hwaddington

Aug 122014
 

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/909-why-do-good-people-become-silentor-worseabout-911-part-9-brain-r…

Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse-About 9/11? Part 9: Brain Research, Part 2 – Moral Psychology
Written by Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C.
Friday, 08 August 2014

911-experts-shureFrances Shure, M.A., L.P.C.

Summary/Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?” The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.

In answering the question in the title of this essay, last month’s segment, Part 8, reported on some of the brain research that shows we humans have differences in our brain structures, and these differences help explain why some of us are more open to new ideas and can handle ambiguity better than others. Additionally, the research, which demonstrates the brain’s tenacious hold on belief, despite contrary evidence, helps us understand why the task of educating people about 9/11 becomes as much psychological as it is evidence-based.

We continue Ms. Shure’s analysis in Part 9: Brain Research, Part 2, which examines the interface of brain research and moral psychology.
Part 9: Brain Research, Part II – Moral Psychology

How do we acquire our values and our morals? Through reasoning, through emotion, or both? Do conservatives and liberals differ in their values? Does morality vary across cultures? Does our neurology affect our morality?

These are the types of questions that moral psychologists and neurologists are trying to answer, and recently, research in moral psychology has increased voluminously. It is a hot topic.

A few scholars in the humanities and sciences drafted a list of points on morality research upon which they could all agree. Among their points of consensus was that human morality is both innate and culturally derived. The innate building blocks of human morality are the products of evolution, with natural selection playing a critical role. 1

A question that 9/11 activists often ask is, “Why don’t more people become active in our movement, or at least support us, when they clearly understand that 9/11 was a staged event?” Why do they instead become silent? Many conclude from the evidence — and from the implications of that evidence — that elements within our government had to be involved in this mass murder. They know that, in the aftermath of 9/11, hundreds of thousands of our fellow human beings have been murdered, nations have been ruined, and civil liberties have been gutted; and they are aware that, to this day, these atrocities continue.

What keeps people from doing the right thing? What keeps our independent journalists from doing the right thing? What keeps our congressional representatives from doing the right thing? These representatives surely know the implications of the 9/11 evidence, but they are more silent — and worse — than most citizens of our country.

This is a moral issue. I challenge moral psychologists to grapple with this issue, instead of joining the conspicuous silence!

Georgy Lakoff has looked at the research in moral psychology. In his book, The Political Mind, he summarizes some of the findings that give us some insight into the profound silence of those who have at least accepted the 9/11 evidence and its implications, but who choose to keep quiet.

Lakoff theorizes that our brains are wired to direct us toward well-being. Well-being is tied to right behavior, which is guided by our moral convictions, many of which are built into the human nervous system. For example, research into mirror neurons shows that we are hardwired for empathy and cooperation. A mirror neuron is a type of brain cell that responds in the same way when we observe a specific action by another as it does when we are performing that very same action ourselves. This discovery by neuroscientists helps to explain our human capacity for empathy.

The mirror-neuron mechanism translates into the moral value common to many religions: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In Judaism, for example, “mitzvah” means a commandment to do good, and in everyday speech, mitzvah has come to mean a simple act of human kindness. But why is mitzvah a commandment? From the view of brain research, says Lakoff, this commandment and others similar to it manifest from our neural wiring: we feel good when we are kind to others. From this mirror-neuron point of view, when we see others happy, we become happy.

This innate structure can make it difficult for 9/11 skeptics to present the evidence showing that we have not been told the truth about 9/11, because virtually no one is going to feel happy upon hearing this information. If we are psychologically healthy, we do not want to cause distress in others. Nevertheless, a higher moral calling drives activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement forward, so that they courageously transcend their inner taboo barriers and intrepidly present their evidence. There is too much at risk, they believe, to not do so.

Lakoff theorizes that moral convictions are hardwired in our brains. If he is correct, we can easily see how these innate convictions help explain why good people become silent — or worse — about 9/11.

Hardwired convictions that are especially relevant to the subject at hand include the following: We will be better off if 1) as children, we obey our parents than if we disobey; 2) we are with our community rather than opposed to it; and 3) we do not challenge those who have more power than we have. 2

Since we commonly understand governing institutions in family terms — that is, we see authority figures as parental figures — then if we are to feel good, our hardwiring leads us to obey and believe our governing institutions. Given our hardwiring, we are also predisposed to be in conformity with our community’s beliefs.

Therefore, according to the brain’s drive toward well-being, morality requires staying within the boundaries of our community — adhering to the current consensus reality and the mores of the culture. To challenge these boundaries is seen by the brain as deviant, and being deviant is synonymous with being immoral. 3 This is so even if the challenge to the community is obviously from a higher moral calling, as in the case of the White Rose student resistance that protested Nazi Germany’s warmongering and concentration camps. In this tragic case, the authorities saw these students as immoral deviants threatening the power structure. They were jailed, and after a show trial, the brave, young leaders were summarily executed. These students had famously insisted, “We will not be silent!” — a motto that lives on in spirit in today’s activists of all stripes, but especially those championing difficult, taboo subjects like 9/11.

The questions then become, “If we are hardwired to conform to authority, how does change ever occur? Why are there revolutions against tyranny and corruption? Why does consensus reality ever change?”

It appears that humans are very tolerant of their authority figures, but when parents or governing institutions go too far in abusing or deceiving, other biologically wired moral convictions kick in, including:

1) Morality means Fairness

2) Morality means Honesty

3) Morality means Happiness

4) Morality means Freedom 4

Research into the fascinating subject areas of the brain and moral psychology will surely continue, giving us greater clarity into our human resistance to information that contradicts our sacred mythologies, and giving us more insight into why those who know the evidence about 9/11 do not find their voice — in their silence leaving only the sound of chirping crickets.

Shifting to other lenses through which to understand why some people can become aggressively zealous about their chosen worldview, our exploration leads us next to the theories of Terror Management Theory and Systems Justification Theory.

Editor’s note: Electronic sources in the footnotes have all been archived. If they can no longer be found by a search on the Internet, readers desiring a copy may contact Frances Shure [ Here ] for a copy.

This series will be continued in our next newsletter with both Part 10: Terror Management Theory and Part 11: Systems Justification Theory.

[1] A statement of consensus reached among participants at the Edge.org conference, The New Science of Morality (June 20–22, 2010), http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality_consensus.html.
[2] George Lakoff, The Political Mind (Penguin Books, 2009), chap. 4.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Aug 122014
 

In a powerful 25 minute speech on his return home to Tromsø, Norway from 15 days treating the wounded in Gaza, the Norwegian emergency surgeon Dr Mads Gilbert said: “The heart of the Earth beats in Gaza now. It bleeds, but it beats.”

Dr. Mads Gilbert: “I know you applaud for Gaza. I know you applaud for those who are there, the heroes of Gaza. This will be no easy appeal to make, because I am now overcome by the mildness, the warmth, the safety, the absence of bombs, jets, blood and death. And then all that we’ve had to keep inside comes to the surface – so forgive me if sometimes I break”.

Aug 122014
 

Anger over 9/11 Museum exhibit that casts doubt on link between health problems and toxic Ground Zero air

Committees representing 9/11 survivors and first responders are demanding the museum rewrite three of the panels in the ‘After 9/11’ exhibit because they say they contain inaccurate information about the connection between exposure to toxic dust and widespread health issues.

BY Dan Friedman /

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS /

Sunday, August 10, 2014, 8:02 PM

WASHINGTON — The government has recognized that first responders became ill from working near Ground Zero — but the 9/11 Museum isn’t so sure.

Responders and surviving family members are furious that panels at the museum’s “After 9/11″ exhibit present the connection between the toxic dust around Ground Zero and the subsequent health issues of many workers as uncertain.

It’s the latest in a long list of complaints about the museum’s management and mission by victims’ families and responders, who point out that the 2011 James Zadroga Act, which helped cover victims’ health needs, settled the issue.

Read article here

Aug 052014
 

Last Year It Was WTC 7;
This Year It’s the Twin Towers
Help Us Take On The New York Times with a New ReThink911 Billboard

We at AE911Truth are thrilled to announce the first of our 13th Anniversary projects: the September 2014 New York Times Billboard!

With your support, this billboard – which features the explosive destruction of the North Tower along with our rebuke to New York Times chief correspondent David Sanger’s jaw-dropping comments last year – will stand directly outside The New York Times Building throughout the month of September, including on the 13th Anniversary of 9/11.
rethink9112014timessquare
Like us, you were probably flabbergasted when you heard Sanger say on C-SPAN, “We’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes.” The following day, more than 1,000 AE911Truth supporters contacted the Times and Sanger himself to say, “Clearly, you haven’t been looking.”

Now we are sending the message even more loudly with a billboard the newspaper’s employees and the public cannot possibly ignore. Like last year, this 29′ x 13′ billboard, standing just across the street from the Times Building and the Port Authority Bus Terminal, will be seen by 100,000 people each day. With the image of the North Tower grabbing the eyes and the minds of everyone who has a clear sight line, this one is sure to get the attention we all know it deserves.

What will it take to reach 100,000 people each day and make a statement that will have every Times staffer wondering about the evidence of controlled demolition? It will cost $30,000, and we can raise that money in no time, if those of us who want this billboard chip in today. Will you help us reach our target by this Wednesday?

Think about it! At 100,000 people each day and a cost of $1,000 per day, each dollar you donate will reach 100 people. With a modest donation of $10, you will personally reach 1,000 people. With $25 you’ll reach 2,500 people, with $50 you’ll reach 5,000, and so on.

Plus, on top of these millions of individual “impressions,” we have a very good chance of generating some news coverage – and maybe, just maybe, getting the Times to respond. After all, we got C-SPAN’s Washington Journal to have Richard Gage on their show yesterday after a year of nonstop phone calls. If we’re to win over the Times, too, we’ll need your help contacting its editorial board when September rolls around (stay tuned for details on that effort).

But first, we need a little bit of financial support to make this billboard a reality. Will you make a donation so we can reach hundreds of thousands of people throughout the 13th Anniversary month of September?

Please go to ReThink911.org today to chip in, and together we’ll make it untenable for The New York Times to continue ignoring the evidence.

Aug 032014
 

Obama Admits: ‘We Tortured Some Folks’

By RT
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39300.htm
“We tortured some folks. We did things that were contrary to our values”

August 02, 2014 “ICH” – “RT” – President Barack Obama made a rare acknowledgment during a Friday press briefing concerning the United States’ past use of enhanced interrogation tactics in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did things that were contrary to our values,” Pres. Obama said near the end of a nearly hour-long press briefing at the White House in Washington, DC.

The commander-in-chief made the comment as he fielded a question concerning John Brennan, the director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, in-between queries from journalists regarding the situations in Gaza, Ukraine and West Africa.

Earlier this week, Brennan admitted that CIA employees had, as alleged, spied on the computer usage of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers while they worked on a report concerning the agency’s use of contentious interrogation tactics. The report, a 6,000-page study, has yet to be made public, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), the chairperson of the intelligence panel, said it is “chilling” and will show “far more systematic and widespread than we thought.”

After acknowledging that the US had “tortured some folks” during Friday’s briefing, Obama added: “That’s what that report reflects.”

Earlier this week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) told The Daily Beast that “The American people will be profoundly disturbed about what will be revealed in this report.”

On his part, Pres. Obama added during Friday’s briefing that “The character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy but what we do when things are hard.”

The word “torture” to describe the tactics used by the CIA is rarely used by government officials, but Pres. Obama has indeed condemned the agency’s past abuses before. During an address last year at the National Defense University, Obama said that, in some cases, “I believe we compromised our basic values — by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.”

“So after I took office, we stepped up the war against Al-Qaeda but we also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted Al-Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law and expanded our consultations with Congress,” Obama said in that address from last May.

The president spoke of the report after being asked for his opinion of Brennan, who previously insisted that Sen. Feinstein was speaking erroneously when she said the CIA had spied on intelligence committee staffers.

“I am deeply dismayed that some members of the Senate have decided to make spurious allegations about CIA actions that are wholly unsupported by the facts,” Brennan initially countered the senator’s claims.

On Thursday, McClatchy reported that an investigation conducted by the CIA’s Office of Inspector General concluded that its employees “acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding” between the agency and the intelligence committee. Brennan then responded by meeting with Feinstein and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), the vice chairman of the committee, and “apologized to them for such actions by CIA officers as described in the OIG” report, a CIA spokesperson told McClatchy.

“I have full confidence in John Brennan,” Obama said during Friday’s presser.
See also

Citing redactions, Feinstein delays release of report on CIA interrogations: The Obama administration censored significant portions of the findings of an investigation into the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation methods on suspected terrorists.

Aug 022014
 

Dear friends,

Yesterday was a special day for all of us who have supported the High-Rise Safety Initiative in any way. After three months of pounding the NYC pavement, we finished our petition drive.

We started petitioning on May 1st after three months of working to build support and collect donations. Thanks to the generosity and faith of so many supporters, we were able to raise enough in those early months to get the petition drive started on time. Still needing more funds to make it to our eventual goal of 100,000 signatures, your generosity continued to pave the way until this past week when we reached our final fundraising goal and then finished the job we set out to do.
NYC can petitions

All told, we gathered over 100,000 signatures from NYC voters between May 1st and July 31st, 67,000 of which were submitted on July 3rd, and 33,000 of which will be submitted on September 4th. We could not have accomplished this feat without you and your incredible commitment to this vital cause. For that, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Now the voters have spoken and it is incumbent upon the City of New York to honor their request for a measure to be placed on the ballot requiring the City to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 and any future high-rise collapses. We will learn next week whether the City will try to stand in the way of the voters. If it does, we are prepared to do battle in court, and we are confident of defeating what would be a baseless challenge to the petition.

In the meantime, let us celebrate and feel grateful for what we have accomplished. Thank you.

Yours truly,

Ted Walter

Aug 022014
 

Richard Gage, AIA, Drives Home Explosive Evidence

It’s the kind of rare opportunity that members of the 9/11 Truth Movement wish would come more often.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, was invited to bring the evidence for the explosive demolition of the three World Trade Center towers to viewers of C-SPAN today on its morning program Washington Journal. His 45-minute appearance — which can be viewed here by those who did not see it live — is enabling the 9/11 Truth message to reach a national television audience of millions.

Gage explained to viewers that his organization, representing more than 2,200 architects and engineers, is focused on the science of the event and on calling for a new, independent investigation. He encouraged viewers to visit the AE911Truth.org website and watch the landmark video 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.

“Every one of our [C-SPAN] viewers today should be calling their Congressmen and Senators and finding out why they’re not investigating the worst act of mass murder in U.S. history and the third-worst structural failure in modern history,” Gage said. “This is an extraordinary and unacceptable situation.”

Host Peter Slen told viewers that Gage was brought in as a guest because Washington Journal had received so many calls in recent months asking its other guests to address the issue of how Building 7 fell on 9/11 when it was not hit by a plane. The invitation shows that the continuing efforts of 9/11 Truth activists to bring the issue to the attention of the public are not in vain.

Slen read excerpts from the Frequently Asked Questions section of the National Institute of Standards and Technology website, which gave Gage the opportunity to explain how NIST fails to address the forensic evidence that AE911Truth’s building and technical experts have accumulated, including the symmetrical destruction of Building 7 at free-fall acceleration, the explosions reported by first responders, the evidence of thermite in the dust, and the molten iron found in the rubble of all three towers. Gage also pointed out that at least two media outlets — CNN and the BBC — reported the destruction of Building 7 before it actually occurred.

Several excellent questions were asked by Washington Journal callers, most of who made intelligent points about the subject and had supportive comments about AE911Truth.

The appearance by Gage on C-SPAN as well as recent attention given by the media to the High-Rise Safety Initiative offer real hope that the ongoing efforts of the 9/11 Truth Movement are starting to show some significant results.

Indeed, after the interview, Gage told the AE911Truth that he is “quite encouraged to finally be treated in a fair and balanced manner in a mainstream media TV interview. I also appreciate Washington Journal’s commitment to providing a forum for all voices concerning the important issues that affect our country. When it comes to the controlled demolition evidence,” he mused, “the question is, ‘How soon before other networks learn from C-SPAN’s example?’”

Aug 012014
 

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 31, 2014

According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.

What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit:

The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile.

Read article here

Jul 282014
 

CIA Director George Tenet Facilitated 9/11
by Kevin Ryan

After becoming CIA Director in 1997, George Tenet did what Louis Freeh had done after his appointment as FBI Director. He began to cultivate close personal relationships with the rulers of Saudi Arabia. Like Freeh, Tenet grew especially close to Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States. For unknown reasons, Tenet did not share information from those meetings with his own officers who were handling Saudi issues at the Agency. The CIA’s Saudi specialists only learned about Tenet’s dealings with the Saudi authorities inadvertently, through their Saudi contacts. These facts suggest that Tenet was operating within a network that surpassed the interests of the American public. Therefore the unsolved crimes of 9/11, attributed largely to young men from Saudi Arabia, should be considered in light of Tenet’s actions.

As Deputy Director for the CIA, in 1996, Tenet had worked to install one of his closest friends and confidants, John Brennan, as CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. Brennan is now the Director of the CIA (DCI) but, in his previous role, Brennan often communicated directly with Tenet, avoiding the usual chain of command. At the time, as an apparent favor to the Saudis, CIA analysts were discouraged from questioning Saudi relationship to Arab extremists.

The unusual relationship that both George Tenet and Louis Freeh had with Saudi intelligence (and George H.W. Bush) recalls the private network that was created in the mid-1970s to accomplish covert actions though means of proxies. This private network included disgruntled CIA officers who had been fired by President Carter, as well as the group known as The Safari Club, and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

The Safari Club resulted from an agreement between Saudi Arabian intelligence chief Kamal Adham, Anwar Sadat of Egypt, the Shah of Iran, and French intelligence director Alexandre de Marenches. The BCCI network grew, with the blessing of CIA director George H.W. Bush, through the guidance of the Safari Club, which needed a network of banks to help fund proxy operations, including off-the-books operations required by the CIA. This private network was utilized in the arming of the Mujahideen, the precursor to al Qaeda.

The U.S. aid to the Mujahideen did not officially start until 1980 but went on for many years under the name Operation Cyclone. This operation relied heavily on using the Pakistani ISI as an intermediary for funds and weapons distribution, military training, and financial support. Evidence suggests that covert U.S. support for a “CIA within a CIA” existed twenty years later, when Tenet began leading the CIA, and that terrorist operations were among those that were funded.

Read article here