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
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

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
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: 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


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

Magical, Religious, Scientific Thinking

Magical, Religious, Scientific Thinking

Magical, Religious, Scientific Thinking

If this "debate" is not based on science and skepticism, what is it based upon?

Often "science" is just thin veneer people use to legitimize their beliefs. Perhaps they subconsciously need some form of authority to confirm their own beliefs, but admitting so openly, or even to oneself, may be too uncomfortable for those not ready for such an admission. Perhaps many people are not comfortable admitting they, too, have beliefs and need some mechanism through which to call their beliefs "objective truth". In this case it hardly matters whether the authority is correct or incorrect, since the person never intended to check the results anyway. The act of fact-checking itself runs contrary to the belief system, and once authority has spoken, and spoken in a way that confirms ones world view, double checking the results would be an unnecessary act (and potential threat) within ones sense of affirmation (and why rock that boat?)

Concerning the reexamination of the events of 9-11-01, one of the facets that stands out the most is how the very act of fact-checking is treated as highly taboo. The mere act of fact-checking claims is often met with extreme hostility by those who see their own subjective viewpoints as true beyond doubt.

Consider the careers of these Fathers of western science

Isaac Newton(1642-1727)

Along with his scientific fame, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. He placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date.[88] He also tried unsuccessfully to find hidden messages within the Bible.

Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity".[89] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice". But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities.[90] For this, Leibniz lampooned him: "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion."[91] Newton's position was vigorously defended by his follower Samuel Clarke in a famous correspondence. A century later, Pierre-Simon Laplace's work "Celestial Mechanics" had a natural explanation for why the planet orbits don't require periodic divine intervention.

Rene Descarte (1596-1650)

The religious beliefs of René Descartes have been rigorously debated within scholarly circles. He claimed to be a devout Roman Catholic, claiming that one of the purposes of the Meditations was to defend the Christian faith. However, in his own era, Descartes was accused of harboring secret deist or atheist beliefs. Contemporary Blaise Pascal said that "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God."[19]

Stephen Gaukroger's biography of Descartes reports that "he had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth."

So, not too long ago the frontiers of western science were completely embedded within religious thought. Western science originally emerged within environments which were heavily religious. Even the best scientists of the day were submersed in it.

Well, what are the roots of religion? One may suggest we ask a highly ranked western philosopher, but they were completely immersed in the same environment.

According to the structure of most western universities, this question is asked in the anthropology department. According to standard concepts in western history the science of psychology began about 150 years ago. Likewise, western science began about 400 years ago. So, if one wants to study the origins of systems of thought they would use the subject of anthropology.

Anthropology resource literature on rudimentary social structures and rudimentary systems of thought

I am going to be quoting from the following 3 books which examine rudimentary social structures and rudimentary systems of thought:

Lucy Mair, Primitive Government, first published in 1962

Paul Radin, Primitive Religion, Its Nature and Origin

Link to book here

Paul Radin, Primitive Man as Philosopher

Link to book here

The meaning of primitive in anthropology: Rudimentary

Lucy Mair:

What does it mean to call people or their institutions primitive? The word has implied a good many different things from the time when people in western Europe first began to ask questions about the manners and customs of people in Africa and the Americas, and later the Pacific Islands. It is a fact of history it was the European peoples who discovered the others, and in most cases established political domain over them, and not visa versa, and the reason is not difficult to find. The European peoples had ships and methods of navigation which enabled them to win any battles in which they were involved, and the inventions which began in the eighteenth century greatly increased this advantage. THese people were organized politically in a manner which made it practicable to extend their authority over areas far wider than any controlled by peoples in the coutries they discovered; and this was largely because they had writing as a means of communicating over distances and of keeping records, and because they had monetary systems as a means of organizing trade and production. That is to say, they posessed technical superiority in a number of fields; indeed, in the very fields in which the technical superiority of the Romans had enabled them some centuries earlier to extend their dominion over the Mediterranean basin. In all these fields, the techniques of the people who came under European rule were rudimentary, and in consequence their systems of government might also be called rudimentary. This is one of the senses of the word 'primitive', and it is the only sense in which a modern anthropologist would use the word.

It is necessary to emphasize this point because people belonging to the societies which are called 'primitive' often regard the word as offensive, and it is used by persons other then anthropologists in a manner which may justly cause offence. This happens when it is applied, not to institutions, but to persons. People very commonly confused the technical superiority of a nation with the moral and intellectual superiority of the population who make it up. Europeans are apt to talk about devices such as the internal combustion engine, or even the atomic reactor, as if they all had a share of inventing them, whereas in fact most of us simply take advantage of inventions which we could not possibly have made as in some way more adult than those wohse technical outfit does not include them. And this popular attitude gains support from the Jungian theory of psychology, which at the same time describes as 'primitive' the irrational elements in all human minds and holds that people who get through life with a primitive technical outfit have minds in which the irrational elementa predominate.

Let me make it clear, then, that if I write of primitive societies I am not implying anything about the characteristics of the persons who compose them- least of all that such persons have remained in the childhood stage of a human race whose maturity is represented by the 'western' nations. It is ways of doing things which can be described as primitive or otherwise. The developement of more complicated and efficient ways of doing things is a matter of discoveries and inventions which simply cannot be creditied to the superiority of certain total populations over others. But the possession of a complex technology is what enables a modern state of control, and to a large extent organize, the lives of populations of many millions.

The purpose of this book is to examine the way in which government is carried on among peoples of simple technology. Many anthropologists have classed as 'primitive' broad division, because, as has just been said, where people cannot keep records or send written messages the range over which any government can exercise power has to be relatively narrow. Also, where people cannot keep records they can only carry out very simple economic transactions.

On primitive beliefs

Paul Radin, Primitive Religion, its nature and origin

Outline of the book:

1 The Nature and Substance of Religion 3

2 The Role of the Religious Formulator - 1 5

3 The Economic Determinants 40

4 The Magical Substratum 59

5 The Crises of Life and Transition Rites 78

6 From Magicians to Priests: Their Nature and Initia-
tion 105

7 From Magicians to Priests: Their Function 134

8 The Approach to the Supernatural 1 56

9 The Conciliation and Propitiation of the Supernatural 169

10 From Ghosts to Gods: Ghosts, Spirits, and Totems 192

11 From Ghosts to Gods: Ancestor-Spirits, Deities, and
Gods 219

12 Monolatry and Monotheism 254

13 The Soul: Its Nature and Destination 268

14 The Ritual Drama 2 89

From magic to religion, from magician to priest, from ghosts to Gods

pg 8:

That evaluation which ascribed the coercive power to man alone or to the coercive interaction of the ego and the object found its characteristic expression in magic and compulsive rites and observances. That which ascribed this coercive power to the object found its characteristic expression in the religious activity.

We can arrange this hypothetical evolution, from magic to religion, in four stages:

1. The completely coercive and unmediated. Here the relation between the ego and the objective world is almost in the nature of a tropism.

2. The incompletely coercive and unmediated. Here a measure of volition is imputed to the object.

3. The reciprocally coercive. Here volition is imputed to both the ego and the object.

4. The non-coercive. Here the ego is regarded as being in conscious subjection to the object.

The Priesthood

p 19:

Wherever economic conditions permitted, a priesthood of some kind developed whose purposes were always of a twofold nature. The first purpose was so to elaborate and manipulate the religious beliefs that they would strengthen the authority of the elders, in this manner also strengthening their own, for they generally belonged to the same age group. The second purpose was the attainment and enhancement of the priests' economic security. Thus freed from the urgent requirements of having to spend the greater part of their lives in the pursuit of food for themselves, the shaman, medicine-man, or priest found himself, in contradistinction to the other members of his group, provided in varying degree with the leisure necessary for the analysis and synthesis of the religious phenomena. And where the economic order was such that the wealth and power of the community was actually concentrated in their hands, in West Africa, for instance, there an aristocracy could develop which at times expressed itself in abstract thinking of a high order.

p 21:

Where there is little trace of a centralized authority, there we encounter no true priests, and religious phenomena remain essentially unanalysed and unorganized. Magic and simple coercive rites rule supreme.

The degree of objectivity attained by a given religious thinker in a primitive community, in the main, therefore reflects the degree of centralized authority it possesses.

Primary Fear and Insecurity

p 23:

Our first question necessitates a second. Can we, without further analysis, calmly assume that fear is the primordial emotion with which man began? The answer must be definitely in the affirmative, but not in the sense claimed by most ethnological theorists. They think of fear in a generic fashion, as something inherited from our animal forebears. They are all fond of treating it as an instinct. They consequently speak of a fear of the dark, of a fear of the unknown, of a fear of the strange. But, psychology aside, what does the documentary evidence we now possess for primitive cultures in the form of prayers, myths, and autobiographies tell us about the nature of this primary fear? The answer is clear.

Primitive man is afraid of one thing, of the uncertainties of the struggle of life. And we can be fairly certain that this fear of life is not the last remnant of the trauma of birth as some psychoanalysts contend. On the contrary, it is a very literal fear of the battle for existence under the difficult economic conditions that prevail in simple societies. The more uncertain is the food supply, the less man is technologically prepared, the greater naturally will be the feeling of insecurity and the more intense, consequently, will be the fear. That is why, in the very simple cultures, the world is regarded as more consistently infested with evil spirits and ill-willed ghosts than in the more complex. The fear of the struggle for life, however, is always there. A priest may phrase it symbolically as the narrow passages of life, as among the Winnebago, or resignedly, as the Fijian poem has it

Death is easy:
Of what use is life ?
To die is rest -

yet it is fear in the only concrete sense in which this means anything for the vast majority of men and women, namely, the dread of hunger and of economic insecurity.

Looking at it from this angle, we may well doubt whether the great physiological crises of life birth, puberty, death are more inherently the object of fear than are disease, pregnancy, or the sight of blood. Nor is it by any means self-evident that a man will be obsessed with the fear that a food animal will not appear at the appropriate time or that the grain will not mature or that the sun will not shine. Indeed the vast majority of individuals in a primitive group are quite averse to the phrasing of a problem in this negative manner. If, nevertheless, we do find it stated in this fashion, it is but natural to ask to whose interest it is to do so. Who, concretely speaking, would gain by it ? The answer is: those credited with possessing the power to allay these doubts and fears. And so we again return to the medicine-men and the priests.

Whether there be such a thing as primordial fear or not is consequently immaterial. What is material is whether any evidence exists to link up the utilization of this primordial fear with the means and methods of obtaining food, with the achievement of personal and social values and aspirations, and with the physiological crises of life. That evidence is overwhelming. And since it is equally clear that there exists no reason for regarding such a linkage as inherent in the nature of any one of the constituent elements involved, we must assume it to be secondary in origin and that it has been established largely by those who have most to gam thereby. This does not mean that the religious man 'per se'
originated the connexion or that there are not, at the same time, certain social precipitates of fear which obviously antedate his activity.

We must visualize the situation then somewhat as follows. The religious formulator, at first unconsciously if you will, capitalized on the sense of insecurity of the ordinary man. This task was rendered all the more urgent, first, because the medicine-men and shamans themselves shared m this insecurity and, secondly, because of the very emotional-intellectual susceptibility which we have credited them with possessing. To judge from our data, this capitalization took the form of so interpreting the obstacles to success in the struggle for food, for happiness, and for long life, that they would appear greater than they really were. Possibly these obstacles may have actually seemed so to their highly sensitive and imaginative minds. But we must not forget that it was to their interest to do so.


In other words, the religious formulator developed the theory that everything of value, even everything unchangeable and predictable about man and the world around him, was surrounded and immersed in danger, that these dangers could be overcome only in a specific fashion and according to a prescription devised and perfected by him.

p 32:

Allowing then for all these cross-purposes and cross-currents, let us examine the work of the religious formulator concretely. The ordinary conception of the relationship of a man to a spirit who dispenses happiness, long life, and success is, we have seen, one of coercion, just as it is toward an object in no way connected with the supernatural. In the evolution of religious thought this is the first point the thinker-priest attacks. He must at first proceed carefully and not too rapidly. The spirits and deities are, accordingly, represented as aware of the coercion and they are given an opportunity of either submitting to or avoiding it.

We do not know how or why.

Even you cannot answer

p 52:

Let us begin with the Eskimo. Their social organization is of the very loosest kind. No chief and no centralized authority exist there. Murder and blood feuds are the order of the day. Yet their adjustment to this most inhospitable of environments is almost perfect. It was made possible by an astounding series of inventions connected with the harpoon, the kayak, and the snow house. Where did these constructive forces come from? We naturally turn to the one group of individuals who are organized. We find that they are the angakok or shamans. They have managed to gather firmly into their hands whatever political power exists. This is evidenced in a number of ways, perhaps in none more dramatically than that, in a civilization where murder is extremely common, they are never murdered although they must be surrounded by people who hate them and that in a country where women are often at a premium, the shamans' rights to cohabit with them at will are generally recognized. The mechanism they have devised to gain and retain this power is the organization of a religious "fraternity," carefully restricted in numbers, a complex religious theory, and a spectacular shamanistic technique. Their well-integrated system is designed to do two things: to keep the contact with the supernatural exclusively in the hands of the angakok, and to manipulate and exploit the sense of fear of the ordinary man. Here the environment plays directly into their hands. We can thus easily understand the reason for the answer an Eskimo gave to the great Danish explorer Rasmussen when he was asked:

"What do you believe?" The reply was:

We do not believe. We only fear. And most of all we fear Nuliajuk, the mother of beasts. . . . All the game we hunt comes from her.
. . . We fear those things which are about us and of which we have no sure knowledge, as the dead, and the malevolent ghosts, and the secret misdoings of the heedless ones among ourselves.

This is good angakok theory, an excellent and all-embracing integration of fear fear for the food supply, fear of the general uncertainty, fear of the taboos that other people break, and fear, finally, of the dead and of the malevolent ghosts. What the angakok have really done is to combine the fear of economic insecurity, first, with the magical formulae and taboos and, secondly, with the fear of deceased human beings. The dead are feared in all these simple cultures, we may surmise, not because they are dead but because they are human beings whose activities cannot then be controlled as well as when they were alive, inadequate as that control may perhaps have been. This we shall see later on also lies at the basis of ancestor worship.

The economic aspects of this angakok systematization are sharply and clearly outlined. Take, for example, the four main occasions where an angakok is asked to function among the Ammassalik and when he must summon his spirits. They are: the dearth of sea animals, the blocking of the hunting places by snow masses, a man's loss of his soul in illness, and a married woman's barrenness. It is also patent in the fact that around the food quest as such there has been built up a series of rites under the complete control of the angakok. That the emoluments are considerable is indicated by the fact that as much as 1 50 to 200 dollars will be offered for a familiar spirit, something, incidentally, that only an angakok can obtain.

The same sharpness of outline is exhibited in the delineation of the supernatural beings. There is no vagueness in the conception of Sedna, the deity of the sea, or of the moon and the air deities. However, this definiteness does not flow from any conscious interest in portraying them as distinct entities but from the fact that they are represented as having all once been human beings. The hardness and cruelty of their relation to human beings reflect this origin. And here too it is well to remember that it is the angakok who constrains the deities and that, although he may suffer cruelly during his initiation, once he has established the relationship with his helping spirit, life flows on for him in comparative ease. The deities are cruel specifically only to the people at large, not to the angakok.

It is thus the superior organization of the folkloristic background, and the more articulate expression of its relation to the food supply, that characterize the Eskimo and all other fishing- hunting economies, not the appearance of those new elements which play so great a part in the religions of the more complex of primitive cultures. There is no new evaluation of the subjective element arctic hysteria can be discounted and no appreciable change in the older conception that both the environment and the
spirits must be coerced. In this respect it can be said the angakok as a thinker has adjusted himself completely to the attitude of his less sensitive fellow-tribesmen. Speculation he indulged in, but this was on the hardships of living and not essentially on any aspects of religion. Rasmussen has given numerous examples of this speculation, speculation which can be taken as representative of the thought of all primitive peoples living in economic insecurity, and this includes a large number.

In one of Rasmussen's interviews, an Eskimo turned one of his questions back upon him and asked:

Why must there be snow and storms and bad weather for hunting, for us who must hunt for our daily food, who seek meat for ourselves and those we love ? Why must hunters, after they have slaved all day, return without a catch ? Why must the children of my neighbour sit shivering huddled under a skin-rug, hungry? Why must my old sister suffer pain at the ending of her days? She has done no wrong that we can see but lived her many years and given birth to good strong children.

He answers his own rhetorical questions himself with a wisdom and a sense of reality rarely paralleled among ourselves :

Even you cannot answer when we ask you why life is as it is. And so it must be. Our customs all come from life and are directed toward life; we cannot explain, we do not believe in this or that; but the answer lies in what I have just told you.

We fear!

We fear the elements with which we have to fight in their fury to wrest our food from land and sea.

We fear cold and famine in our snow huts.

We fear the sickness that is daily to be seen among us. Not death, but the suffering.

We fear the souls of the dead, of human and animal alike.

We fear the spirits of earth and air.

And therefore our fathers, taught by their fathers before them, guarded themselves about with all these old rules and customs, which
are built upon the experience and knowledge of generations. We do not know how or why, but we obey them that we may be suffered to live in peace. And for all our angakoks and their knowledge of hidden things, we yet know so little that we fear everything else.

The Magical Substratum

p 59:

The Magical Substratum

MAGIC is as old as man. It can in fact be said to have antedated man, for the situation that it poses and seeks to resolve is identical with that by which apes and monkeys are confronted and which they are forced to resolve. It is briefly this: how can a desirable object be coerced? The answer is to seize it as effectively and expeditiously as possible and with as little danger to oneself as possible. What differentiates man from the other animals is that, while he, largely, wishes to coerce this desirable object for purposes akin to that of the other animals, in part his objective is utterly different and not related to his purely vegetative wants. Moreover, because he possesses articulate speech, he, himself, informs us of this difference. In man, then, not only can the behaviour toward the desirable object be watched but the actor tells us what he is doing, and his actions and his statements can, in addition, be corroborated and explained by others.

Of these constituent elements the behaviour as such is rarely analysed. The individual acts themselves, the accompanying statements, and the explanations as to the nature of their relation to the object acted upon, these, however, are all both analysed and elaborated. We are thus placed in an advantageous position for classifying and evaluating them both as regards their significance in the history of thought in general and as regards their importance in the history of religion in particular.

This, we know, was the favourite preoccupation of the ethnological theorists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Tylor, Robertson Smith, Frazer, and Marett in England j Durkheim, Hubert, and Mauss in France 5 Preuss in Germany. They all seem to have agreed upon one fact, namely, that in the extended learning process called civilization, magic constitutes the first application of the principle of causation, the first explanation of the interaction of the ego and the object. All, of course, except Levy-
Bruhl, who, as is well known, refuses to credit primitive people with any understanding of the elementary logical processes. He does not feel that they actually do polarize the subject and the object in such a fashion as to make the principle of causation, as we conceive it, meaningful. Into that interminable discussion we cannot enter here except to say that no ethnologist with any long experience among aboriginal cultures agrees with him. This disagreement in itself may not represent a valid refutation of his views. It does, however, constitute a pertinent fact in the discussion of primitive mentality and one that merits some consideration, a consideration which he has signally failed to acknowledge. Thus, in the beginning, there was magic and magic was with God and God was magic. But who here, in this historic formula, is God? Translated into more concrete form for the purposes of discussion, this equation signifies that the ego is with the object and the ego is the object. And indeed it is the fundamental concern of every magical act and rite to establish a relation of such a kind to the object that it can literally be at one with the ego, be unreservedly absorbed into it. The apparent primacy of such an equation in the history of mankind has, quite legitimately and quite naturally, appealed to the psychoanalysts. For them it is a manifestation of those neurotic compulsions that are today so prominent in the actions of children and of psychopathic individuals and which they interpret as regressions to a generalized infantile mentality. In so far as all human thinking is a neurotic compulsion, they are right. And there can be little question but that considerable significance should be attached to this resemblance. However, the interpretations and the conclusions of the psychoanalysts in the realm of cultural history are, even if we wish to be very generous, only vaguely anticipatory of the true ones rather than the true ones themselves, and their method of demonstration is false and highly repugnant to all our critical and logical instincts. They should, one would surmise, feel perfectly at home with Levy-BruhPs "prelogical mentality." 1 Most of them do, particularly Jung and his followers.

Primal doubt and questioning

Paul Radin, Primitive Man as Philosopher

Link to book here

Layout of the book:


























The current tradition of science came directly out of a religious environment. It had emerged only a short time ago. According to research in anthropology, religion emerges from the practice of magic.

Tylor, Robertson Smith, Frazer, and Marett in England j Durkheim, Hubert, and Mauss in France 5 Preuss in Germany. They
all seem to have agreed upon one fact, namely, that in the extended learning process called civilization, magic constitutes the first application of the principle of causation, the first explanation of the interaction of the ego and the object. All, of course, except Levy-
Bruhl, who, as is well known, refuses to credit primitive people with any understanding of the elementary logical processes.


Needless to say, many scientists forget the religious background from which the sciences emerged. Likewise, organized religions are not interested in a careful look at how religious beliefs emerge from the practice of magic in rudimentary social conditions.

The book primitive religion gives many good examples of the physical and economic conditions through which magical rites are refined into religious rites. It is described as a fundamental change in the relationship between self and other (nature). Magic is a forced coercion of other (the object). The magician demands that nature obeys.


From the quote: "in the extended learning process called civilization, magic constitutes the first application of the principle of causation, the first explanation of the interaction of the ego and the object."

Which I can rewrite as:

within our civilizations, magic constitutes the most rudimentary application of the principle of causation, the most rudimentary explanation of the interaction of the ego and the object.

Authorities and experts of cause and effect: From Priests to Scientists

The current tradition of science came directly out of a religious environment. It had emerged only a short time ago relative to the history of thought. According to research in anthropology, religion emerges from the practice of magic.


Each of these systems deals with the fundamental relation between cause and effect. Of these three forms of thinking, science is a quite new approach to descriptions of cause and effect. As late as the early 18th century even Isaac Newton suspected that God was necessary to tweak his three laws of motion to correct deviations in physical pattern from time to time.

In other words, human beings have been thinking in terms of religion and magic to explain patterns of cause and effect for tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? million(s)?) of years and only quite recently (~250 years) began describing physical motion in terms of physical laws involving no ghostly, elflike or Godlike intermediary .

How does scientific argument differ from the other two, from religious argument or wishful thinking expressed through magic?

It is based on reproducible proof through observation and measurement. Neither religious argument nor magical spells can be demonstrated through reproducible observations.

Why is the cloak of science so important for modern man to hide behind?

Science is our new way of claiming authoritative certainty. Science is only the newest method of projecting certain knowledge onto laymen. It is a system of thought which dates back only a few hundred years and it surfaced within systems of thought that date back thousands and tens (hundreds) of thousands (or million(s)) of years. It is a modern system of knowledge which emerged from deeply rooted ancient systems of knowledge.

The public is offered theories on how the WTC towers collapsed through two main sources. Each of the two sides claim that they represent the "scientific" approach. The two sides are:

1) The top of the technical hierarchy: the NIST reports, ASCE literature and all published literature from professional and academic sources on the subject of the WTC collapses.

2) What is considered the conventional truth movement.

Dr Bazant, Richard Gage, David Chandler, Shyam Sunder, Ryan Mackey, ASCE publishers and peer reviewers all claim to be the representatives of true "science". Science is theirs! Their core claim rest on the belief that they, and not those who disagree with them, are the true, bona fide practicioners of "science" in the case of the WTC collapses.

Yet, when claims made by every one of these groups and individuals are compared with groupings of observations and measurements extracted directly from the visual record of events, it is found that every one of these groups and individuals make false technical claims with impunity.

Gulf between societies of experts and laymen

When one examines the logical chain in the arguments of most any engineer separated from the group, it is not difficult to show, with the tools and mappings now available, that such argumentation is rarely based on any effort to conform to observation and measurement. In fact, there is very little interest expressed in observations and measurements of the actual collapse events. There is a focus only on what the "other guy (in the society)" thinks and consensus within the technical tiers. This pattern of reasoning can be traced as far back as hunting and gathering communities to the most fundamental relations between shamanistic societies and laymen.

The standard of accuracy is taken to be mutual consensus and group membership, not conformity with observation and measurement. Ironically, one who conforms their views to observations and measurements is forced to deviate from the group mind and from the NIST. For such an individual there is no more "Kansas" to go back to and they will find themselves alone and independent.

The purpose of the current ritual

NIST writes reports. Professional individuals and organizations claim to confirm the information within the reports. Are we seeing the application of science in action, or are we seeing something else, something much older? It is real or just a ritual?

On a superficial glance it seems that the purpose of the NIST reports and follow-up investigations is to apply science to the WTC collapses in order to explain them to professionals and laymen alike and learn as much as possible from the tragedy. In reality it can be seen that few people have any interest in careful observations and measurements that must form the foundation of scientific inquiry.

Just as in ancient times, power needs to couch its desires in the foremost authority of the day. The buildings are complex physical systems, so our foremost authorities of the day are scientists and engineers. In this case it is the cloak of science that gives participants a sense of certainty to their conclusions.

This is a deeply rooted chain of the study of cause and effect which seems to have existed since the dawn of organized human societies.

1) They all work within and along side systems of power

2) They all work through group consensus, though scientific societies are not supposed to

3) They work within an unbridgeable division between expert and layman

4) They do not like it when uncertified outsiders question their expertise

Technical academic papers perceived as religious scrolls, an example

The paper: What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson (BGLB) is linked here

The following equations are from BL, but the same equations are devveloped through BV, BL and into BLGB.

The solution of Eqs. (1) and (2) yields the following ve-
locities after impact: v1 = 6.43 or 6.80 m / s, v2 = 4.70 or
4.94 m / s, and vcu = 2.23 or 2.25 m / s for the North or South
Tower. These data represent the initial values for the differ-
ential equations of motion of the upper Part C and of the
compacted layer B. If Lagrangian coordinates x(t) and z(t) of
the crush-down and crush-up fronts are used, these equations
can easily be shown to have the following forms:

When this information is seen through the visual evidence currently available suggesting a ROOSD-type global mass flow, these descriptions by Bazant in 2008 seem absurdly idealistic and to interpret them literally seems childish.

So, what is it about this series of papers that is still taken so seriously? What charm or spell do they cast over readers to convince them to still believe?

1) The papers are still supported through a foggy type of group consensus

2) There is an unbridgeable division between expert and layman

Quite honestly, it is outside the capacities of most all readers to understand the differential equations and talk about the meaning of terms and variables in terms of collapse attributes seen within the visual record. It is certainly beyond the capacity of Dr Bazant.

In this way the equations must seem intimidating to the reader. They cannot verify the claims or the mathematical expressions and cannot possibly compete with the authority figure (author) over their validity.

These conditions set up an interesting relationship between author and reader. The reader is relatively helpless and the author seems dominant. But the relationship is based on belief and authority unquestioned. It is certainly not based on science or skepticism.

The relationship looks like it is based in some scientific pursuit. After all, the paper uses math, diagrams, reasoning, assertions about the physical world and appears in the JoM, an ASCE publication. The series of papers were also apparently peer reviewed.

It may look like skeptical scientific exchanges are occurring, but when claims are compared directly to the visual record the many mistakes easily become transparent.

If the relationship is not based on scientific exchange, what is really going on?

Well, authority spoke and many, many people believed. Things like this have been going on long before Galileo or Newton. It is an old, old relationship.

What charm or spell do they cast over readers to convince them to still believe?

It is the appearance of consensus within an environment that is believed to consist of technical authorities.

It is the complexity of the equations which must seem quite impressive to readers who lack the capacity to understand on what logic they are derived.

Science as faith in technical authority

Science has come to mean a belief in the institutions of science. It is not based on active skepticism and fact-checking, or on careful conformity to observation and measurement, but takes the form of a belief in our current scientific institutions.

Among laymen and quite a few scientists, the term "science" comes to mean a belief, a trust, in the authority of the most accepted scientific institutions. It becomes a feeling of trust in consensus within accepted institutions.

Consider once again that scientific thinking, according to our own written history, is a relatively new way to approach problem-solving or to think about the relation between cause and effect.


This new way of thinking surfaced within much older ways of thinking. People have been arriving at a general consensus and believing in institutions representing authority for a long time. As mentioned earlier, among the eskimo, for example, the most organized social structure is the society of shaman. Even among hunting and gathering communities the dynamics of consensus, institution, and the establishment of an unbridgeable division between expert and layman is already manifest.

In other words, groups establishing a foggy, undefined and unquestioned consensus among themselves, calling themselves "experts", and being blind to constructive feedback from outside the group is nothing new and it certainly predates science as we know it.

Those groups and that consensus are very old.

All 3 systems of thought pervade our histories and cultures. All 3 systems offer arguments based on hierarchies, abstract reasoning and complex formulations, societies with authority, experts, and consensus. Each of the 3 systems comes to be formulated in a way that has a certain mystique among laymen.

Science as fact-checking and doubt through direct experience

How does scientific argument differ from either religious argument or that based on wishful thinking or magic?

Science is unique among the 3 in that all beliefs can and should be tested against that which can be observed and measured.

Once these basic constraints of direct verification, fact checking and the discipline to conform theory to that which can be observed and measured are removed, the underlying social mechanics of a scientific society becomes similar to that of systems of thought within any other social framework based on authority and consensus.

Feynman: "Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

If the instinct of direct fact-checking and verification is gutted from technical discussions, the ingrained ancient systems based on conformity, authority and consensus and all the social dynamics associated with them will naturally re-emerge.

Investigations into the collapses of the WTC towers serve as the perfect modern day example of this social mechanism in action. There can be little doubt that the instinct to independently check facts has been gutted from group discussions on the WTC collapses.

Feynman: "Then a way of avoiding the disease was discovered. This is to doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initiio, again from experience, what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it was passed down."

Or, at any time when the situation is too politically or socially hot, we can stop doing this and return to being infected with the same disease.

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."

But as written earlier:

Science has come to mean a belief in the institutions of science. It is not based on active skepticism and fact-checking, or on careful conformity to observation and measurement, but takes the form of a belief in our current scientific institutions.

Among laymen and quite a few scientists, the term "science" comes to mean a belief, a trust, in the authority of the most accepted scientific institutions. It becomes a feeling of trust in consensus within accepted institutions.

This transition within our recent history is described as an "Age of Enlightenment" (wikipedia link here)

From the link:

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries, first in Europe and later in the American colonies. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted science, skepticism and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition,[1] intolerance and some abuses by church and state.

So, even within the recording of our own history we can admit that institutions of power and education were quite corrupted by a whole slew of subconscious cravings, some of which were obviously quite perverted.

But ingrained habits accumulated over millenia or tens of thousands of years don't die easily. This is why a person may want to directly check facts rather than put their faith in our enlightened institutions (yet again).

Created on 01/13/2013 06:13 PM by admin
Updated on 08/02/2015 06:18 AM by admin
 Printable Version

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