Slideshow image


Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


Why Fact-check? Why preserve a visual record?

The Website Written as a Book
Introduction
1: Science and Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
....2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapse Misrepresentations
....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports
....3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions
....3.7: Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records
Conclusions

WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

Official, Legal Attempts to Explain Collapses

Academic Attempts to Explain Collapses Reviewed

On the Limits of Science and Technology

WTC Video Record

WTC Photographic Record
WTC1 Attack to Collapse
WTC2 Attack to Collapse
WTC 7
.
-----PHOTO RECORD OF FIRE PROGRESSION-----
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face
.
----DEBRIS LAYOUT AND CONDITION, BY REGION-----
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
The 911Dataset Project

WTC Structural Information

Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me



Online Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses

Forum, Blog Representations of the WTC Collapses

The Book Tested Through Experiments

Miscellaneous Notes, Resources
FAQ for Miscellaneous Notes
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
The 911Dataset Project
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
First and Largest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Key Words in Book and Website
Trapped Within a Narrowed False Choice
Vulnerability and Requestioning
On Memes and Memetics
Obedience, Conformity and Mental Structure
Denial, Avoidance (Taboo) and Mental Structure
Taboos Against Reviewing the Collapse Events
Extreme Situations and Mental Structure
Suggestibility, Hypnosis and Mental Structure
Awareness and Behavior
Magical, Religious, Scientific Cause-Effect Relations
The Extreme Limits of Mental Dysfunction
Orwell's "Crimestop", "Doublethink", "Blackwhite"
William James, Max Born: Science as Philosophy
Plato on Self Reflection and Mental Structure
Rewriting History, part 1
Rewriting History, part 2
On Smart Idiots

New Ideas in Education

Vulnerability

Vulnerability




Forks in the road: Keeping records of pivotal historic events

It is our moral duty to record history correctly for those who come after us as they must live the consequences. This is especially true of key moments during pivotal historic events. These moments serve as critical forks in the road that can define whole generations.




The attacks of 9/11/01 is one of these key moments. At these critical junctures it is most vital to record history accurately and in detail. Just like us, it is natural that those who come after us will have key questions about where they have come from, how they arrived where they are and why it happened the way it did. Inter-generational requestioning is natural, healthy and expected. Those who follow us will most probably question some of our priorities and values. The events of 9/11/01 do not only belong to us but to all those who are down wind of the consequences.

Those who come after us do not have the luxury of being able to record the events directly and preserve a historic record. They are helplessly dependent on what they receive from us. To the degree accurate preservation of critical forks in the historic road are neglected, people forced to walk that road later will not have access to their own history.












The tendency to embellish ones history is deeply engrained

Recall what Thomas Kuhn says about how many trained scientists come to view their discipline's history:

"Textbooks thus begin by truncating the scientist’s sense of his discipline’s history and then proceed to supply a substitute for what they have eliminated. Characteristically, textbooks of science contain just a bit of history, either in an introductory chapter or, more often, in scattered references to the great heroes of an earlier age. From such references both students and professionals come to feel like participants in a long-standing historical tradition. Yet the textbook-derived tradition in which scientists come to sense their participation is one that, in fact, never existed."



Participants in the highest tiers of the technical hierarchy, both students and professionals, come to assume a level of continuity and perfection in their trades that, in fact, does not exist. The illusions of consistency and continuity described by Kuhn are the same illusions seen in the reproduced comments by John A and Chris Mohr at this link. Both commenters write about science but have no ability to read the reports or articles. They do not see science as something in which individuals have to fact-check claims directly and provide verifiable proof. To them, it is assumed that the technical hierarchy has already done the fact-checking for them. There is no reason to recheck claims directly since the technical hierarchy has an internal continuity and professionalism that makes independent and direct fact-checking unnecessary.

Such a viewpoint sees the surface of the red tier but not the substance. They do not engage claims with active fact-checking of their own.






Kuhn continues:

"Scientists are not, of course, the only group that tends to see its discipline’s past developing linearly toward its present vantage. The temptation to write history backward is both omnipresent and perennial. But scientists are more affected by the temptation to rewrite history, partly because the results of scientific research show no obvious dependence upon the historical context of the inquiry, and partly because, except during crisis and revolution, the scientist’s contemporary position seems so secure. More historical detail, whether of science’s present or of its past, or more responsibility to the historical details that are presented, could only give artificial status to human idiosyncrasy, error, and confusion."


Kuhn's description is highly applicable to the present case. More responsibility to the historic details that are presented about the WTC collapses demonstrate beyond doubt that the current form of history as it is presented is an embellishment of the facts. In the case of 9/11/01, the historical context of the inquiry into the causes of the WTC collapses is essential to understand. These events, lasting a duration of only 3 hours on one particular day, serve as a pivitol historic event which will define the priorities and educational experiences of whole generations. It is our moral duty to record them as accurately as possible without inserting our own idiosyncrasy, error, confusion, and false certainties.


Kuhn:

"For reasons that are both obvious and highly functional, science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer only to that part of the work of past scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the statement and solution of the texts’ paradigm problems. Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific. No wonder that textbooks and the historical tradition they imply have to be rewritten after each scientific revolution. And no wonder that, as they are rewritten, science once again comes to seem largely cumulative."


Through this means the illusion of the validity of consensus is established, as if participants are part of a large club with experts (father figures) that are pretty much always right. The resulting belief system is described quite perfectly by both John A and Chris Mohr, though both people are unaware they are expressing personal beliefs. They think they are describing what they believe should be obvious to every educated, civilized individual.




Kuhn continues;

"The depreciation of historical fact is deeply, and probably functionally, ingrained in the ideology of the scientific profession, the same profession that places the highest of all values upon factual details of other sorts. Whitehead caught the unhistorical spirit of the scientific community when he wrote, “A science that hesitates to forget its founders is lost.” Yet he was not quite right, for the sciences, like other professional enterprises, do need their heroes and do preserve their names. Fortunately, instead of forgetting these heroes, scientists have been able to forget or revise their works."


-pg 138


In the case of the WTC collapses, the irony is that this profession did not even place high priority on factual details.

This is essentially what the material in my book demonstrates. The NIST reports are projected as being more accurate and conclusive than they really are. Their gross mistakes and omissions are being glossed over and large numbers of people hand-wave these glaring inconsistencies over as good enough.

In short, their own vulnerabilities, uncertainties, and lack of awareness are hidden from the view of those who have no capacity to look beyond the surface.




The example of WTC1

WTC1 serves as a prime example of overall lack of awareness. When the collapse descriptions given by the NIST in section 3.1 are compared to behavior extracted directly from the visual record and presented in section 2.3, it is stunning how far off the mark NIST was.

In the case of the WTC collapses there certainly is some embellishing going on.

The question is not if such embellishing exists, but how much of the underlying embellishing was done intentionally? How much of it is done by people who are simply not aware they are doing it?

WTC1 is a study of human gullibility throughout the highest levels of the technical hierarchy.
















The chief vulnerability lies within our mental spaces and attitudes, not along our physical frontiers

Much was said about how U.S. national airspace was left vulnerable on the morning of 9/11/01. The ultimate vulnerability, however, appears to be within the minds of many citizens, journalists and people at all levels of the technical hierarchy. It is our mental defenses that have been breached, and we remain as vulnerable today to believing in and embracing false information as during the attacks (maybe more so).

This is much more than a temporary, one-time vulnerability of physical airspace. It is an abiding vulnerability within our technical institutions and our collective awareness which is the most crucial weakness in the national defence. The collective awareness still remains as vulnerable as ever. Many people remain largely unaware such mental vulnerability exists or has ever existed.

Government reports, ASCE publications and forum records reveal that people and institutions at all levels of the technical hierarchy never understood enough to formulate questions correctly and competently, let alone gave concrete answers to that which they have claimed to understand. Journalists, too, have stated claims with certainty while, at the same time, their comments reveal to a careful observer that they never even understood the questions.

The inability to formulate questions correctly was a key vulnerability that assured answers would and could not be found.


Without the visual record and mappings to which to fact-check claims, reports and publications will all looks so impressive, so self-certain. Well, few people can look through the lens of accurate mappings so, to them, all these reports must look quite impressive, mutually confirming each other.

But with records of events to which to compare claims, the papers and reports are found to be quite weak and the authors reveal themselves as highly vulnerable. The authorities that assured the world so confidently that no demolitions occurred are seen to have no real grasp on these issues. Upon closer inspection they are found to not even know how to formulate proper questions. Such authority is found to be highly vulnerable themselves, quite unaware that they are unaware. They were making claims that they couldn't possible know for sure.



The 9/11 events cannot be stuffed into the type of shoebox in which many engineers have been trained and practice their profession.


Engineers, journalists, and those educated in the social sciences are not prepared to approach a highly complex technical issue well outside of their range of ordinary experiences and training. Yet many of them will not be modest enough to admit that. This is why so few feel the need to understand the subject matter through direct observation and verification of claims.

Ironically, it is ones overconfidence in ones own expertise and education (which doesn't mean *bleep* in this particular case) that leaves one vulnerable, careless, and....gullible.

Why look directly if the answer is already known (in ones gut)? Instead one looks to the group for answers. Why verify if you believe others have verified for you? Again, group. If you firmly believe in and are quite impressed with the system in which you were educated, then consensus within that system is most probably good enough for you. No need to check facts through individual effort for a person thus minded.











Facing the ultimate horror: Collapse and surrender of ones mental defenses


There is a natural tendency to turn ones head away from something that is highly disturbing.

The viciousness of the attacks is disturbing. The reactions to the attacks, one which propelled us into a prolonged series of wars, is also quite disturbing. But the possibility that so many people can be intentionally manipulated into participating and supporting such reactions with so little internal resistance? That, to me, is the most disturbing possibility of all. It is frightening to consider that large societies can be collectively fooled to such a degree that people unwittingly join something they would otherwise abhor. Moreover, they do so all the while thinking what they are performing something noble and good, while they were actually participating in something which, if they were aware of it, they would find abhorrent.

An artificially staged attack is a horrible possibility, but much more horrible is that such an act could be met with so little mental resistance in the form of critical thought. The collapse of our mental defenses are the greatest vulnerability we face as individuals or as groups.


When all these factors are combined a highly disturbing picture of our own condition emerges, one that is critical to bring to the attention of those who live in our wake. All the components that could lead to the ultimate horror are present in these events. While all these components exist for us, those who follow have it worse since they are not even given the means necessary to fact-check our conduct and claims.

All the components of disaster are already present.



    A pivotal historic event

    The depreciation of historical fact is deeply ingrained in the ideology of the scientific profession.

    The history of the actual collapses has literally disappeared from the public record.

    We are in the process of writing history backwards.

    Mental vulnerabilities are not addressed or noticed, thus assuring they continue unabated into the future.

    Revisiting these questions is strongly avoided

    A balance of control over information has been created that clearly favors continued self-delusion.

    And the surrogate history is established and set to be forcefully thrust at those who follow us.


This is all knowable and verifiable. so the question is, once again, why are we embellishing the history of the collapse events? Is it through collective unawareness or is it intentional?












Treating accurate mappings as a foreign body, as something to be avoided.





Like the walls of a cell or the outer surface of a cell cluster, the mind has its own way of protecting itself from unhealthy and untrue information called "critical thought", or "science" (in the way Feynman used the term). Our collective mental immune system has broken down.

It hasn't only broken down, the immune system has been "retrained" to treat accurate representations of the collapses as a foreign body that is perceived as a threat. This dysfunctional immune system treats accuracy as a type of threat if it comes to close too calling deep-seated beliefs into question. Our mental immune systems come to be the opposite of the priorities expressed by Bertrand Russell:





Collectively, up through the highest tiers of the technical hierarchy, we are no longer able to defend ourselves against false claims. We are no longer able to distinguish true from false.

Recall how a contributor to the Cockburn articles on the truth movement called 9/11/01 the "death of any conception of reason". A more accurate way to describe it, one which addresses the root cause of observed vulnerabilities, is that the events signify "the death of awareness". And the person being quoted serves as a perfect example. He is unaware of how much his statement could be applied to his own beliefs. He is unaware of the degree he is unaware.


The Kubler Ross research can be expanded to a more general case of those who receive a significantly strong shock to their underlying systems of beliefs. Their world is profoundly shaken and it requires time and effort to readjust.

Judging by reactions to the events of 9/11/01, in this case widespread denial mixed with misplaced anger seem to be fixed features. These views are exemplified in the comments by Chris Mohr and John A. They both have a fatherly views of the uppermost tiers of the technical hierarchy. They are both unable to perceive the most accurate mappings available anywhere.

Occasional acts of bargaining can be witnessed. There are some people that can admit mistakes have been made within the red tiers, but the degree to which the buildings are misrepresented is then brushed aside and not perceived. Mistakes within articles and reports are hand-waved away as being over "mere details". To what degree they are mere details is rarely if ever explained.

I consider this as similar to the Kubler Ross stage 3 reactions called "bargaining" or compromising. There is an admission of mistakes, but those mistakes are automatically believed to be small in number and significance. Some people are able to admit mistakes have been made, but admit so in a way which does not threaten their underlying world view.


In this sense portions of society seem to be trapped within an ever-present transition between early stages of facing unpleasant news.


Denial
Anger
Bargaining


In the case of the Kubler-Ross studies, the patients being studied had little choice but to eventually admit the severity of their condition. They were terminally ill patients and their physical bodies were progressively shutting down before their eyes, so prolonged denial, anger and bargaining was rarely if ever maintained to their final death. In this case, however, these states can be maintained indefinitely. There is no fact-checking process which cannot be ignored indefinitely. In fact, that is most probably what will happen.



The inability to fortify ones mental defenses in the form of critical thought is what leaves individuals and societies so vulnerable to the risk of embracing false claims.

Joseph Stiglitz, "Research in economics and psychology helps us understand why we do such a bad job in managing these risks. We have little empirical basis for judging rare events, so it is difficult to arrive at good estimates. In such circumstances, more than wishful thinking can come into play: we might have few incentives to think hard at all. On the contrary, when others bear the costs of mistakes, the incentives favour self-delusion."

In the case of the WTC collapses there was basically no empirical evidence by which to judge what was being witnessed.





Stubbornness and inflexibility is a common feature that runs through most all discussion related to the WTC collapses.

It is not difficult to see why so many people treat observations and measurements as some sort of hostile enemy. It is because they are consciously or unconsciously clinging to something.

It is also not difficult to see what various people are clinging to.


One must be flexible enough to conform ones concepts and beliefs to the most accurate observations and measurements available. Even though this is obvious, it is quite rare to see it happen with respect to the topic of the WTC collapses.




In order to record history accurately for those forced down a long path due to the pivotal events of 9/11/01, it is necessary to record what happened as accurately as possible without denial, anger or compromise.






Dorothy and the Ruby Slippers





In the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy was trapped in a land in which she did not want to remain. She managed to return to the safety and comfort of home by clicking the heels of her magic slippers and deeply believing that...



"There is no place like home.....There is no place like home....."




This wish is understandable. She found herself in a strange place and just wanted to get the heck out of there, back to a world she understood. The farm in Kansas was not an easy place to be, but at least she fit in and understood the rules.






Re-examining the collapse processes, the collapse histories as they are recorded, and the horrifying possibilities underneath vulnerabilities is not a comfortable thing to do at this late date. The act of questioning on this level is inherently unpleasant. It is not a type of questioning one would wish young children to experience. Such requestioning would shatter many of the beliefs on which childhood innocence is based.

There are very good reasons why a person would instinctively avoid being aware of contradictory information like that which is contained in my "book" at this late date. It is not merely neutral technical information anymore. It is something that challenges ones world view on a fundamental level. It challenges core assumptions about our own vulnerability to believing in false technical information at the highest tiers of the technical hierarchy with potentially horrifying consequences.

That is a lot to chew on.





If the information within the "book" is understood, you cannot go back to Kansas anymore

Investigations into the 9/11/01 attacks and WTC collapses brought about a strange situation in which many people were dependent upon the technical hierarchy to make major moral decisions. Non-technical intellectuals, journalists, average citizens, historians, psychologists, and soldiers were all completely dependent upon the technical hierarchy in order to make major moral decisions which lie at the core of their own systems of beliefs.

My guess is that many people cannot "see" or "perceive" the information in the "book" because it is too challenging to fundamental assumptions within the subconscious mind.

To perceive the information means one can no longer pretend it does not exist. This is a core threat to both conventional truther and debunker beliefs. It is a core threat to someone who believes in either "republican" or "democrat". It is a threat to those who believe that somewhere up the hierarchy there are people who are less gullible and who can "take care of us".


If the information in the book is correct, then according to the Nurenburg Charter there is a possibility our societies are participating in "the ultimate crime", the "ultimate horror" without even being aware of it. Some of us have even been cheerleaders in the events.

Understandably, people need certainty and closure with respect to the 9/11/01 attacks. The implications behind lacking such certainty can be too horrifying to fathom. Unfortunately, that is the actual situation and is the direct and inevitable result of treating the WTC collapses as mere "business as usual" and accepting any half-ass conclusions as "good enough".


Friends, it doesn't matter how many times you click your heels and believe there is "no place like home", there is no more Kansas to go back to. This is why it is so important to keep accurate records of pivotal historic events. Without them you have nothing more than your own deep-seated subconscious beliefs to guide you.




Honesty

In descriptions of the scientific method there is rarely if ever a mention of 2 essential qualities of a good, well-rounded thinker: courage and honesty.


The large majority of studies of physical systems do not require courage and honestly, but they do not tend to study events defining forks in the road like this:




The path to the left, according to the Nurenburg Charter, 'is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes is that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'

The path to the right is a intergenerational "war on terror", began through a defensive counter-attack, but quickly spinning out of control of the original purpose.


And admitting that you really do not know with the information given and calling ones faith what it is takes a lot of courage considering the nature of the crossroads.




If more people presented information with honesty most of what written about the collapses wouldn't even exist. The NIST would simply admit to mistakes and work toward correcting them. Bazant wouldn't have published yet another paper (in 2011) and would admit to what many of us already know. ASCE would promote further study of the actual buildings instead of propagating defenses of their previous misrepresentations. AE911T and STJ911 couldn't possibly exist in their current forms.

In other words, all these people would drop the plastic act of certainty and authority which propagates the deception and maybe, just maybe, the resulting confusion will make us a little more honest and open, more careful with our history and the fate of others. More intelligent.


It is the plastic act of false certainty that keeps this ship sailing. In this particular case it is the apathy and lack of awareness of those with positions within the technical hierarchy that allowed the records of the collapse events be distributed in their current deceptive forms. Without that "professional" contribution nothing we are looking at would exist. The ship of illusion would surely sink. Even today, the original papers and reports will still be defended with the same condescending attitudes and false convictions. To admit to mistakes now would expose many groups and individuals to being....human and vulnerable.









With the information now available it is knowable that the research available to the public concerning the WTC collapses is largely incorrect and highly deceptive. There was very little courage or honesty when presenting work to the public. It was largely presented within the cloak of authority, with very few members of the higher tiers of the technical hierarchy able to admit flaws in their own research.

The collapse of WTC1 serves as the perfect paradigm of what that consensus actually was: lack of awareness, groupthink and cowardess. It is beyond doubt that the collapse of WTC1 was presented incorrectly to the public, yet it was done with the backing of consensus of the uppermost tiers of the technical hierarchy. Flawed research was presented as incontrovertible fact, backed by the Americal Society of Civil Engineers and the NIST.

Now there are too many accumulated moral horrors for them to admit to flawed research. These are horrors in which our own children and grandchildren are destined to be indocrinated.






What is Science?

Various descriptions are given in part 1 of my "book", but the more conventional descriptions are wholly inadequate when watching how science is practiced in atmospheres of uncontrolled power, greed, and large quantities of money.


There are rare exceptions, but a scientist can be thought of as a type of wax figure. For sculpting and modeling wax is an excellent material. There is no other material (with the exception of clay) that can capture intricate detail in physical features quite like wax.


But what happens when wax is set next to a heat source? It melts.



The stronger the heat source, the faster the wax melts. The sciences are like this. They can map wonders as long as those wonders do not conflict with the interests of power and money.


Once again, the case of Galileo is a prime example from our own collective history. When his science didn't conflict with the interests of power it was accepted and he was considered a genius. But when it conflicted with the interests of power, it was attacked and he was forced to recant or be ostricized.

He chose to recant under pressure and the sun went back to rotating around the earth.




In this respect not much has changed since then. This is why scientists can map the universe but cannot map a couple of buildings. Genomes can be mapped but these buildings still cannot be "perceived". We have mechanisms for highly complex processes yet the mechanisms through which the WTC towers originally failed remains as mysterious as the fate of consciousness after death.


Scientific knowledge, widely considered the most crowning achievement of western civilization, melts when approaching these buildings. Reason, ones last line of defense to distinguish between true and false, turns to putty.




Watching science melt near a heat source


In the case of the 9/11/01 attacks and the WTC collapses, the melting of science can be seen by watching 3 interacting elements.

First is the top of the technical hierarchy, the NIST reports and ASCE literature and all published literature from professional and academic sources on the subject of the WTC collapses.

One would think this group would be most resistant to believing in false technical information. But when the literature and reports are compared directly with the visual record and mappings, it is found they really didn't resist such beliefs with much critical thought.






Second is what is considered the conventional truth movement

One of many examples can be taken to be a new conference on the subject described at this link:






INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on “9/11 REVISITED " SEEKING THE TRUTH”

Date: 19 November 2012 (Monday)

Time: 9am " 5pm

Venue: Dewan Tun Dr. Ismail, Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur

Keynote Address by

YABhg Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
Fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia & President of Perdana Global Peace Foundation
Session 1 " What Really Happened on 9/11?

Chairman
General Tan Sri Azumi Mohamed (Rtd.)
Trustee PGPF

Ms Cynthia Mckinney
Former US Congresswoman / Commissioner in the Citizens’ Commission on 9/11

Mr James Corbett
Journalist & Film Producer

Mr. Richard Gage
Founder of Architects & Engineer for 9/11 Truth
Session 2 " Fear Factor

Chairman
Tan Sri Hasmy Agam
Chairman SUHAKAM

Prof. Michel Chossudovksy
Professor of Economic, University of Ottawa

Prof. Graeme Macqueen
Author & Organiser of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings

Prof. Niloufer Bhagwat
Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at University of Mumbai, India
Session 3 " Post 9/11: Global Consequences

Chairman
Datuk Dr Mohd Ghazali b Hj Datuk Mohd Noor
Protem Chairman, Islamic Development Bank Alumni of Malaysia / Senior Adjunct, Tindakan Strategi Sdn. Bhd.

Prof. Dr. Hans Kochler
University of Innsbruck Austria

Mr. Guiletto Chiesa
Former Member of EU Parliament / Italian Politician

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar
President of International Movement for a Just World
Session 3 " 9/11 and War Crimes A Panel Discussion & Recommendation

Chairman
Prof. Gurdial Singh Nijar
Faculty of Law University Malaya
Closing Session

Tan Sri Norian Mai
Chairman
Perdana Global Peace Foundation



From experience the reader should already know there will be no concept of accurate collapse mechanics, no concept of a ROOSD-type mass flow, or any accurate mappings of the collapse initiation processes presented at this event. If the information presented in my "book" happened to make its way into the conference, it would be treated as a threat, like a foreign body that needs to be attacked or ignored.





When these classes are considered together, it is clear that the problem of misrepresentations of the collapses is much larger than any single group. In other words, no group can be used as a scapegoat for the mistakes of the other. There is no point in blaming truthers alone, since the NIST and participating members of the scientific and engineering communities are misrepresenting the collapses also. In a humorous way it can be said they are both "in on it". Do I mean that everyone involved is consciously part of some evil, sinister scheme? No. Both groups seem falsely certain they are in possession of the truth and will actively resist information to the contrary. Both groups seem very unaware of how unaware they are. There may be and probably are participants from both sides that are consciously lying, but I think it is safe to say there is no evil plan that tens of thousands of people are intentionally "in on".

The fact is that both sides are found to be extremely vulnerable to believing in and promoting false technical information. Neither group seems capable of "perceiving" the collapsing buildings through accurate observations and measurements. Each group seems to believe in their own revered authorities without the capacity for independent critical thought.

Moreover, each group can be expected to actively resist fact-checking their own beliefs using information provided by someone outside of their group.








And the third element? Well, that would be you and me. Us. Observing our own reactions is as interesting as observing the reactions of the first two groups. Common collected views can be seen through the forum logs over the last few years. We can be considered as a small sample of the many people caught in the middle of the first two classes.

Looking over forum records from 2006 to 2012 one can see quite conclusively that most every forum tends to embrace either the NIST and ASCE belief system or the conventional truther belief system with very little capacity for independent critical thought. Posters generally buy into either the first group or the second and tend to believe pretty much everything that group claims with little or no resistance. Posters largely fall neatly into an either-or false dichotomy.

There are some cases of individuals capable of following independent lines of research but these individuals are pretty rare and all their efforts can hardly make a dent in the either-or mindset established by the first two groups. These individuals are drowned out in an ocean of conformist thought.

They are "not invited to the party", so to speak, and wherever they present their research and independent views they are generally encouraged to leave. Both sides tend to see them as "infiltrators" representing the opposing group.




Intergenerational War

An article worth reading and understanding.

Glenn Greenwald: Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent

Senior Obama officials tell the US Senate: the 'war', in limitless form, will continue for 'at least' another decade - or two

Linked here


I am not surprised and I predicted this war is intergenerational. There are so many good quotes from the article that I cannot reproduce them all.


The military historian Andrew Bacevich has spent years warning that US policy planners have adopted an explicit doctrine of "endless war". Obama officials, despite repeatedly boasting that they have delivered permanently crippling blows to al-Qaida, are now, as clearly as the English language permits, openly declaring this to be so.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war - justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism - that is the single greatest cause of that threat.



In January, former Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson delivered a highly-touted speech suggesting that the war on terror will eventually end; he advocated that outcome, arguing:

" 'War' must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. We must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the 'new normal.'"



In response, I wrote that the "war on terror" cannot and will not end on its own for two reasons: (1) it is designed by its very terms to be permanent, incapable of ending, since the war itself ironically ensures that there will never come a time when people stop wanting to bring violence back to the US (the operational definition of "terrorism"), and (2) the nation's most powerful political and economic factions reap a bonanza of benefits from its continuation. Whatever else is true, it is now beyond doubt that ending this war is the last thing on the mind of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner and those who work at the highest levels of his administration. Is there any way they can make that clearer beyond declaring that it will continue for "at least" another 10-20 years?




And then there's the most intangible yet most significant cost: each year of endless war that passes further normalizes the endless rights erosions justified in its name. The second term of the Bush administration and first five years of the Obama presidency have been devoted to codifying and institutionalizing the vast and unchecked powers that are typically vested in leaders in the name of war. Those powers of secrecy, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and due-process-free assassination are not going anywhere. They are now permanent fixtures not only in the US political system but, worse, in American political culture.





Each year that passes, millions of young Americans come of age having spent their entire lives, literally, with these powers and this climate fixed in place: to them, there is nothing radical or aberrational about any of it. The post-9/11 era is all they have been trained to know. That is how a state of permanent war not only devastates its foreign targets but also degrades the population of the nation that prosecutes it.
This war will end only once Americans realize the vast and multi-faceted costs they are bearing so that the nation's political elites can be empowered and its oligarchs can further prosper. But Washington clearly has no fear that such realizations are imminent. They are moving in the other direction: aggressively planning how to further entrench and expand this war.



Former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith, who testified at the hearing, summarized what was said after it was over: Obama officials argued that "they had domestic authority to use force in Mali, Syria, Libya, and Congo, against Islamist terrorist threats there"; that "they were actively considering emerging threats and stated that it was possible they would need to return to Congress for new authorities against those threats but did not at present need new authorities"; that "the conflict authorized by the AUMF was not nearly over"; and that "several members of the Committee were surprised by the breadth of DOD's interpretation of the AUMF." Conveying the dark irony of America's war machine, seemingly lifted right out of the Cold War era film Dr. Strangelove, Goldsmith added:

"Amazingly, there is a very large question even in the Armed Services Committee about who the United States is at war against and where, and how those determinations are made."

Nobody really even knows with whom the US is at war, or where. Everyone just knows that it is vital that it continue in unlimited form indefinitely.




In response to that, the only real movement in Congress is to think about how to enact a new law to expand the authorization even further. But it's a worthless and illusory debate, affecting nothing other than the pretexts and symbols used to justify what will, in all cases, be a permanent and limitless war. The Washington AUMF debate is about nothing other than whether more fig leafs are needed to make it all pretty and legal.

The Obama administration already claims the power to wage endless and boundless war, in virtually total secrecy, and without a single meaningful check or constraint. No institution with any power disputes this. To the contrary, the only ones which exert real influence - Congress, the courts, the establishment media, the plutocratic class - clearly favor its continuation and only think about how further to enable it.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


All of this was triggered by a single set of events on a single day. Entire generations will come of age knowing nothing else than a single event, on a particular day, triggered a seemingly endless series of wars against an enemy defined so vaguely that it cannot be identified.


One has to have a turnip for a brain to not see that many in these generations will have questions and harbor suspicions about that single event and want to know more. (And what awaits them in their search? Yipes!) Many will react to the void of verifiable information in different ways.

Many will turn to a technical establishment for answers, for verification. The history of the response of that technical establishment is already written and cannot be changed anymore.

In truth, those representatives of the establishment cannot even draw a *bleep*ing picture of the collapse initiation processes or the progression modes that triggered all this.


Not even a crayon drawing.





"9/11 Changed Everything"

Please consider the commonly used phrase "9/11 changed everything".


This phrase is now a well-known part of our common cultures. Therefore there is no doubt that 9/11 was a pivotal historic event within our lifetimes and the lifetimes of at least the generations immediately following our own.

Yet 9/11 was an event that lasted only a single day (only a few hours, actually).


Within the phrase "9/11 changed everything", just what is really meant by "everything" will come out more and more, little by little, and the large bulk of it will be of a negative nature.

These negative changes will be perceived even by people who don't tend to perceive much at all, and each of these negative revelations will be stamped with an association with "9/11".

As myriad long lasting negative effects triggered by 9/11 and associated with it become more and more apparent, it is only natural that many, many people will question the true nature of the trigger events themselves, just as so many people already have questioned it.

Considering that a short set of trigger events can produce a new era with long lasting large scale negative consequences, of course such an event will be questioned, also on a large scale. Very few of those questiong will be able to formulate their suspicions as technical arguments, but they will question all the same.


As for those very few who are capable of testing their own beliefs and suspicions through their own efforts, no matter what those beliefs are, some of the more careful observers already know what obstacles are waiting for them.









Returning to the Source, Re-examining the Root


From this article in the Guardian:


When Darrell Anderson, 22, joined the US military he knew there was going to be a war, and he wanted to fight it. "I thought I was going to free Iraqi people," he told me. "I thought I was going to do a good thing."

Until, that is, he realised precisely what he had to do. While on patrol in Baghdad, he thought: "What are we doing here? Are we looking for weapons of mass destruction? No. Are we helping the people? No, they hate us. What are we working towards, apart from just staying alive? If this was my neighbourhood and foreign soldiers were doing this then what would I be doing?" Within a few months, he says, "I was cocking my weapon at innocent civilians without any sympathy or humanity". While home on leave he realised he was not going to be able to lead a normal life if he went back. His mum drove him to Canada, where I met him in 2006 at a picnic for war resisters in Fort Erie.

Anderson's trajectory, from uncritical patriotism to conscious disaffection and finally to conscientious dissent, is a familiar one among a generation of Americans who came of political age after 9/11. Over time, efforts to balance the myth of American freedom on which they were raised, with the reality of American power that they have been called on to monitor or operate, causes a profound dislocation in their world view. Like a meat eater in an abattoir, they are forced to confront the brutality of the world they are implicated in and recoil at their role in it " occasionally in dramatic fashion.



From naivete, through dehumanization, to requestioning.

This cycle has been going on for millenia. This cycle is not new and is quite natural.


The perpetual war and accompanying "anti-terror" security structure after 9/11 is all this generation has ever known. And it has had a profound impact on shaping their views on US foreign policy.



As people see more details of the fruit of the tree, and see the branches and leaves in a more and more negative light, is it not natural that some of them will also return to requestion the root, the trigger event that is used repeatedly as that which justifies the rest?

Independent, fact-based requestioning of root sources is healthy and is fundamental in both science and skepticism. This, too, has been going on for millenia.


It is from this generation that the most recent prominent whistleblowers have emerged: Edward Snowden, 29, the former National Security Agency contractor, now on the run after passing evidence of mass snooping to the Guardian; Bradley Manning, who at 22 gave classified diplomatic and military information to WikiLeaks and now faces a court martial; the late Aaron Swartz, who by 24 was a veteran hacker when he was arrested for illegally downloading academic articles from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and later took his own life; and Jeremy Hammond, 28, who is facing federal criminal charges for allegedly publicising the internal files of a private spying agency.




Yet, while each acted separately from the other, their unrepentant justifications read as though they were unconsciously working in concert. "I believe people have a right to know what governments and corporations are doing behind closed doors," wrote Hammond.

"We need to take information," wrote Swartz. "Wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world."

"This is the truth. This is what is happening," said Snowden. "You should decide whether we need to be doing this."

Manning said: "I want people to see the truth, because without information you cannot make informed decisions as a public."

They seek to liberate not land or people, but information.



Without accurate information one doesn't have a prayer of having an informed, fact-based opinion of the trigger event of the post 9/11 era.





This is a statement by Bradley Manning given just after his prison sentence was given, as read by his lawyer:

The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.

I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized in our efforts to meet this risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown our any logically based intentions [unclear], it is usually an American soldier that is ordered to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy"the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, the Japanese-American internment camps"to name a few. I am confident that many of our actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, "There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."

I understand that my actions violated the law, and I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.



The quote is reproduced because it expresses how many people see 9/11 as a key, pivotal historic event which triggered negative changes throughout our cultures. Nothing he states is unique, and much of it is commonly shared with many other people.


We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.


People commonly see the "post 9/11 world" as one in which "methods were altered". This is often stated as "9/11 changed everything", a view shared openly and hardly controversial. This change is often understood as a negative one.



He lists a few of the more visible negative changes:


It was at this time I realized in our efforts to meet this risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity.


In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture.


We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.


Once again he notes 9/11 as a key pivotal event triggering long term negative consequences. This is not a controversial statement, as this belief is quite common.




Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy"the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, the Japanese-American internment camps"to name a few. I am confident that many of our actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.


Once again, this is not a controversial or radical statement. Each example is a form of dehumanization of both self and other, a forgetting of ones humanity in response to a crisis situation.



I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.


The initial agreement only to later requestion is quite common. It is a natural process which many people experience in different ways. The initial zeal, leading to dehumanization, and a resultant requestioning of the "altered methods" of warfare and law is a process which is destined to continue.






Is it not natural, then, that large numbers of people will return to requestion the events of 9/11/01 themselves, the rapid trigger of all that follows in the post 9/11 era?

Feynman:

And that is what science is: The result of the discovery that it is worthwhile re-checking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting in the race experience in the past. I see it this way. That is my best definition.


Such requestioning of the pivot event is consistent with the highest ideals of science as expressed by Feynman. The difference between person and person is not the impulse to requestion and review, but the resources and methods used while requestioning.

The impulse to requestion through new direct experience is healthy. The resources and methods used while requestioning is where the confusion lies.


Created on 01/13/2013 05:25 PM by admin
Updated on 05/30/2014 12:58 PM by admin
 Printable Version

Copyright © 2008 WiredTech, LLC
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL