to undo all our errors.
--
What kind of man rejects all the truths of his life when he is in his seventies or eighties? Who loves the pursuit of what is real so intensely to be willing to commit the great sin of killing his persona or his mask, which implies social and professional death, and then to simply continue living as a nameless skeptic monk?
I think it's too much to ask of mere more mortals to choose the path of hard skepticism.
Which means that most facts are ***potentially*** mere opinions that will not be revisited until everyone responsible is long dead.
How much work have you personally one on Three Mile island? Are you old enough to remember it?
I'm still a beginner in this topic, so I have more questions than answers.
No, I'm not old enough to remember the case.
But my comment was not centered on that case, it only featured it as an example. The goal of the comment is to focus on the greater topic that is always avoided: the use and abuse of horror stories that feed on people's biases for catastrophic events, as a very clever method to cover the real story.
Another example: what if Fukushima was used as part of the cover story of the global banking meltdown? Is it really necessary to have actual radioactive decay in the Ocean to gain control over sea commerce and travel without people asking questions?
Are some tragedies merely a diversion based on the nocebo effect? Like the Sarin gas events in Tokyo subway of 1995?
Anyone who is that into what if should write science fiction.
With nuclear power, I choose the precautionary principle.
And my first response to anyone who says something is not dangerous, drink a glass of it. Maybe...secondary loop water. Do you know how a nuclear power plant works? Without looking it up, what is the control rod issue on the Mark IV?
If you only know that radioactive gases (or anything) are dangerous because you believe the words the scientists, then your knowledge is only based on belief, and your reasonings have a weak spot at their foundation.
Moreover, if you only believe that radioactive gases are dangerous because that idea satisfies your need for excitement, then your knowledge would have a worse foundation than the case of the person who just believes whatever official information he is given.
It's weird that you, of all people, operate from either of those two cases. I assume, and maybe I'm wrong, that you have actually verified that notion in some way. You've been doing research on that for decades, right? How about you give me a hint on how to verify that claim?
And how about you comment on my real question: the possibility of compounded psyops. The idea that they pile lies upon lies upon lies to confuse everyone and divide all researchers over nonsense, to cover the real reason why they create tragic events.
--
To your questions, I don't know about the control rod issue on the Mark IV.
My vague idea of how a nuclear power plant works is that they use electric generators that transform the kinetic energy of water vapor into electric current. The water vapor is formed in boilers with heat, which is produced supposedly by nuclear fission of nuclear "fuel." I have read that they start a self-sustaining fission reaction, but I don't know how they do that. And that the main problem of this technology is that the nuclear operators spend almost all their time trying to keep the reaction under control so that the whole thing doesn't blow up, but I don't know if that's true. Supposedly they have an emergency system to shut down the reaction.
But all that sounds like the plot of a comic book. It's weird that they created a technology as dangerous as that. It's easier to say that they exaggerate to create a mystery and the lay the foundation of fear, to mind control the masses and keep the prices at the right level.
This entire scheme violates Murphy's Law. Which is a semi-serious argument. The serious part is: how can such a dangerous way of producing great amounts of electricity have given use so very few accidents over so many decades? Humans cannot be that consistently careful. We should have seen many more tragic accidents in many countries. It makes no sense.
It's 2024. It's not that queer to say that they must have lied about something. Maybe the lie is as simple as this: the security of nuclear power plants depends mostly on automated processes that eliminate the human factor. Perhaps that could explain why we've suffered so few accidents. That's the simplest conjecture I can come up with. How do I prove it? I don't know. It's 2024 and it's very difficult to find any information about anything on the internet. Everything is political and as clear as mud.
How have we come to this, to have created the greatest research tool in all human history, and we have managed to make it as dull as an Armenian manuscript of the 12th.
Listen, you're not really understanding how these things are documented...by correct investigative reporting...and who gets the benefit of the doubt. I do not use the term or the concept "scientists."
Your essay above is a heap of speculation and no technical knowledge. I would suggest you not comment on nuclear power until you know something about its history, starting with the first atomic pile.
That was an interesting and easy to read article.
Dr. Stefan Lanka said it's every scientist's job to doubt every result & conclusion -- especially his favorites.
There is Science and there is Corporatized Science >> There is Antoine Béchamp and there is Louis Pasteur.
Science aims to be objective, right? And yet each of us is a multifaceted subjective being...I have to say that the subjectivity of this temporary life considerably outshines most illusions of objectivity...Objectivity appears to be simply nothing more than an agreement between 2 or more persons..."and the shotgun sings the song".
I enjoyed what Liam Scheff said about science and how you can't really quote it like you're quoting a person. Here it is >> https://www.bitchute.com/video/G9z2qJr71dpa/
I have to disagree a bit. We can quote science as if it is a person. Just a very well read person!
One who knows all the green and all the pink
“The microbe is nothing, the environment is everything!”
( probably by Antoine Béchamp, 1816–1908 )
Antoine Béchamp and Louis Pasteur were bitter opponents. The latter relied on the pathogen, the former on the host as the main cause of the development of disease. It is not considered certain, but it is often rumoured that Pasteur is said to have proved his opponent right on his deathbed. If you look at today's discussion about the alleged "SARS-CoV 2" and "corona infections", the last hundred years of infectiology and immunology are reduced to absurdity. Have we learned nothing from the bitter debates in the 19th century?
I fear that the idea of radical constructivism could further complicate the distinction between science and nonsense and make people feel insecure ("everything is subjective"). But I suspect that a kind of self-doubt can be the first and very useful step towards scepticism. The most terrible thing that I have unfortunately only noticed since 2020 is people's unshakable belief that they are 150% right. Small particle physics has already shown that everything can be different than we thought. Suddenly things and connections were discovered for which we still have no terms and therefore have difficulty classifying.
The unshakable faith I saw since 2020 was mainly related to one's own intelligence and discernment, and also affected people who were well educated. How good that I was not of the "smart" and "knowing" ones. Before, I didn't really know the benefits of humility. Constructive disintegration / self-doubt does not always have to be pleasant. But maybe it is the condition / precursor to new and constructive self-integration? Of course, you can feel stupid from time to time. The fear of being stupid and being wrong would be such a prerequisite for being able to understand something new. Someone who is absolutely sure that they are smart will probably not know much about the "green area". I thought the article was very well done. It is certainly worth discussing how much, for example, the confusion between the two areas depends on who a person receives their salary from and what benefit they can derive from this great theoretical basis. I can already see how they will try to swap the coloured areas ( ha ha ha ! ). But seriously, swapping the two coloured areas can cost lives or health. That's why I find the article extremely useful. I would like to thank you very much for that.
Just to be clear, belief is brown not pink
Nothing wrong with pink
As long as it isn’t treated as green.
Tim, I changed the sentence afterwards and I was very happy that the mistake went unnoticed. When I had finished correcting it, I saw your comment. My joy was premature. I was unlucky because my stupidity was discovered. I will now draw the consequences and resign from all my board positions. 😃
I have to tell you, Tim, why I wrote "pink" instead of "brown" before. As I was writing, I was thinking that EVERYTHING about the plandemic was made up and a lie. None of it was green. In this context, the colours could not have mixed to create brown. Still, it was a mistake on my part. I read your article very carefully.
Yes. All was pink but treated as if on the green side! 😀
That's true. Today, bird flu is treated in the same way. Finland is starting to make this fraud their official policy. I just wonder if this would be possible if your article was compulsory reading in every Finnish school? The legal ABC ( “Only you decide about your body. Anything else is a crime against humanity” / Nuremberg Codex ) is also missing from basic training.
Great article... I think you'd love this video.
Pseudo-Events and the reality of 9/11
When looking into 9/11, these quotes and talking points tend to be very relevant.
Link: https://rumble.com/v4g64df-pseudo-events-and-the-reality-of-911.html
Very nice essays, simple construction, perfectly argued, relevant.
No superfluous, just what it takes, it’s an art that I greatly appreciate.
As my grandparents said, an as I repeat now, (pardon the accent, it is how I here it still)
'Say'n, don't make it so. '
We need the Pink stuff to make sense of the data…raw data can be too overwhelming for our brains. Look at this: https://open.substack.com/pub/jmadden/p/what-is-human-consciousness?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Pink stuff, Green stuff :both cool
But main thing is to adopt the two colour protocol rigorously and keep them separate
Thanks for this helpful Article!
At your beginning, the use of the word "story" to mean "made up, false, unreal, fantasy" is an unfortunate choice of wording, because we know that "stories" can be real or imagined. You clarified that distinction later on by contrasting Science & Fantasy. Starting with the word "story" as something unreal caused unnecessary cognitive dissonance that I had to fight, because obviously stories are fact, fiction, or mixed. A story about Dad's fishing trip may be completely true, partially true, or entirely fiction, so "story" should not be used to indicate something that's only false - At least, that's the way it appeared to me at the beginning of this Article. Other than the seemingly arbitrary common definition change at the Starting Line, I am with you!
Thanks again and
Best Regards,
Ev
A good point. I should stick to the Science Question language and say truth or just a story.
What of the untouchable creation stories upon which modern science is founded?
What indeed!
The Creation stories generated much Pink “science” regarding the nature of our universe, for example mult-verses, string theory and eternal expansion/contraction models. There were all designed to refute the Big Bang theory which is now considered to be ‘verified science’(ie, True)
Bravo!
Delusion has been around since Eve bit the apple. Science perfected it. But in public life, in government and eventually in media, where it came to really matter the most, it was Edward Bernays who baked it and systematized it for the masses. He is called the father of Propaganda, which he transformed into Public Relations. He is most accurately labeled as the father of systemic propaganda in America, which was eventually headquartered on Madison Avenue in New York City. It was government that was furiously taking notes. In 1929 Bernays famously led the campaign to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist “torches of freedom”. There you have it.
Step aside, Thomas Khun.
It's time for a new epistemology.
good show.
That is very generous ❤️
The idea that we live in an objective reality, green or pink?
Brilliant question. I have a whole lot of discussion of this. Another post though!
Great article, and segue into WTC building #7. The historical data clearly shows there is not one example of a modern steel and concrete building collapsing due to fire in the world. Not one. And upon further examination many of these fires showed every floor fully engulfed in flames, of these only a small handful had a partial collapse or buckling. Whereas WTC #7 was hardly burning at the time of collapse. The failure of WTC #7 was significantly worse than WTC #6 which was between #7 and #1.
The collapse of WTC #7 is a story, not based on any known fact or experience.
We must keep in mind all chimneys are made of either concrete/brick or steel reinforced concrete/brick, they are designed to not fail due to fire.
Interesting, and so fo example: does the beliefs in Santa Clause and so forth or all the cartoons actually warp the reality of a child's perception throughout their lifetime? Because that would explain a lot.
I don’t know about that. Perhaps it’s good to learn scepticism the hard way.
Interesting, and I guess that depends on how long it takes the individual to recover from the trauma that comes from the disappointments of their own reality. Therefore exasperating escaping backwards to their comfortable fantasy worlds.🤔
Wow, your benign answer allowed me to actually answer my own question. Damn, you're good. Carry on.
Great article, and segue into WTC building #7. The historical data clearly shows there is not one example of a modern steel and concrete building collapsing due to fire in the world. Not one. And upon further examination many of these fires showed every floor fully engulfed in flames, of these only a small handful had a partial collapse or buckling. Whereas WTC #7 was hardly burning at the time of collapse. The failure of WTC #7 was significantly worse than WTC #6 which was between #7 and #1.
The collapse of WTC #7 is a story, not based on any known fact or experience.
We must keep in mind all chimneys are made of either concrete/brick or steel reinforced concrete/brick, they are designed to not fail due to fire.
Science captures unwanted poison for human existence. When without delusion. With delusion it places it in for more sight of poisonous stories.