I think the most critical foundation of society today is that Perception is Reality…
…and your reality is constructed from what you perceive…
If you can become the master of perception, you can become the master of reality. It is the ability to hide in plain sight. Think about how anything is truly genuine nowadays. Especially with social media outlets… if you have thousands of followers you must be important, smart, talented, etc. But in reality you could be really an average joe.
Our whole monetary system’s foundation is perception. The entire system.
Our whole political system, again all on perception.
They don’t really have to have control on actually anything physical, they just need control of your perception. The entire subject of reality is really fascinating in itself. What truly is our reality?
We’re far beyond “1984” than we ever imagined. Critical thinking is a conspiracy itself. We were always told to think outside the box in school, but they have control over that “box.”
“There is a policeman inside all our heads. He must be destroyed.”
Eric-
Here’s an additional point that goes along with your thesis. Within your body, your perception actually creates your reality.
If you perceive that a tiger is about to attack you, your belief will cause your body to release an avalanche of chemicals that shuts down your immune, regenerative, and digestion systems in order to provide more energy to your muscles.
After all, if a tiger attacks, whatever immune system issues you might have can wait - if you fail to beat off the tiger, any infection you might have will be the tiger’s problem, not yours.
So the body has evolved to respond - and change - according to your perception of reality.
After understanding all of this, I stopped playing video games. The games these days do a very good job of simulating attacks, and I could tell that my body responded appropriately - by shutting down half the systems of my body in order to prepare me to fight. The games weren’t as stressful as (say) a martial arts competition, or a real life confrontation, but they made up for it by presenting simulated life & death threats for a very large number of hours.
You want to have good skin, digestion, and immune system? Probably best not to play video games.
All those Presidents get white hair during their time in office. That’s because they perceive that they are constantly in a threatening situation.
What you perceive externally ends up creating your internal reality.
I agree. Additionally, the Russians are a strong people with tribal knowledge for transitioning to a more simple, family, economy. Juxtaposed to the US where an iteration of cable TV could put us in a tailspin!
The discussion on common knowledge and private knowledge reminded me of this classic human behaviour video, which graphically shows the exact same process. The key here is to acknowledge the importance of being the second followers, or to relate to this article being the second round of people vocalising to make the private knowledge, common knowledge.I love this video. Classic! Thanks for posting. :)
Sorry Chris, My guess is that you have not physically inspected the building & probably don’t have access to all of the reports created by various inspectors insurance companies. I presume if there was foul play (ie building was deliberately destroyed) that the insurance companies would have presented this information in order to avoid paying out hundred of millions to bullions, in insurance claims.I don't have to inspect the buildings. I can look at the concrete blob fused with metal and conclude, without any doubt whatsoever, that a temperature in excess of 1,300 C was achieved. And not just for a second or minute, but long enough to cause these artifacts. Whether I personally witnessed them in the destroyed basements myself or see them in a display case doesn't change anything. So I'm really not sure why it's important to you that I went and saw them first hand in the building? Also, you then go on to ascribe motivations and actions of insurance companies. That's outside of my wheelhouse, and I'll leave it to others to figure out why large corporations and other governmental entities behave they way they do.
You cannot possible provide connection unless you have access to all of the information available. I don’t believe you are applying a scientific analysis needed to come to valid conclusion.I am applying very scientific analysis. 1,300C or more. It's the most basic of materials science. Various elements, alloys and minerals have very precise changes that happen only above certain temperatures. If you show me two matches, one burnt, the other not, I can tell you that the burnt match had experienced a temperature of at least X. That's a conclusion and a connection I can draw all day long and be very, very confident in it.
I don’t have any data. I am just very skeptical that the gov’t would deliberately destroyed a building to cover up evidence when it could have done the same with much less destruction. ie there is no reason to blow up a safe, when you already have the combinati0n.Well, that's our disconnect right there. I have lots of data. Tons of it. And I am not limited by holding a belief system that says "the government wouldn't..." For heaven's sake, "the government" lied about weapons of mass destruction and then killed a million people over that deception. We put some child molesters in jail after a single incident and then brand them for the rest of their lives. One and done. Why do you provide "the government" with extra chances? Shouldn't the psychopathic result of killing a million innocent people be some sort of disqualifer?
The whole affair of WTC 7 collapse is because a reporter mis-understood an emergency responder radio call “Pull Building 7” The radio call was “Pull out of Building 7 because its collapsing”: Warning Emergency responders to evacuate from the area near WTC 7 before it collapses on them. I am sure the radio call was difficult to hear as probably the responder issuing the warning, was on a handheld radio and likely in a noise location.Who cares about a possible misinterpretation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment? It's a(nother) diversion from the topic at hand, which is the materials science. Not only did I not raise that, but I was talking about building 6. Six. (VI). We can discuss WTC 7 at some other point, but there again I'd be using physical data, such as free fall for 2.25 seconds, fused concrete melted blobs, eutectic steel, etc. But I get it. This is a difficult topic because you have to entertain the idea that we were all lied to comprehensively and and completely.
If you recall the scene during the aftermath, those building fires burned for about a month. I was working in New York at the time and could see the smoke pouring out from about 25 miles away from the Tappen Zee bridge (Near white plains, NY) for weeks.That's not my interpretation. Ever been to a luau? You dig a pit, line it with rocks, make a fire, put the fire out, then put a pig in there and cover it all up. It looks like it's burning for many hours afterwards, but it's steam and smoke being liberated by the heat stored in the rocks driving off moisture and (poorly) combusting the grasses and leaves covering the pig. My interpretation is that something provided enough exothermic potential to really heat the living crap out of all that concrete and steel and it was the buried heat being worked off over many months. Underground fires are 100% limited by the amount of oxygen that can penetrate. Otherwise, there's nothing to burn.
Its possible if the temperatures were hot enough that steam could have supplied the oxygen needed for the fire.Really? It's possible if? Could have? Do you have any idea at what temperatures water dissociates into oxygen and hydrogen? You seem very comfortable tossing out plausible sounding theories without doing even the most basic of inquiry, and I'm mystified by that approach. At any rate, here's the data:
An appreciable fraction of water will be decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen at a temperature high enough so that the Gibbs free energy change for the decomposition reaction equals zero. At 1 atmosphere pressure this will occur at around 3000K to 4000K. At higher pressures the required temperature will be higher, and at lower pressures the required temperature will be lower, because one mole and hence one volume of water vapor decomposes into 1 1/2 moles and hence 1 1/2 volumes of (hydrogen plus oxygen). So decomposition is favored by high temperature and low pressure and is inhibited by low temperature and high pressure. The high temperature of steam boilers almost certainly cannot exceed 2000 degrees F which is about 1400K even for short intervals, and probably not 1000K on a sustained basis, as these are typical metallurgical limits. At these temperatures there is not much dissociation of water vapor. See, for example, Thermodynamics by Kenneth Wark, Jr. and Donald E. Richards, 6th edition, Table A-24 on p. 1066. (The material in Sects. 14-5 through14-7 on pp. 762-773 and Tables A-12 through A-15 on pp. 1047-1055 may also be helpful.) (Source)The Kelvin to Centigrade conversion is 3000 K/2727 C and 4000 K/3727 C. So the "basement fires" would have to be burning at somewhere north of 2700 C to decompose water (or steam) into oxygen and hydrogen. Yeah. No. Never, not once. In this gentle universe blast-furnace temperatures do not spontaneously happen (thank god). Maybe a parallel one. But not the one you and I inhabit. Here you have to work really hard to create temperature deltas, and the more extreme the delta, the harder you have to work. A thermodynamic law about the transfer of heat seems to have been written into the source code of our simulation.
Obviously if these fire were burning for weeks it had to be getting an external source of oxygen to burn for that long. No way would any chemical oxidizer (ie thermite) would have burned for weeks. It would have been spent in a matter of minutes to seconds.Again, your interpretation requires basement fires to somehow burn intensely for weeks at temperatures that are literally impossible (even if fully & perfectly oxygenated), and my interpretation simply allows for an exothermic potential to have been applied, possibly within seconds, that heated everything up to the witnessed temperatures, where they then lay in the basement, covered like a luau pig, smoldering away for weeks as the excessive temperatures slowly radiated away. Your views require me to believe impossible things. My views simply say "a lot of excess heat was supplied." I can find a path to understanding the excessive heat conundrum. Your path requires me to unlearn decades of science that has yet to fail me (or anyone else). Things like the exothermic potential of carbon-hydrogen bonds. Conservation of momentum. The heat of dissociation for water. The importance of oxygen for combustion. You know, really basic, thoroughly proven stuff. However, if you or anyone can provide me with even one other example, from all of history, showing a basement fire achieving these sorts of artifacts while using only oxygen as the oxidizing agent (not a warehouse holding magnesium, or powdered aluminum, for example), I will have to reconsider my case. That's how science works. An hypothesis stands until contradictory data comes in. I've yet to see any.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/How-to-Become-a-Federal-Criminal/Mike-Chase/9781982112516
https://twitter.com/crimeaday?lang=en
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/there-is-no-normal/
Even the traumas of the 20thcentury’s world wars did not crush that sense of amazing progress, at least not in North America, spared the wars’ mighty wreckage. The post-war confidence of American society achieved a level of in-your-face laughable hubris — see the USA in your Chevrolet! — until John Kennedy was shot down, and after that the delirious moonshot euphoria steadily gave way to corrosive skepticism, anxiety, acrimony, and enmity. My generation, booming into adulthood, naively thought they could fix all that with Earth Day, tofu, and computers, and keep the great wheel rolling down into an even more glorious cybernetic nirvana. Fakeout. That’s not where the wheel is going. We borrowed all we possibly could from the future to pretend that the system was still working, and now the future is at the door like a re-po man come to take away both the car and the house. The financial scene is an excellent analog to our collective psychology. Its workings depend on the simple faith that its workings work. So, it is easy to imagine what happens when that faith wavers. We’re on the verge of a lot of things coming apart: supply lines, revenue streams, international agreements, political assumptions, promises to do this and that. We have no idea how to keep it together on the downside. We don’t even want to think about it. The best we can do for the moment is pretend that the downside doesn’t exist. And meanwhile, fight both for social justice and to make America great again, two seemingly noble ideas, both exercises in futility. The wheel is still turning and the change of season soon upon us. What will you do?
Hey guys, I’ve actually seen this one in action; my son and I forged spice chpper knives!
It’s a DIY magic forge.
https://manmadediy.com/4628-make-this-diy-fire-brick-blowtorch-forge
It’s amazing what UNcommon knowledge can help you do.
… that I would half expect gun safes to have self-oxidizing gun cartride shells in the vicinity; I might even expect to find oxygen containers in the area; and when all that concrete comes crashing down, making an insulated mess, I might not be too surprised to find steel safes melted similar to what we did in our propane forge. Insulation, plus an over supply of oxygen in a good, steady high-mass-rate-of-flow, plus a good hydrocarbon source can do amazing things.
Dave and Eric -
Another take on reality and our experience.
In Hierarchy Theory Allen and Ahl separate what is contributed by the physical world from what is contributed by us, observers, in the act of perceiving. The physical world contributes gradients in behavior. That’s it.
We contribute all of the rest.
Via processes involving addition, deletion, and distortion, we build the worlds that we live starting from those gradients in behavior. We name the edges by which a dandelion emerges as a separate thing. We form the levels of classification, by which the dandelion becomes a member of a group called dandelions, and the group gets labeled as a weed, and the weed gets labeled as something to be eradicated.
Between edging and levels of organizing and then working with those levels, lots of room for missteps and unfortunate choices. Also lots of room for making more fruitful choices. More useful maps of reality. Even if a given map has edges, contains dragons, and shows cities, but not distributions of animals or cultural beliefs.
Maps are more or less useful. More is better. Less can be lethal.
Mapping miscreants: It can be useful to reclassify a weed (or a pharmaceutical executive or The Fed) as an opportunist. That change invites a move in focus from the individual and its characteristics to looking at the environment where opportunities arise for invasions of undesirable characters. And that invites us to consider our role in sustaining it. Levels of organization, of mapping. Our choices, environments, opportunists. Which level will be most effective to focus on?
Mapping energy: It can be useful to look at fossil fuels not in general, but by mapping in multiple levels. The argument of whether energy drives the economy or the economy drives energy seems like a false argument. Currently available barrels enable certain current economies and not others. The current economy enables obtaining future barrels, which enable a future economy. That is, the barrels enabling the current economy are not the same barrels obtained by that economy.
It is challenging to experience the raw gradients in behavior without the added levels of meaning. John Grinder, one of the cofounders of NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming, mentioned by Chris a few weeks ago.) developed an exercise to experience, as far a possible, the physical world. Pairs of people went out into the streets of London and, one at a time, tried to experience splotches of green, red, and yellow rather than ivy leaves; the feel of hard curves underfoot rather than cobble stones; changing sound levels and textures rather than taxi cab horns. The second person was there, of course, to keep the explorer from being hit by a cab. My partner was able to escape his constructed world. I was not.
I love this perhaps apocryphal story about Picasso riding on a train. The man next to him said that he preferred art that was realistic. Picasso asked the man if he had a picture of his wife. The man pulled out his wallet and proffered a photo. Picasso looked at it and said, “She’s very small, isn’t she?”
The map is not the territory. We live the maps. So hard to remember.
… that I would half expect gun safes to have self-oxidizing gun cartride shells in the vicinity; I might even expect to find oxygen containers in the area; and when all that concrete comes crashing down, making an insulated mess, I might not be too surprised to find steel safes melted similar to what we did in our propane forge. Insulation, plus an over supply of oxygen in a good, steady high-mass-rate-of-flow, plus a good hydrocarbon source can do amazing things.I'd be hugely surprised. Why? Because the amount of smokeless gunpowder in the average pistol round is around 6 grains. Which means there's around 1 kg of powder in 2,500 rounds. Smokeless powder has an energy potential of 4.6 MJ/kg Gasoline has 131.76 MJ/ gallon Converting all of that, it means that to have the same energetic (heat) potential as a gallon of gasoline, you'd need more than 75,000 pistol rounds. That would about fill a medium sized safe completely. But let's be safe and double that. I'll grant you 150,000 rounds in a gun safe. Do you think you can melt a steel safe, PLUS turn concrete into a molten mess with 2 gallons of gasoline? Me neither. Isn't data fun? It cuts out a lot of guesswork and grey zones. Also, let's not hypothesize oxygen tanks, because none have ever been mentioned and so why do that? Does the ATF also run home-health O2 resupply missions I don't know about?
of all the aforementioned combustibles increase exponentially with pressure, ie. they work best when compressed (gasoline,diesel etc.) or when confined, (smokeless powders, pistol,rifle,etc).
i spend alotta time trying to find pressure curves to fit chamber, barrel, and projectile weight, for an ordained purpose.
I wanted to officially thank Chris for his contribution to the list of “things that don’t fit the official narrative about 9/11.” The addition of the molten fused cement with metal is a new data point in this story.
Thank you. I have bookmarked this post.
Chris, your ideas about what can be and what can’t is your map.
yes, you have a good point about energy available in just ammo.
Is it possible there were Oxy tanks on the floor above or below, maybe for a medical homecare company? Is it possible that rather than just telling people how to destroy weapons with torch, the ATF also does it? Is it possible they had fuel there?
All of those things are possible --we’re not going to know the whole story.
When someone says “it isn’t possible”, I tend to blink twice.
The reality is going to be wider than your picture of it. Having some outliers does not require changing the storyline – outliers are the mark of reality.
Of course, enough outliers can indicate that the story is different than you had supposed, too.
That response is precisely the kind of argument in the face of evidence that keeps us in check. It allows things like 9/11 to be perpetrated on humanity by those who understand how our beliefs will triumph - no matter what.
Rector
For those interested researchers at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks have completed and will be releasing a 3 year study into the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Spoiler alert…the collapse was NOT caused by fires from “normal office furnishings”. Feel free to watch the presentation live September 5th for additional insight.
Science, Truth, and Justice 18 Years Later: September 2019 Schedule of Events (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth)
“In the first week of September, AE911Truth will participate in releasing the draft report of the groundbreaking World Trade Center Building 7 Study by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).
The release of this report will include a livestreamed presentation by the study’s principal investigator, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, at UAF’s Schaible Auditorium on September 3, 2019, followed by a second presentation from Dr. Hulsey at the UC Berkeley Faculty Club on September 5, 2019. The draft report will be published that same week at http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 — as well as at AE911Truth.org — and will be open for public comment for a six-week period ending October 15, 2019.”
Would be nice if an edit function were added back in. Just sayin’. Thanks!
I am very, very skeptical of the 9/11 Commission Report. I am also very skeptical of the AE Truther explanations too.
“Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to show how nanothermite can slice through a large steel beam. The experiment was a total failure—even in the optimum (horizontal) configuration, the layer of nanothermite produced lots of flame and smoke but no actual damage to the massive I-beam tested.”
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/07/the_911_truth_movement_the_top_conspiracy_theory_a_decade_later/
I will try to find the video of numerous demonstrations of thermite/thermate (thermate = thermite with added sulfur) cutting steel beams, bolts and connectors. But the incendiary thermate must be focused on the metal with an overlying piece of angle iron or a channel.
I have limited access on my current work computer and can’t search videos here. The video I am thinking of was posted here on PP about 3 years ago by HughK. Below is posted one picture from the video where the engineer (seen here) pours powdered thermite into a channel held against the beam. It cut through the beam completely.
The video begins by showing a debunking effort where loose thermite is loosely piled in a mound against a metal object. It does not cut it. (“See. Thermite does not cut steel.”)
Then as channels are employed focus the heat from the burning thermite on to the beam, the thermite is shown to cut steel beams in many different configurations, many times.
Follow on to sand_puppy’s comments on channeling/focus thermite/thermate above.
https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g?t=495