Look, I don't want to get into on argument on this, but I have done thorough research, reading, watching videos, listening to interviews, etc. and I have concluded that 9/11 was not "an inside job," in the sense that the U.S. government did it. They did have some advance knowledge through several different FBI agents in 3 separate field offices, and perhaps, had they not been totally incompetent, the could have avoided it, but there were no explosives or demolitions or missiles at the Pentagon.

To my mind, the desire to believe there was a conspiracy, in the "Truther" sense, is a psychological defense mechanism that wants to believe that there is some overarching, all powerful entity in charge of everything, even if it's an evil government, rather than accept how truly vulnerable we are to the actions of angry individuals or small groups. They aren't that powerful, they aren't that well organized, they have only fear and brute force. Terrorists can, have and will continue to beat their best defenses with sheer determination and intelligent adaptation. The government was unable to stop what happened on 9/11, and they will fail again in the future. They are, after all, just some people laboring under a lot of bureaucratic constraints, as well as philosophical delusions that prevent them from doing anything truly effective.

Yet the events of 9/11 benefited them tremendously, so I understand the desire to pin it on them. I've just seen it all from the "Truthers," their best evidence and their most compelling arguments, and they all fail. I'm not in denial, NonE. You're free to believe what you want, but the real science doesn't support the conclusion you have arrived at. I know there's no point in explaining it to you, and no effort I undertake will convince you of that. My experience has taught me well that people who believe in the "Truther" hypothesis are immune to counter-argument. I have spent literally HUNDREDS of hours on other forums engaged in those discussions, to no avail. The only thing I ever did was disabuse some fence-sitters of their "Truther" leanings.

And, in the end, it really doesn't matter. I don't need that story to know that the State is EVIL. I don't need that conspiracy to see through their many other lies. It wont change a single thing for me even if incontrovertible evidence one way or the other comes to light tomorrow. It would be just one more stain on the very long and filthy record of vile crimes perpetrated by the state. Besides, even if everyone agreed it was "an inside job," what would you do about it?

All that said, I look forward to reading you article.

Hi Dyl,

You made some inferences that I didn't say. I don't know who did it. I don't blame it on "the government." I DO know that it was not a bunch of turban heads with box cutters and that the laws of physics preclude what a LOT of people in the government and the media claim it to be. But that is not the point of the article. The point of the article is the psychology of the human mind.

The other point is, that if everyone agreed it WAS an inside job, perhaps they would not be quite so gullible. But that would be expecting a human to be something else. So... never mind. ;-)

- NonE

I read the article NonEntity. Thanks for the link.

Alex wrote:

One problem with having some modicum of talent and a lingering need to be regarded as clever is that writing is the perfect milieu for receiving predictable praise and attention. Feeling low? Just admire your cleverness, or the reviews of others. So long as one takes the time to engage this shallow but strong drive, the drive really does do all the work. Writing is a controllable expression, and with a strong innate (or perhaps more likely, beaten in) desire to be appreciated, its the perfect platform for limiting risk.

Another problem is that because some core need is being served, and cleverness or insight or creativity is the bait for positive attention, if it does fail, it is humiliating and crushing. When the medium is chosen because it offers control, and one still fails, whatever panic is being avoided resurfaces with more heads. And not insignificantly, one's growth as a writer is strongly curtailed because of the essential and hidden nature of one's motivations. Objectivity isn't an option.

Nathaniel Branden wrote:

pag. 114

Man cannot exempt himself from the realm of values and value-judgtnents. Whether the values by which he judges himself are conscious or subconscious, rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory, life-serving or life-negating— every human being judges himself by some standard; and to the extent that he fails to satisfy that standard, his sense of personal worth, his self-respect, suffers accordingly.

pag. 174

A strong sense of personal identity is the product of two things; a policy of independent thinking—and the possession of an integrated set of values. Since it is his values that determine a man's emotions and goals, and give direction and meaning to his life, a man experiences his values as an extension of himself, as an integral part of his identity, as crucial to that which makes him himself.

pag. 179

A man of self-esteem and sovereign consciousness deals with reality, with nature, with an objective universe of facts; he holds his mind as his tool of survival and develops his ability to think. But the psycho-epistemological dependent lives, not in a universe of facts, but in a universe of people; people, not facts, are his reality; people, not reason, are his tool of survival. It is on them that his consciousness must focus; reality is reality-as-perceived-by-them; it is they who he must understand or please or placate or deceive or maneuver or manipulate or obey. It is his success at this task that becomes the gauge of his efficacy—of his competence at living.

Having alienated himself from objective reality, he has virtually no other standard of truth, lightness or personal worth. To grasp and successfully to satisfy the expectations, conditions, demands, terms, values of others, is experienced by him as his deepest, most urgent need. The temporary diminution of his anxiety, which the approval of others offers him, is his substitute for self-esteem.

I write:

Appreciations are value-judgements of others.
You say you experience doubt, fear, worthlessness, etc.
This doubt, fear, etc. results from having no control over the value-judgements (appreciation) of others. You cannot say with complete certainty "what i just wrote, they will love".

Though, you let value-judgements of others determine your emotions, goals, direction and meaning while writing a paper (at least your emotions, right?).

Implicit to giving priority to other people's value-judgements, is making their values yours. So not only are their value-judgements determining your emotions (at times?), you're also replacing your values - present at all? - with theirs. When this is done consistently, it WILL result in a lack of self-esteem. No value-judgements of others == no pseudo-self-value. Then the pseudo self-esteem turns into no self-esteem.

I used to believe that what Brandon said made a lot of sense. But since then I've studied body work and I've been the recipient of the full session of "Rolfing" treatments, and I've found that some how or other the body is very involved in a lot of what the western mind would call mental processes. I'm not claiming to know anything about it aside from that it is a factor. When I was "Rolfed" I ended up going through some HUGE emotional changes over the subsequent 6 months and more. They could have been the result of nothing other than that process of rearranging the facia that holds my body together. But when you stop to think about it, the emotional state of a person is very evident in his or her physical manifestation. A smile is not only mental, it is physical. Indeed, if you hold yourself in the positions you take when you are happy, you will likely become more happy, and conversely as well.

I think Brandon's stuff is interesting and has some benefit, but it is not "the" answer, it is but one of many facets to that which makes us up.

- NonE

brainjunky, I'm not ready to participate in this conversation yet (I have nothing to say or ask and have yet to form my own opinions on this topic), but thank you for your most recent post. It was much more helpful and informative that your first post. It provided your point of view: a position, which people could agree with or debate or ask about.

NonE, I greatly liked your article and did, while reading, experience some of the horror you must have experienced first realizing what you write about.



I'm not sure about all aspects of 9-11 though: WTC 7 is utterly unexplained to me, the flying manoevres and the Twin Towers' collapse appears to have been explained, the financial transactions before 9-11 are very odd. Basically, I'm following the research presented in this seemingly excellent Dutch documentary.

I can explain WTC 7. It's not nearly as spooky and mysterious as some would make it out to be. The short version is that the building's engineering was revolutionary at the time, much like the towers themselves, and relied upon cantilevered and counterbalanced weight distribution systems to bear the load of the buildings' superstructure. Just like when an arch's keystone is removed, it collapses, the falling debris form the initial aircraft impact critically damaged one the spars at the top of the cantilevered roof (I have photographic evidence of this), and then a diesel generator's high pressure fuel line continued for hours to fuel a fire that continued to weaken the steel (it doesn't need it to melt into liquid, like "Truther" seem obsessed with, it just needs to heat up enough to loose it's tensile and load bearing strength) which ultimately led to it's collapse.

If you want more info, I'll shoot you a PM with some links to some of my previous writing on the matter as well as supporting evidence. I don't want to get into a "9/11 was an inside job" debate on this forum at all. I really, really do not.

I'm offering this for you, Conrad, because you seem not to have invested in it one way or the other, and you'd be genuinely interested in what I'm providing to you.

Propaganda pisses me off.