Demolition ...Where's the Mind's Ability to Resonate Truth?

Hi Petros,

It was good of you to tackle that essay by Diane. I have not read your whole essay yet but I want to react instead about Diane's work.

Diane said she had little doubt that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolitions. Reading through her essay however, I sense she is trying to put forth that arguments for CD of WTC 1 and 2 are in question. As we know, there was hardly anything left standing on WTC7, it was totally gone, this as she said herself was most likely by CD - from there you can already establish a conspiracy from within. Now, if I were the perpetrator of that conspiracy, would I have been convincing anyone if WTC7 was totally gone while WTC1 and/or WTC2 was left partially standing? If airplane impacts, let us assume in her bizzare point of view, could cause the two towers to collapse, wouldn't it be a big risk if their collapse were not as total as that of WTC7? As it is WTC1, 2 and 7 were totally obliterated, and only controlled demolitions could accomplish that with certainty - and truthers with any good sense do not doubt that at all.

The title of her essay alone
"Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please" is demeaning to the CD theory in general. She pretends to side with the CD theory, but she used a title that implies the whole CD theory is weak. In the essay, Diane stated that her objective was to point out that some loose or poorly constructed CD arguments are mixed up with good ones with the consequence of dilluting the whole CD theory. If that was what she really wanted to accomplish, then her title ought to have been something like "Demolition of WTC: Which CD arguments are weak and should not be used".   In any case, the rest of her essay did not comply with her stated objective and hewed more instead to the title.

I think Diane's motives are to be questioned and it is a good thing truthers took her to task.

Now I will read the rest of your essay. Sorry for my rant

...to you both, for your thoughts.

There's a lot more to chew on, regarding this whole bundle of
subjects roughly under the general title "how much weight do we assign
to scientific studies, what is their meaning, how do we best make use
of them?"

Additionally, there's the whole other mess of "what, exactly, is scientifically verified truth, and what is not - How is that determined and by Whom?"

These are actually terrible questions to take on; they weigh on
one's shoulders immensely, if taken seriously. I've had the
disagreeable task of having to make life-or-death decisions on the
basis of these (mostly unanswered) questions, and I know intimately the
torment they are capable of generating.

But they're inevitable. Not as curiosity items for the hobbyist or
to pass the time; they are intimately bound with whether we win or
lose, live or die. Our liberty and survival depends on them.

Most Truthers don't like to think of ourselves as being so similar to
our Opposition, but we are: the towers of Science and Logic don't stand
very well within the camp of the Opposition, but they also don't really stand very
well among our own people, either. It's embarrassing to admit this about
our movement, but when it comes to facing, using properly, or preserving that
Twin-Towered edifice of Science and Logic, in practice a lot of
Truthers are just saying, well,

"...We've had such terrible loss of
Reason, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Thanks,

Petros Evdokas
ttetpos (at) yahoo.com

________________

I finally read your very excellent essay and am very impressed with your clarity and ability to tackle such difficult and messy subject matters with such skill and superior reasoning. I generally have low tolerance and patience (and little time) these days for reading lengthy treatises, but once I started reading your paper, I couldn't stop. The arguments were elegant and the complex and multidimensional subjects were interesting and relevant to life. It was a pleasure to read. Good work!

Modern science is just as much based on dogma as is religion. While I've understood this for a while now, I haven't heard anybody articulate exactly how as well as you have.

I don't have much to add, I think you pretty thoroughly covered the issues. I know how time consuming it is to write such a piece of work and the effort is well appreciated and important for the truth movement. With these kinds of superior weapons of reason you could really blow away the false arguments people are pushing on 2 other major areas of 9/11 untruth within the "truth movement": The myth of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the myth of the Evil Muslim Terrorist backstory.

My only criticism would be regarding the following statement: 

"The two prime forms of social organization that produced the criminal atrocity of September 11th are the essence of the twin monster of Power: the profit-based Corporation and the authoritarian State."

I don't disagree that the profit-based Corporation and the authoritarian State are intolerable tyrannical forms of organization that must be abolished and that there can never be true democracy with those institutions intact. I am pretty much a libertarian socialist myself. However, I don't think the evil of 9/11 can be sufficiently explained by the existence of those two institutions.

The terrorists who can sit and calmly plan and then orchestrate the details of such a massive traumatic mindfuck of mass murder to control and manipulate the entire population and initiate (or accelerate) the genocide project against the muslim world are not normal human beings. It takes a special kind of evil that transcends ideological and social analysis.

 In other words, what's missing is the psychological aspect. We are talking about a very special type of human that makes up between 2% and 4% of the population called the psychopath and the process by which these evil beings infiltrate and "rise to the top" in not only all institutions of power, but eventually just about all social movements of any significance. By not acknowledging this existence of, for lack of a better word, evil - those who live to harm and manipulate others for no other reason than their own inherent amusement and perverted sexual gratification - we risk oversimplifying the true nature of the source of humanity's worst forms of cruelty and recurring self-imposed cataclysms by relegating them to Chomsky's "Institutional Analysis".

Chomsky would have us believe that if we just get rid of authoritarian states and authoritarian Corporations, that all would be well and we could live happily ever after. Unfortunately, that is far from the reality we face. Until we deal with the pathocratic element (pathocracy=rule by those with mental illnesses - specifically psychopaths/sociopaths) and the ponerizaiton process (the methods by which these types of humans infiltrate groups and institutions of influence to make them tools of evil and to infect others with the disease of sociopathy) and realize that it transcends social and political ideologies, we will continue to be victims of this recurring nightmare that has bedeviled all of human history.

I just finished reading your paper and am giving it an A+. It is a mighty awesome piece of work, and reminded me of my days when I studied the philosophy of science. I also appreciated your metaphysical understandings of things and pretty much agree with all of your points, quite excellently made and considered. I also find many things of philosophical wonder in the Vedic Upanishads, and thanks for the Patanjali references. Thanks so much for your work. I will have to read your other piece on consciousness as well, but I am off to bed. Peace to you and yours.

Ciao,

Lazlo