I would redefine this in the most general terms as
People who suspect or know they are being lied to about the events of 9/11/01 in general.
people who suspect or know they are being lied to about building behavior of the WTC towers in particular.
It is natural, due to the nature and consequences of the 9/11/01 attacks and WTC collapses, that many of these people are repulsed by the suspicion of lying about these pivotal historic events.
Using these broader definitions, some independent researchers developed the tools necessary to detect misrepresentations and outright lying by other individuals or groups.
As can be expected, after describing the meaning of "truther" in broader terms, the wikipedia article sticks the complexity of human nature and life in general into little boxes that little minds are capable of understanding.
Little minds need little well-ordered boxes in which all diverse phenomena can be "classified". That which does not fit nicely is often ignored. All this is expected and has existed most probably since the dawn of human thought. Only after this torturous effort to squeeze life itself into little cubicles do people with these very small minds then claim to "know the world" or to have "figured things out".
From the article
"9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks.
What about construction and insurance fraud? What about falsification of collapse records? What about the ASCE protecting their own asses via the NIST?
What about family members that want the truth about liability and vulnerable construction methods?
Don't they sense a lie and want some truth, too?
What about those highly crirical of the NIST reports, those that see a cover-up within the wording of the reports?
What about those that simply want the collapse progressions of the two largest building collapses ever to be described correctly to the public and those that come after us?
What about people who wish give their own children and those of their generation a little more than complete bullsh*t as a historic record of the collapse events?
Aren't they, also, looking for some truth, some honest disclosure?
According to my own research, a description such as the article provides can be expected to be expressed through an artificially narrowed false choice between bad and worse. Most analysts can be expected to have technical abilities in the range of Joe Average. No independent efforts at mappings or independent verification of claims can be expected, since this is the established norm over the last few years.
Sure enough, careful review of the article shows that concepts are almost completely described in terms of the artificially narrowed false choice described in chapter 6 of my book. Only "worse" or "terrible" can make bad look good. In this sense, few people have done more to hide the mistakes and omissions within the NIST reports than Gage, Steven Jones or DRG.
Some examples of narrowed false choices: Making bad look good through the use of terrible
Cascading ROOSD-type progressions: There is no evidence that this is recognized within any ACSE publications over the last decade. The "opposition" does not acknowledge this either, and instead describes the need for thousands of little bombs to destroy the lower portions of the twin towers.
Collapse initiation movement for WTC1:
As described by the NIST:
"The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled south face0 to the south (at least about 8 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls."
While work presented in this website reveals a process that can be described as a sequence of at least 9 distinct events:
1) Deformations: Inward bowing of the south face
2) Earliest detectable creep movement of the antenna and northwest corner
3) Appearance of ~87th fl S face ejections
4) Appearance of 95th fl W face ejection
5) Visible downward movement begins: Columns fail over tilt of less than 1 degree, appearance of 98th fl ejections
6) Appearance of 77th fl W face ejections
7) Splitting of all perimeter walls: All visible upper parts fall out and over lower parts
8 ) Southward sliding of upper portion
9 ) Dis-integration of upper portion
There are two types of ejection patterns just before visible movement begins, one from the 95th floor and one from the 87th floor. All columns fail within less than 1 degree global deviation from vertical with all visible perimeter walls splitting out and over the lower portions.
The "opposition" doesn't notice or record any of this. Nobody covers gross mistakes by the NIST better than ASCE, Gage, Steven Jones, DRG and David Chandler.
The pattern repeats itself over and over and is quite simple:
As long as people have some pinata to hit they don't seem to notice that the collapsed buildings are grossly misrepresented in their history.
From the article:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publishing a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eagar said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.
My bold. That is how the pros conclude that WTC1 failed through the south wall via sagging floor trusses. Thomas Eagar, that is exactly what you unwittingly supported without being the wiser.
As long as people have a pinata to hit they don't have to notice their own internal contradictions. Please note how blatant contradiction is replaced by a pinata (a big easy target) through the context of a narrowed false choice.
What is being witnessed is a melting of the capacity to think critically. Concepts are phrased as a polarity of an artificially narrowed false choice and then both of those polarities show no real capacity to think critically.
The people who cannot be squeezed into either of the two boxes are rendered invisible. Among those are the independent critical thinkers.
The pattern in pretty clear, all the way through the House Science Committee Hearings where the concerns of Mr Corbett and Mr Quintiere are effectively brushed aside. Concerns of family members brushed aside. Critical thought is effectively erased from the record or exists only as a footnote or afterthought.
It is visible in forum records. It is visible through attitudes toward observation, measurement, and the visual record of events. Both artificially narrowed sides of the false choice are those who have the poorest understanding of collapse mechanics and building movement. Neither artificial side seems capable of perceiving the collapse mechanics or the events leading into and through collapse initiations. Neither artificial side seems capable of measuring things or of grouping observations coherently. Those who do are perceived as "outsiders" or not perceived at all.
The same pattern exists among websites. Most websites on this subject, certainly the most popular ones, are just carbon copies of the artificially narrowed false choice. It is very rare to see an independent researcher or individual think critically within the echo chamber of websites.
An Example of Narrowed False Choices
Chris Mohr at JREF recently compiled a list which roughly explains how he receives or processes information on claims made about the WTC towers. The list is available at this link. Statements by Chris Mohr appear in block font. My comments appear in blue font.
He calls it "My Hierarchy of Credibility":
Incredible numbers of people have weighed in with opinions and explanations of how the WTC Buildings collapsed on 9/11. Some have more credibility than others. Who makes the argument is less important than the quality of that argument. The factual argument is true independent of the qualifications of the person presenting it - that over-rides all the credibility issues. Likewise, if it is false, the falsity "wins" even if the presenter is a multi-PhD and has had the paper "peer reviewed".
Direct verification through individual initiative is the only way to know which claims are valid and which are not. There is no other way to know. No amount of education and apparent consensus can substitute for careful observation and direct verification. My book and website contain the most accurate mappings of the visible collapse progression and collapse initiation movements available anywhere. This is directly verifiable. The question is, Can this fact be perceived by Chris? Is it possible for him to become aware of this? Once again, it is about the ability to be aware. It can be shown, in a way that is verifiable by the reader, that he is not aware that he is not aware. It is his own system of beliefs, one that he is incapable of seeing as merely a system of beliefs, that serves as his great barrier to this awareness.
Nevertheless, certain investigative processes carry more weight with me than others. Here is a list of the kinds of people and organizations whose opinions I have researched, and what weight I give their conclusions, in order from most to least credible:
Note that as an anonymous researcher this writer is ranked just above "nazi hate groups" on his list. The most accurate mappings of both collapse progression and collapse initiation movements available anywhere are not noticed by Chris. This is because of his system of beliefs, which he is clearly not aware is a system of beliefs.
1) Peer reviewed scientific papers written by specialists have the highest credibility, especiallay if other specialists have replicated or supported their central findings. The NIST Report has very high credibility in the worldwide scientific community. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, ARUP, Universities of Pennsylvania, Purdue, Hawaii, etc. have all supported and expanded upon the major findings of the NIST Report. Claims that NIST has committed fraud and violated basic laws of physics while under the microscope of such intense peer review are not credible to me. Early peer-reviewed papers by Thomas Eagar, Eduardo Kasel and others point in the general direction of the final conclusions of the NIST Report, but some of these early hypotheses were later supplanted by more nuanced understandings. Post-NIST Report, the CTBUH studies offered variations on the NIST summary which have credibility for me (thermal expansion of beams during heating followed by thermal contractionb when the fires moved on, for example). All of these credible scientists have been part of an evolving theory of natural collapse of the WTC Buildings.
He is incapable of verifying any of the claims made.
Nothing they say is gospel or set in stone; new details have caused several revisions in the theory along the way. "Peer reviewed" does not guarantee that the paper or its claims are correct. It is only a threshold for admission into academic/professional discussion. It may be more likely to be correct than a non peer-reviewed blog entry, but cannot be presumed to be. "Peer-reviewing" is a process in traditional science where other qualified scientists try to poke holes in the research and suggest alternative explanations for the data, but the absence of peer review does not invalidate the argument.
Phrasing in this context "looks like science". He is incapable of actually reading the reports and articles or checking them for truth through independent, individual initiative.
In reality, a careful observer and reader can see that the NIST report on WTC1, for example, serves as an excellent means to see how gullible those in the highest tiers of the technical hierarchy can be to echoing false technical claims without being aware of it. Chris cannot see this because he has no knowledge of the visual record through which he can directly fact-check claims.
2.) Opinions of specialists not involved in the 9/11 debate. I have talked to 14 physicists and got onto a physics chat room to ask questions about static vs dynamic loads, weight vs mass, momentum, formulae for energy expendituires, etc. I have also talked with engineers, heavy equipment operators, first responjders from 9/11, structural engineers, other engineers, a structural engineering chat room, etc. etc. etc. I ask technical questions, they answer, and they are not involved in the 9/11 debate.
Generic questions can only result in generic puzzle-stock solutions. The WTC collapses were specific processes which were recorded. Questions about static vs dynamic loads, weight vs mass, momentum, formulae for energy expenditures cannot answer any specifics of the collapses. To imagine that it can reveals a child-like approach to highly complex questions. The physical problems are reduced to child-like form which which Chris is capable of understanding. He is unaware to the degree he subconsciously needs to simplify the problem in order to reduce it to his level of understanding.
3.) "White papers" by scientists. These are not peer-reviewed, not published in a major scientific journal, and often written by people who venture out of their areas of specialized training. On Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Ryan Mackey, for example, is the work of an aeronatical engineer. He is a generalist but well-trained in the scientific method; his claims are backed by extensive research and synthesis of the conclusions of people in category (1) above.
Ryan Mackey is on record as misrepresenting both the collapse progressions of the twin towers and collapse initiation movement of WTC1 as late as 2011. The inability to verify claims through ones own efforts leaves a researcher extremely vulnerable to believing in grossly incorrect technical claims. Without the capacity to fact-check directly, one can only see the surface of things without being aware of it. They will see titles (engineer, physicist, expert) and consensus only. They see superficial agreement but will have no capacity to challenge or confirm that which is agreed upon.
When physics teacher David Chandler talks physics, his training carries more authority than my training would.
He has no capacity to see how impoverished the Chandler arguments really are. He only sees the title of physics teacher.
Same with Richard Gage, whose experience as an architect on major projects gives him a grasp of structure that I don't have (but less authority than a structural engineer).
Richard Gage has no concept of the collapse progression modes of the twin towers. Neither does Chris. What continuously surprises me is how people are not aware of how frighteningly vulnerable they really are to believing in false technical claims.
Kevin Ryan's knowledge of chemistry, Steven Jones's understanding of physics: all of these 9/11 Truth advocates have a level of technical skill sets that surpass my own.
Which leaves Chris vulnerable to being fooled. But what ultimately leaves him so vulnerable is that he is not aware of the degree to which he is vulnerable.
But none of them have the kind of specialized training that makes them true authorities at the level of an MIT physics professor talking about the collapse mechanisms of the WTC Buildings.
Such an MIT professor is Thomas Eagar, quoted earlier in this section. Discussion of collapse mechanisms with no solid knowledge of the visual record, early building movements or of ROOSD processes is a confessional of ignorance and vulnerability, not a statement from "true authority". Chris is simply not aware of this. He is submersed in a "fatherly" perception of the higher levels of the technical hierarchy. He sees titles like physicist and engineer but lacks knowledge and tools through which such claims can be directly checked for validity. He is like an obedient child among adults.
Importantly, all of these people have veered away from their areas of expertise. Ryan Mackey's psychological explanations of 19/11 Truth advocates has less credibility due to his lack of training in psychology; Kevin Ryan's research into the ties of prominent scientists to the CIA are little more than ad hominem attacks and are incredibly inaccurate, as I discovered when I was on the receiving end of one of his blog posts: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212725&page=86 start at post 3435.
By definition, anyone who speaks about every aspect of the CD theory will have to venture out of their areas of expertise: for example, when Richard Gage talks about chemistry, he is no longer in an area of expertise for him.
To draw on a phrase from zen buddhism, Chris is "like a child who has lost his parents".
4.) Journalists with professional training and experience in "separating the wheat from the chaff" by asking questions of people on both sides of an issue. That would be me... and NY Times reporters and journalists from major media outlets. However, not all journalists really do their homework.
I have not read a single article by a journalist that can do anything other than echo the technical arguments of others. They are as vulnerable as Chris, and they consistently seem as unaware of their own vulnerability as Chris. The many articles that I have reviewed reflect that they are unaware that they are unaware.
Some will accept government statements and press releases and just write up a story, so the quality of journalistic investigation has to be taken into account before accepting their work at face value.
Some? Journalists without specific technical training are as helpless as Chris to verify what they are supporting. I haven't seen a case of a single journalist who was capable of fact-checking the NIST reports. They are helpless but do not portray themselves as such within their published articles.
5.) JREF, 9/11 Truth and other blogs. Some of the people have strong technical backgrounds and "know their stuff." They also have a belief and they tend to filter what they read through their belief (we all do this).
This filtering of belief exists throughout the technical hierarchy, but Chris has no capacity to see the dynamics of belief in the top levels of the hierarchy. He has neither the capacity nor mappings of the collapse processes through which to challenge any claims made at technical tiers above his own.
6.) YouTube videos (like my own and countless 9/11 Truth and debunker videos). Every video is edited to make you see what the creator wants you to see. But there is still valuable info and visual evidence available even in this realm.
From where can the visual record of collapse events be reconstructed through individual initiative? Ironically, it can be done through careful utilization of the direct record of events available through certain youtube channels. It can also be done through certain websites. CTV offers a remarkably complete and informative collection of raw video of the collapse events. To utilize the raw visual records within the public domain requires the very awareness that Chris demonstrates he lacks.
7.) Unsupported opinions of nonscientists on blogs or in emails to me.
8.) Neo-Nazi sites make me physically ill and I am unable to even look at material presented there.
The peer-review process has a high degree of credibility for me. Journalistic investigation has a lower degree of credibility and depends on the intellectual honesty of the reporter. However, my journalistic experience and training makes it easier for me to look at an argument from any source and ask if the process of soundly reasoned argument based on objective evidence is at play, whatever the status of the one advocating it.
The process Richard Gage engages is has very low credibility for me. Richard Gage takes his arguments to the general lay public and not before a panel of scientists. People with no scientific training are asked to come to conclusions about events which require a high degree of knowledge about structural engineering, physics and chemistry. No serious researcher:
1) presents his/her case on YouTube or the internet or on radio talk shows; 2) just asks questions, and draws no conclusions; 3) asks the public to decide for themselves.
What they do is prepare their arguments very, very carefully, consult with experts in the pertinent fields & then submit them to peer-reviewed publications. Then they bring their results to panels of experts within the field. Gage has not presented his theories to the MOST prestigious panel of structural engineers that he can find, rather than college campuses and public meetings? Ask the AIA, of which gage is a member, what they think of him. Serious researchers draw conclusions. As many as they can. If they have no conclusions to present, they keep quiet until they can present conclusions, but the process has less credibility for me.
Chris draws conclusions based on his own system of beliefs but he is unaware his is doing so. If he had the ability to independently fact-check claims by the NIST and those within publications by the American Society of Civil Engineers, he would be able to see first-hand how weak, generic, and divorced from the visual record those arguments really are.
In this confessional, Chris reveals in detail how he comes to his "conclusions". He reveals his extreme vulnerability to the careful reader, and he reveals that he is unaware of his own vulnerability.
This in and of itself does not invalidate his claims. The first need for Gage is to start presenting sound reasoned arguments based on objective assessment of evidence. If he does that he will be better placed. His ideas can become accepted by the mainstream if he first gets credibility among scientists who know these subjects well.
Chris describes his world view. He is immersed in a world where there actually exist scientists that "know these subjects well" or have the answers.
The fear that scientists will shy away from his position because of possible threats to their careers has no traction outside the U.S., where scientists from Germany, India and other countries can research this with fewer political constraints. Gage's latest video, Experts Speak Out, is their best effort to date to compile a collection of opinions of qualified professionals to present their arguments.
In the world of Chris, Gage's latest video is "their" best effort to date. In reality, for one who is aware of the patterns revealed within the visual record of the events themselves, Gage's video is a confessional of vulnerability and lack of awareness as much as the "hierarchy of credibility". Both approaches are amazingly weak, yet the respective creators are not aware of the weaknesses.
However, these are videotaped opinions that have not been through the peer-review process, and do not represent experts' actual research and study.
The "hierarchy of credibility" is nothing more than a confessional of how Chris views the world. It is the study of the psychological layout of a person who cannot see anything other than titles (physicist, engineer, peer review) and has no individual capacity to verify claims made by people holding these titles. It is not that mappings of events do not exist through which he could fact-check claims. They do exist. But in his world, the existing mappings are ranked slightly above "neo-nazi websites". It is his own fixed opinions that do not allow him to recognize this.
He is helpless, but he is not aware of the degree to which he is helpless. He is extremely vulnerable to being manipulated by being wholly unaware of how vulnerable he is. The fundamental vulnerability is that he is unaware of his true position.
Chris is not alone, which makes his case so revealing of the positions of many other people who see the world through the same lens of adulation of that which they cannot directly verify or refute. Ultimately it is not his position that destines him to be trapped within his expressed views. It is his lack of awareness of the vulnerability of his own system of beliefs that leaves him so gullible.
It is his lack of awareness that leaves him unable to doubt himself. Like Chris, there are many people that make firm, fixed decisions over highly significant moral issues defining the times in which we all live with a horrifyingly low level of awareness of their own vulnerability to false technical claims.
Chris serves as an excellent example of a trapped mindset. Once again, it is not his lack of technical training that ultimately seals his fate. It is his lack of awareness that anything could be wrong with his world view.
It is the position of the true believer of the pure, fatherly nature of the top tiers of the technical hierarchy which leaves him so gullible. It is his lack of awareness of his own belief system that keeps him where he is. He trusts in the "father" (the upmost tiers of the technical hierarchy). He has unwavering faith in the competence "father" to such a degree that he is unable to question the wisdom of the hierarchy.
This being said, the original questions concerning information available in my "book" and website can be readdressed. The book contains the most accurate records of both collapse initiation and collapse progression movements available anywhere. Can this fact be perceived by Chris? Is it possible for him to become aware of this?
No, he cannot perceive it. In his current mindset it is impossible for him to become aware of this since such awareness would destroy the fundamental fabric of his world view.
Stanley Milgram: "Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority"
Another Example of narrowed false choices
There is another comment from a poster named "JohnA" in the forum truthaction.org which is an excellent example of a person trapped within his own world view without being aware of it. The comment appears about 2/3rds down the page linked here from an exchange with SnowCrash. His comments are in black fonts, my suppliment comments are in blue.
In the post he says: i don't know what to say. you're suggesting that the same legitimate world of physics that brought us quantum mechanics and can precisely measure the characteristics of sub-atomic particles and astrophysics and the discreet quantum intervals of electrons is not up to the task of studying the collapse of a building?
The "legitimate world of physics" didn't bring us quantum mechanics. This is what Max Planck, considered the founder of quantum mechanics, had to say on the subject:
"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment."
and this is what he said about the organizational response that can be expected toward such an individual:
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
John A then offers a confessional of his own world view, but he is unaware that he is offering a confessional.
My book and website contain the most accurate mappings of the visible collapse progression and collapse initiation movements available anywhere. This is directly verifiable. The question is, Can this fact be perceived by John A? Is it possible for him to become aware of this? Once again, it is about the ability to be aware. It can be shown, in a way that is verifiable by the reader, that he is not aware that he is not aware. It is his own system of beliefs, one that he is incapable of seeing as merely a system of beliefs, that serves as the greatest barrier to this awareness.
He says to SnowCrash:
where do you get off?
i am NOT better off just educating myself. I would no more educate myself on brain surgery and perform it upon myself than I would presume to study and weigh in on something as important as this.
3.000 people died. What Gage is suggesting is mass murder.
get that. it is important.
and, unlike you, i am unprepared to simply DISMISS the legitimate world of physics and engineering - to self study an event as significant as this. I can not and WILL NOT simply write off the INTEGRITY of the ENTIRE world scientific community.
But he is willing to dismiss observation and measurement instead if it contradicts his world view. It is very important, and for this reason individual initiative to directly verify claims is indispensable. There is no substitute for careful observation and direct verification.
scientific credibility does not start or end with 9/11 Truth message boards.
Physical science is nothing more than conforming models and theories to observation and measurement. To the degree that beliefs contradict observation and measurement, they are wrong. As Feynman says, it doesn't matter what your name is. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is. It also does not matter how many degrees you have or how many in your group agree with you. If it contradicts observation and measurement, it is wrong.
the conundrum for me is the fact that we are not simply discussing the collapse of a building. we are discussing matters of life and death. we are discussing mass murder. and for a handful of scientists to FAIL to gain the support or ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of even the MOST BASIC of scientific DIALOGUE is unforgivable.
We are discussing more than life of death. We are discussing a cascading chain of mass murder on a level the mind cannot comprehend. For these reasons it is unforgivable to pass on a falsified history to those who follow us. Yet this is exactly what John A is participating in without being aware of it.
sure - there are posters to 9/11 Truth websites like Snowcrash to exercise a considerable intellect and can use words to lobby the cause. more power to you. But the simple truth of the matter is that all the intellectual gymnastics in the world will not negate the UTTER lack of mainstream scientific credibility that this issue has garnered.
It simply STRAINS CREDULITY that such EARTH SHATTERING revelations of treason and mass murder and betrayal could - 10 years after the fact - be CONTAINED within the confines of Gage and Conspiracy Con and Jones and perpetual motion machines and Kevin Ryan and nano-Thermite and speeches to Louis Farrakan's group where muslims are absolved of the crime???
it is simply too important - and your argument simply too SELF IMPORTANT to be believable this scenario of probable or possible.
the science is credible yet only 9/11 Truth advocates know it?
where else do we see such an anomaly of scientific belief systems? UFO advocates? Creationists?
Most all the 9/11 Truth advocates I have observed seem unaware of the existence of accurate mappings that can be used to fact-check their claims. But the NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers are equally unaware such mappings which contradict many of their claims, too. Observation and measurement are the fundamental constraints of physical theory, not your world views or your consensus. To the degree that observation and measurement contradict world views, those views are wrong. This is non-negotiable. If such widespread lack of awareness strains ones credulity, that is your problem and your weakness. But the observations and measurements in themselves are non-negotiable and will not change no matter what one believes or how strongly one believes it.
it presupposes that the scientific world is populated by the willfully blind and universally corrupt and heartless. and - i'm sorry - i think that's absurd. the whole world watched the 9/11 attacks and the collapse of those buildings. 10 years later there is simply ZERO mainstream scientific support or dialogue on this issue. It is a non-issue.
it is time to stop ducking reality and face the facts.
Lack of awareness does not suggest willful blindness, or corruption, or heartlessness, but it is lack of awareness all the same. It is provable, and if that verification strains ones belief system, that demonstrates how poor and limiting ones belief system is. This person is unaware of the degree his own world view blocks him from perceiving the most accurate visual reconstructions of the collapse processes available. Like Chris Mohr, the information doesn't come to him wrapped in packaging which his narrowed world view is capable of understanding. It doesn't come wrapped in doctorate degrees, engineers, physicists, and consensus.
It appears, strangely, on an obscure website, originally derived in an obscure forum, assembled largely by a few anonymous posters who worked for free. This is beyond the capacity of many people to perceive or understand, but it is no less true as a result. If understood, it shatters the common world views exemplified in the comments of both Chris Mohr or John A. It is the unquestioned assumptions within their own world views that trap them where they are.
The barrier to such understanding lies lodged within their own minds, but each of them are unaware that these barriers exist. Both hold an assumed view of the world so thickly lodged within their own minds that they are incapable of perceiving it.
As noted in part 1 of the book, the chief vulnerability in many people is that they tend to over-estimate their abilities of rational discernment and individuality. They are unaware of their own potential to submit to authoritative suggestions, articles and reports.
Stanley Milgram: “It may be that we are puppets-puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation.”
But without this awareness people support things they do not understand. They become like children who have lost their parents.
This being said, the original questions concerning information available in my "book" and website can be readdressed. The book contains the most accurate records of both collapse initiation and collapse progression movements available anywhere. Can this fact be perceived by John A? Is it possible for him to become aware of this?
No, he cannot perceive it. To him such a fact seems "simply too SELF IMPORTANT to be believable that this scenario is probable or possible." In his current mindset it is impossible for him to become aware of this since such awareness would destroy the fundamental fabric of his world view.
Inevitable Outcome of Arguments from 2 False Opposites
How discussion based on an artificially narrowed false choice must inevitably end
Fish are not made for being on dry land. They are going to lay on either one side or the other, since they to not have legs on which to balance. Some will fall on their left sides, and others on on their right sides, but none of them will be able to support themselves when taken out of water.
This is exactly like embracing a false choice. Because people often do not have the strength to formulate their own questions and examine claims directly, they tend to latch onto the viewpoints of groups.
There are these ready-made viewpoints commonly called "truther" and "debunker". People latch onto an either-or false choice.
They do this because they do not have much ability to think for themselves and question claims through individual initiative.
This video shows the process of cells dying.
The cell walls collapse and the cell implodes. The cells are pre-programmed to implode.
Like these cells, discussion of the WTC towers outside the context of accurate observations and measurements is pre-programmed to last a certain amount of time and implode. What else could possibly be expected?
Various "sides" will claims some victory, but the truth is that everybody loses. What was lost? The collective mental immune system has completely collapsed. 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.
Note te parallel in biology of the formation of cancer cells. Cancer cells lose the ability to die or repair themselves once their their chromosomes become corrupted:
This mental collapse will take the form of entrenched false certainty to the point that those involved will have no more patience to absorb facts. Mappings and other such physical realities will be perceived as useless. Both dedicated truthers and debunkers will implode in a fizzle much like these cells. To them, the process will not seem like death but like "conviction" and "certainty".
Anyone with fixed views will find the mappings within the book to be inconvenient. The book reveals an underlying vulnerability throughout the technical hierarchy.
This is just a small taste of the position of 'Joe Average" as he is described in my "book".
From a conventional truther perspective at 9/11 Blogger:
Some of the readers will react by judging the person that posted this. If so, they fail to grasp the quality of the information available to this person if they do not have access to independent research.
From a conventional debunker perspective at the JREF forum:
Here we have a pretty typical example of an attempt to rewrite history, to patch it up in order to pretend it is better than it really is. It is the effort of some confused people who regularly ignore their own posting histories in order to patch up their own internal inconsistencies. There are die-hard loyalists that still cannot admit anything that Bazant writes could be untrue posting along with others that can but cannot seem to remember that they couldn't just a short time ago, posting alongside others who do not need the Bazant crutch. The only common consensus seems to be that they mutually agree to ignore the myriad contradictions expressed within their own forum and focus only on the contradictions of certain truthers instead. The claims change according to the need to patch up contradiction at any moment.
From part 6 of my "book":
Recall, the main thesis of this book is that there is no accurate technical record or descriptions of the collapses of any of the 3 buildings in any government, academic or professional literature. If this thesis is true, one can expect to see evidence of extreme confusion within the discussion of these issues on all levels.
A direct result of the main thesis of the book is that one can witness rampant confusion regarding all aspects of the collapses all around us. It is everywhere, at all levels, yet few people notice how poorly the collapse histories and collapse mechanics are described in all government, academic and professional literature.
David Bohm from part 1.2, interview 2:
"The real test of a map is whether it guides us correctly through a city. If it's a wrong map we will find incoherence in our actions."
People in both cases are simply responding to the information void. They are filling the void to the best of their limited abilities.
These situations are the inevitable result of there being an information void. The information void will not be going away anytime soon. From my website:
A brief history of psychotherapy
"People often do not recognize the source of their problems. The history of psychotherapy, in fact, could be summarized as an effort to understand the amnesia surrounding the origins of psychological problems.
The origins of psychoanalysis can be found in the detailed case studies of the same basic phenomenon: There is usually an amnesia for the source of psychological problems and neurosis".
Amnesia does not mean the problem magically goes away. Quite the opposite; it is the fabrication of history and the memory loss that guarantees the contradictions and resulting problems will persist in various forms for a long, long time.
On Binary Thinking
Capitalist reality is the intense conditioning to prevailing standards of a binary either/or social control, like the twin towers of the former World Trade Center in New York which were fully identical but symbolically signified together the indestructible monopoly of American economic power. Similarly the thoughts of US citizens appear to veer between two alternatives which are equal, like the Republican and Democratic parties, as Twiddle Dum and Twiddle Dee, fragile identical twin white eggs with attitude. Either/or exercises of by rote learned and from an early age on deliberately inculcated modes of thought that operate chiefly by what are erroneously called multiple choices, only signify a cosmetic binary difference. But these binary choices are firmly anchored in the underlying tough monolith of established capitalist values. Imagination is entirely suppressed as it would threaten the status quo of socially approved behavior. It prevents a functioning healthy democracy because that demands a manifold spectrum of untainted choices in one’s private as well as in one’s social life.
This totalitarianism of binary thinking is what keeps the Republic in business because its various cultural divergences are a strong centrifugal force. However it impoverishes the exploration of different realities and equally of all political discourse. You are either my comrade or my opponent, either complicit in creating profit or a ‘mark’ to be exploited, either a productive or an unproductive person and in all of these cases of fictitious alternatives the protagonists are unhappily tied into an unbreakable mental bondage.The question is how to successfully disrupt these chains of mechanical thought and how to liberate minds from false opposites. So far the totalitarian base for domination remains untouched. Only when the sheer illogicality of the present system becomes exposed by a slow attrition of these prefabricated beliefs can there be any hope for the struggle of what was already expressed in a Swiss revolutionary song of 1810: ”Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten …” (our thoughts are free, who can guess their content ?).
From an article called "Rational Totalitarianism" linked here.
This person is writing from a social point of view. In my book I wrote about technical aspects of the WTC towers, but I come to a similar conclusion that he does.
People tend to become so locked in false opposites that they overlook or fail to notice things they could verify.
Binary false choices
Earlier I described how, in my opinion, the "debate" is nothing more than an artificially narrowed false choice between 2 entrenched though incorrect positions.
Please note some common, simple 2 state systems that exist in our environment:
flip, flop, flip, flop...
ding, dong, ding, dong...
tick, tock, tick, tock...
If one sees themselves as limited to simple patterns such as these, if you are in the state of "tick", there is only one place to go, and that is "tock".
If you reject "ding", then "dong" is the only choice left.
If one flips, and then rejects "flip", "flop" is the only destination remaining.
Rebelling against "ding" makes one a "dong". And if one then finds "dong" equally repulsive, what can one do next? Go back to "ding"?
There is no reason why anyone needs to believe in either Dr Ding or Dr Dong. If Dr Ding is wrong, that does not automatically mean that Dr Dong is right. Drs Ding and Dong do not represent the full range of rational possibility just because they say they do and you believe them.
Neither Dr Ding nor Dr Dong should be seen as infallible or as a father figure in ones life. Their opinions are only as valid as their specific arguments. Their specific arguments are only as valid as they stand up to validation.
There are those who become too engrossed in the ping-pong match between Dr Ding and Dr Dong to notice alternate possibilities:
Narrowed false choices can foster a pseudo-debate
Hypothetically, if any single group could control the arguments presented from both poles, they could game or rig any debate to strongly favor one side. Drs Flip and Flop can be used to stage debates for those who believe in them in which ranges of possibility are excluded and artificially narrowed false dichotomies are introduced to a susceptible public. As long as both Drs Flip and Flop stay within an artificially narrowed script and ignore all possibilities outside it, the stage is set for a puppet show under the control of a single master.
It is as if the range of awareness or the "field of consciousness" is shrunken within the listening audience through various puppet shows which, in substance, are quite similar to Punch and Judy puppet skits. In this analogy "Punch" represents the collapses as described through the lens of NIST and/or Dr Bazant and "Judy" is played by AE911T, STJ911, Jim Hoffman and those acknowledged by them to exist.
Hypothetically, in that type of environment it wouldn't be difficult to stage a fake debate. If both poles can be ultimately controlled by the same group of people, it would be easy to make one of the poles look stronger than the other, or to portray one pole as appearing "crazy" or incompetent with respect to physical argument. In the case of AE911T, the arguments are based on a collective denial that gravity alone can drive progressive floor collapses in the OOS regions once some critical conditions are met.
The opposing extreme pole could be made to look like a bunch of lost crazies, giving one false technical argument after another and few people would be the wiser.
The goal of the offending party would be to magnify the importance of the 2 false polarities while ignoring all other viewpoints as "insignificant". False debates can be staged in which one side is set up to make significant technical blunders.
In theory, as long as the two polarized views can be portrayed within media to be the only choices, public opinion can be intentionally steered toward embracing one pole as as representing the historic truth on the subject.
For example, if I didn't have a conscience and somebody wanted my opinion on how to send a bunch of people on a snark hunt, I'd recommend the following plan:
1) Falsify the collapse initiation movement
2) Falsify the collapse progression mode
3) Set up a false, sharply polarized debate which addresses only extreme and absurd arguments in which accuracy has no intrinsic value.
4) Mischaracterize demolition arguments in extreme and absurd, easily debunkable ways.
This arrangement results in highly predictable responses within those observing the "debate' between Dr Ding and Dr Dong. Once the state of doubt is introduced the confused person will either burrow themselves within a protective shell or they can be expected to leap to the opposite pole like a mexican jumping bean. (Within the world view of a false choice there is nowhere else to jump.)
Dearest reader, please consider the ephemeral frailty of human thought and perception.
The questioner's argument is a product of:
an artificially narrowed false choice
divorce of awareness from behavior
detachment from the visual and written records
dynamics of group-think
Chomsky's answer is a product of:
an artificially narrowed false choice
divorce of awareness from behavior
detachment from the visual and written records
dynamics of group-think
Responses from the audience are products of the same dynamics.
Now consider a slightly different exchange in which the questioner ends by saying, "but I honestly am not sure", and Chomsky ends his comment by admitting that he is honestly not sure either.
That slight change opens the door of awareness to a wholly different realm of thought, feeling, and perception. Both questioner and respondent would quickly understand their common condition.
Belief in the invulnerability of the technical hierarchy
Many people believe the hierarchy functioned fine. The NIST did their job well, there was vibrant discussion within the red zones over the most important issues, and the resulting professional consensus was reported to the general public through the media.
Many people cannot read the articles and reports produced within the red zones but they believe all those smart people must know what they are doing, and that is good enough.
According to this world view, people in the green zone have no right to complain. They are in good professional hands.
Earlier when discussing taboo I mentioned work in post traumatic stress disorder shows that people have a "metaphysical hard-core"
In particular, people generally seem to operate on the basis of three fundamental assumptions related to invulnerability: (a) the world is benevolent; (b) events in the world are meaningful; and (c) the self is positive an worthy. A benevolent world is not only one in which good things happen, but one in which people are good. A meaningful world is one in which events "make sense" because they predictably follow certain accepted "social laws" (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983; Silver & Wortman, 1980). In Western cultures, events are meaningful if they follow principles of justice (i.e., people get what they deserve; Lerner, 1980) or controllability (i.e., people's actions determine their outcomes; Seligman, 1975). A positive view of the self involves seeing oneself as decent and worthy, and thereby as deserving of good outcomes.
These three vulnerability-related assumptions may form a central core of our assumptive world. Work on the child's earliest experiences suggests that the groundwork for these assumptions is laid in the child's early interactions. Essentially, the development of the child during the first year involves learning to trust the world, learning that he or she is not vulnerable but rather is protected and secure (Erikson, 1950, 1968, 1980).
Very interesting how these "invulnerability related" beliefs form in very young children. And it makes perfect sense when considering childhood innocence. There is an innocent belief that people are good, the world is a good care-taker...
It is an innocent belief in the world, in strangers. The world is like a big father or mother, and childhood innocence has not yet been lost.
In a rather funny parallel, some people believe that those in the technical hierarchy of the red zone are taking good care of society in general. They are fatherly, wise, and cannot easily be fooled. If they do make occasional mistakes, then surely those mistakes are just "small unimportant details".
It is a projection of a child-like feeling of security and belief onto those of the red zone.
In particular, people generally seem to operate on the basis of three fundamental assumptions related to invulnerability: (a) the world is benevolent; (b) events in the world are meaningful; and (c) the self is positive an worthy. A benevolent world is not only one in which good things happen, but one in which people are good. A meaningful world is one in which events "make sense" because they predictably follow certain accepted "social laws" (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983; Silver & Wortman, 1980).
The red zones are are commonly considered relatively invulnerable to producing bone-headed mistakes. Groups of engineers are relatively invulnerable to being fooled by false claims.
Contrary to this rosy world, My own research shows that the red tiers are extremely vulnerable to believing in unchecked false technical claims. They are also extremely vulnerable to passing false technical information to the general public.
The red and yellow tiers did not serve the interest of the public at all. They certainly did not protect them from false technical claims or explain the collapses in clear terms. Quite the contrary, they left the general public exposed to misrepresentations of the collapses with no clear description of collapse mechanics, or global mass and particulate flows and patterns witnessed during the collapses.
Even today, more than 11 years after the collapses, the public has no common pool of information through which they can understand much of anything about the collapses. They have no accurate descriptions of visible movement and behavior available anywhere. The public is left in a quite vulnerable situation will little help offered by the technical hierarchy.
For those who so confidently proclaimed expertise on the issue, major screw-ups cannot be admitted at this late date, even if they are unrelated to demolition.
Revelations of major screw-ups with respect to the WTC collapses after a decade expose false certainty and the pose of expertise for what it really is.
Such major screw-ups do exist. Yet those who posed as self-certain experts cannot admit it now. Their earlier claims are frozen, calcified in time, and they cannot go back and change them anymore.
They are stuck where they are, and the only way forward is to deny, deny and deny (that they are quite human, quite vulnerable to group reinforced misunderstandings).
Created on 01/14/2013 03:22 AM by admin
Updated on 08/02/2015 08:07 AM by admin