Jonathan Barnett, former Professor in fire safety engineering and mechanical engineering, consulted on Building 7
by Dee McLachlan
I had a meeting in the city the other night, and caught an Uber home. The driver, a pleasant fellow in his early 30s, had arrived in Australia from Pakistan in 2007, then worked as a chef. From what I could gauge, his family back in Pakistan are doing okay — and are exporting medical equipment here.
I always talk to taxi (and Uber) drivers to get their view of the world, and our conversation quickly migrated from job opportunities to terrorism, and 9-11. He was at first cautious until I mentioned Building 7 — and he disclosed that he did not believe the official narrative.
I asked, “When you were living in Pakistan in 2001, did you believe 19 Arabs attacked New York?”
He replied, “No, no one I knew believed that bin Laden had done it. We were all aware, after a short time, that the American government had somehow done it — and were blaming terrorists.”
He went on (and I paraphrase here), that everyone there understood that the Mujahideen (al Qaeda) were armed by US to fight Russia. The knew that Iraq was a false war, and they understood the a plan to destroy Iran. As Pakistan has nuclear weapons, they feared that America was trying to “do something” to Pakistan.
After 14 minutes, my ride was over, and I was left wondering why I could have such an intelligent and open debate with an Australian (from Pakistan) — yet the same conversation with another educated Australian would be impossible.
The Power of Doublethink
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
Could this be called a mental condition of controlled insanity?
It seems that one has to rearrange memories and beliefs to allow one opinion to dominate. I experienced this when I interviewed Professor Jonathan Barnett. He had been a consultant for FEMA on the collapse of Building 7, and seemed to have two contradictory belief systems with regard to how it collapsed.
We had spent over an hour discussing the building’s collapse, when I said, “Building 7’s collapse looked like a demolition, should you have not at least tested the rubble for explosives?” His mind was unable to grasp that point of view — even though they allegedly had a demolition expert on the team. Barnett said with great sincerity, “There was no need to investigate for explosives“. Why not I asked. His answer became repetitive. He reluctantly agreed that, yes, the building did collapse and behave like a building being demolished — BUT, “There was no need to investigate for explosives…” (I paraphrase) — because it was not brought down by explosives. How do know? Because we just knew.
The whole investigating team had rubbed “explosives” off the white board — even though it LOOKED like a demolition.
The one side of his thought process could not contemplate the complication to the “Arab story”, if it was demolished. His mind was trapped into believing that fire had damaged column 79. Even though it looks like a perfect uniform demolition, he is unable to see the uniformity, and produced the most complicated hypothetical to explain the building’s collapse.
George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes it:
“…To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word Doublethink it is necessary to exercise Doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality…”
One needs to rearrange one’s memories and then forget one has done so.
Politicians have to create a reality that fits the belief of control. Anything that endangers control, would probably automatically become a distortion of reality. And there is surely a “rule” when joining these groups, that anyone disrupting this reality is expelled from the group. That explains why Canberra acts as one body — unable to challenge the most basic of concepts.
Newspeak and Opposites
The key here is to be able to claim black is actually white — and believe it. And there is the opposite speak: To keep you safe, we must control you. Or the Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war.
How do we deal with politicians that are trapped by system that is devoid of logic?
The problem is, “doublethink” is a survival strategy for those in Canberra in Washington. It seems there is really no other way for them to operate.