What was real about 9/11?

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

What was real about 9/11?

Postby Andrew1484 on October 13th, 2012, 12:21 pm

docwatcher wrote:I find it quite telling that you would require people to introduce themselves as well as their "nationality"...that's almost as offensive as the premise of your entire site.... I'm not sure why you don't believe 9/11 is real but take it from a New Yorker...it was real and you are spitting in the faces of all the victims and their families. Shame on you. If you are that paranoid that you can not allow others to freely respond to all of your outrageous accusations, then there is not democracy here...it sounds almost "cult" like... I hope you find the truth and stop these paranoid delusions.


Would you like to discuss this in the "Living Room" ?
Moved From:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838&p=2376657#p2376657
Last edited by Andrew1484 on October 13th, 2012, 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andrew1484
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:03 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby Andrew1484 on October 13th, 2012, 12:48 pm

docwatcher wrote:I find it quite telling that you would require people to introduce themselves as well as their "nationality"...that's almost as offensive as the premise of your entire site.... I'm not sure why you don't believe 9/11 is real but take it from a New Yorker...it was real and you are spitting in the faces of all the victims and their families. Shame on you. If you are that paranoid that you can not allow others to freely respond to all of your outrageous accusations, then there is not democracy here...it sounds almost "cult" like... I hope you find the truth and stop these paranoid delusions.


9/11 was "real" enough in that it was a false flag terrorist operation, evidently involving elements of the US Military, US political regime, "terrorists" presumably of "American Nationality" and collaborators with terrorism in the US branded "mainstream media" or MSM. 9/11 was real enough in that all 7 buildings of the WTC complex either blew up and collapsed on 9/11 or were so badly damaged on 9/11 (both by WTC 1 & 2 fallout and by additional explosive events) that all 7 buildings were damaged beyond repair on 9/11. Additional buildings outside the WTC complex were also destroyed, probably accidentally, as collateral damage. 9/11 was real enough in that this Operation Northwoods or Gleiwitz type false flag terrorist event was used as a bogus pretext for several illegal wars of aggression and mass murder that have killed, maimed and displaced innocent people in their millions. It was a massive fraud and a massive crime against all of humanity.

The 9/11 event called "UA93" was completely bogus and a large aircraft called "AA77" did not hit the Pentagon. If any flying object hit the Pentagon at all, that was also a false flag military deception operation, probably involving a shaped charge bunker busting explosive device of some kind, either placed statically next to the building or flying into the building.

If you are a New Yorker you may be a North American. I am a European. I don't think "nationality" is very important though. It seems pretty evident to me that these 9/11 terrorists have a global revolutionary agenda, so we are all in this together.

If you would like to deny the "reality" of anything that I have said above --- as a "paranoid delusion" --- please make your argument and present your evidence.
Andrew1484
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:03 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby peacebabynow on October 13th, 2012, 2:49 pm

docwatcher wrote:...it sounds almost "cult" like...



There lies the problem with this site, the participants sound more like TPTB than brave men who dared to expose the truth. I've never seem more arrogance and self righteousness in one place since the last time I stumbled into an OSU pep rally. Not only does this site have grammar and spelling police, they also have content cops who critique the worthiness of your contributions and threaten or "suggest" you may get kicked out if you say the wrong thing. So much for the free press, apparently some people can't even have a forum with democratic ideals.

My initial thought was that it was because there's so many europeans on here, and gee, maybe they're all assholes,(insert sarcasm here) but then I realized I wasn't seeing many women participants. So is this just another example of worshipping the masculine, the problem that's caused every problem since the inception of societies or is this TPTB finally telling us the truth. Say what?!! They do that you know, they ALWAYS tell us what's going to happen and they always reveal themselves after the fact. Why not? There's only about ten of us who are paying any attention.
peacebabynow
Member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 3:06 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby Andrew1484 on October 13th, 2012, 3:21 pm

peacebabynow wrote:My initial thought was that it was because there's so many europeans on here, and gee, maybe they're all assholes,(insert sarcasm here) but then I realized I wasn't seeing many women participants. So is this just another example of worshipping the masculine, the problem that's caused every problem since the inception of societies or is this TPTB finally telling us the truth. Say what?!! They do that you know, they ALWAYS tell us what's going to happen and they always reveal themselves after the fact. Why not? There's only about ten of us who are paying any attention.


Hey, I'm a European with freewill and I have no intention of being or becoming a mindless zombie cult follower! LOL.

Yes, perhaps many people are going after left brain "male" thinking way too much ---- but then when people have been mind-programmed that way, all their lives, so much, can we really blame them?

TPTB tell us the "truth" because they have to if they want to "manifest" the "reality" that they want.
Law of Attraction.
Law of Deliberate Intent.
Law of Allowance.
Law of Balance.

The problem is that the mind-programming of the masses then leads the masses into creating a reality that is not in their best interests (the 99%) but only in the best interests of TPTB (the 1%).

Astoundingly elegant! So how can we create a massive "paradigm shift" to snap the 99% out of their trance that automatically leads them down the wrong path?
Last edited by Andrew1484 on October 14th, 2012, 7:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Andrew1484
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:03 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby hoi.polloi on October 13th, 2012, 5:43 pm

There lies the problem with this site, the participants sound more like TPTB than brave men who dared to expose the truth. I've never seem more arrogance and self righteousness in one place since the last time I stumbled into an OSU pep rally. Not only does this site have grammar and spelling police, they also have content cops who critique the worthiness of your contributions and threaten or "suggest" you may get kicked out if you say the wrong thing. So much for the free press, apparently some people can't even have a forum with democratic ideals.

My initial thought was that it was because there's so many europeans on here, and gee, maybe they're all assholes,(insert sarcasm here) but then I realized I wasn't seeing many women participants. So is this just another example of worshipping the masculine, the problem that's caused every problem since the inception of societies or is this TPTB finally telling us the truth. Say what?!! They do that you know, they ALWAYS tell us what's going to happen and they always reveal themselves after the fact. Why not? There's only about ten of us who are paying any attention.


What th-?! Not only is this off topic, it is trolling. You complain so much about this forum, it's not really clear why you're here, or why you would ever join a forum complaining of people being mean to you - and then post this drivel. Your post is so full of prejudice and sexist assumptions it's baffling how you could have typed it seriously! Is this how you behave on all forums? How old are you, really?

1. "the participants sound more like TPTB than brave men who dared to expose the truth" - When was "brave men" ever an expectation of anyone? Why must men do it? Why must they be brave? What's the deal with this statement? In what way do we sound "like" TPTB? In that we are human? In that we use words to construct sentences that have meaning?

2. "I've never seen more arrogance and self righteousness" - Your post is one of the most arrogant and self-righteous posts to come from a new forum member, so I guess it takes one to know one? If you are talking about the manner of the text and the policing we do, look at the shills we have had to deal with on this site. I mean, your rudeness is to be expected, but this kind of post you made is downright trolling the forum!

3. "Not only does this site have grammar and spelling police, they also have content cops who critique the worthiness of your contributions and threaten or 'suggest' you may get kicked out if you say the wrong thing." - LOL - It's called forum administration. Try it. It's a headache and it's awful. This isn't a "free press" zone either. In fact, hardly anywhere in the world is such a zone, in case you haven't noticed. That is, partially, what we are talking about. It isn't easy or fun to make such a place catered to a particular discussion but it's what we have.

4. "So much for the free press, apparently some people can't even have a forum with democratic ideals." - No argument there, but I have never once seen a forum with democratic ideals. Pretty much ever. I would like you to link to one and I will mention about a hundred things you could say on that forum that will get you banned that won't get you banned here. That is how forums work. They have themes. There are ugly themes on this forum, but there are also beautiful ones. If you don't like the aesthetic, leave.

5. "My initial thought was that it was because there's so many Europeans on here" - Wow! Your initial thought was a prejudice against a continent? Talk about arrogance and self-righteousness! You are allowed to say things like that but don't expect people to take it lightly. This is a forum that allows arguments against prejudice and against hatred like that you just spewed all over this topic. How you can actually have thought this to yourself tells something of your real personality, which is disappointing.

6. "... then I realized I wasn't seeing many women participants. So is this just another example of worshipping the masculine" - You jump from an errant judgment against millions of people to an errant judgment of roughly half the population of Earth. This is incredibly arrogant and self-righteous. First of all, what exactly will clue you in to the fact that a user is or is not a woman? How do you know? Second of all, plenty of men and women alike have been the very utmost resistant to the most polite comments of doubt in NASA or obviously fake terrorist events. It is a fact of this discussion with any gender - men, women, intersexed and everything in between - that it is heated, it is opinionated, it comes with emotions and it comes with assumptions. You can't think of any other reason the particular brand of "women" you assume are women don't come here? Perhaps your type of person is not suited for this kind of discussion and it has nothing to do with the fact that you claim to be missing women. Also, why does a lack of the people you are looking for mean this is a place to "worship men"? Do you really think a "woman" (if you are a woman) will make a difference on this forum with an attitude such as yours? Why do you assume you know who is who? Why do you assume men discussing matters means they are "[worshiping] the masculine"? What is wrong with you?!

7. "worshipping the masculine, the problem that's caused every problem since the inception of societies" - Good gracious! I can hardly believe you typed this. First of all, there are not idols here. Rituals can hardly be said to be happening here unless you want to stretch the definition of cults and Religions to every day conversation - which you can ... if you want to destroy the meaning of words used to actually describe cults and Religions. Second of all, worshiping anything else but "the masculine" has never contributed to any problem? No religions or violence has ever been caused by or involved "the feminine" or sexless Gods? How can you even have such a perspective? Who told you that every problem in the world is caused by "[worshiping] the masculine"? And why did you choose to believe them? What do you know of the "inception of societies"? You are making one inane statement after another!

8. "They do that you know, they ALWAYS tell us what's going to happen and they always reveal themselves after the fact. Why not? There's only about ten of us who are paying any attention." - What can this even mean? What are you ranting about? There are "only ten" of who? Who is "they" and what do they "ALWAYS" tell us is going to happen? Everything? Who has revealed themselves?

Your post doesn't make any sense, and it reads like a drunken rant against us because you didn't find what you wanted to here. Please come back when you are healed, self-confident and/or sober.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby hoi.polloi on October 13th, 2012, 6:00 pm

Yes, perhaps many people are going after left brain "male" thinking way too much ---- but then when people have been mind-programmed that way, all their lives, so much, can we really blame them?


Left Brain male thinking? Do non-males have no Left Brain? Who is "programming" me to use my Left Brain? :blink:

You guys need to stop this New Age stuff and please keep the post on topic. Sorry if keeping the forum organized, and not full of random hate against "male" properties and "the masculine" is too male, cultish Left Brain for you.

---

Where did this topic even come from? Why is there a discussion with some random troll being preserved in a special topic? How did it immediately get derailed into a spamfest?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby Farcevalue on October 13th, 2012, 10:24 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
What th-?! Not only is this off topic, it is trolling.


I applaud your subsequent analysis of that posters schizophrenic rant and your pointed responses. It was a pleasant reminder of how the large majority of the world still reflexively responds to this information. It is so much a part of my consciousness now that it is filed away with "sun rises in the east". So, I am often still surprised when I encounter resistance.

I saw that post as a potential data mining experiment. I imagine that there is a fairly extensive demographic catalog of information complied on web users; perhaps casting enough suspicion on the character of the SC forum (foreigners, misogynists) along with a bit of sleight of hand misdirection could steer a certain percentage of new visitors away from examining the actual evidence. As well as helping to tie up a few posters with comments that have nothing to do with demonstrating proof of media fakery.

All in a day's work. Both sides. Now comes Miller time.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 383
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby simonshack on October 13th, 2012, 10:43 pm

Farcevalue wrote: It is so much a part of my consciousness now that it is filed away with "sun rises in the east". So, I am often still surprised when I encounter resistance.


Dear Farcevalue,

I really enjoyed your reply. Now, the sun really DOES rise in the east - but there are a host of other problems related to this fact. Stay tuned. :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6524
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby Dcopymope on October 14th, 2012, 7:04 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
Yes, perhaps many people are going after left brain "male" thinking way too much ---- but then when people have been mind-programmed that way, all their lives, so much, can we really blame them?


Left Brain male thinking? Do non-males have no Left Brain? Who is "programming" me to use my Left Brain? :blink:

You guys need to stop this New Age stuff and please keep the post on topic. Sorry if keeping the forum organized, and not full of random hate against "male" properties and "the masculine" is too male, cultish Left Brain for you.

---

Where did this topic even come from? Why is there a discussion with some random troll being preserved in a special topic? How did it immediately get derailed into a spamfest?


Thank you hoi.polloi, I was going to point out this pseudo scientific drivel for the New Age garbage that it really is. Its the same crap promoted by clowns like Michael Tsarion and formerly promoted by Alan Watt.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby Andrew1484 on October 14th, 2012, 7:27 pm

Dcopymope wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:
Yes, perhaps many people are going after left brain "male" thinking way too much ---- but then when people have been mind-programmed that way, all their lives, so much, can we really blame them?


Left Brain male thinking? Do non-males have no Left Brain? Who is "programming" me to use my Left Brain? :blink:

You guys need to stop this New Age stuff and please keep the post on topic.


Thank you hoi.polloi, I was going to point out this pseudo scientific drivel for the New Age garbage that it really is.


"Pseudo science drivel" that the brain is split and that there are two sexes? What is so "New Age of Aquarius" about the sheeple being mind-programmed to be so stupid and "to love their servitude" and be "liberated" into even more slavery?

Both males and females (of course) have both a left and right hemisphere of the brain.  During the last 50 years or so "Psychology" and other "sciences" to do with the "brain and mind" have made some interesting observations about the brain and the mind.

Now in "mind/body dualist philosophy" the "mind" controls the (perceived as "material") "body" and the "brain" is an important interface with the body "machine" for the "mind" (the ghost in the machine).  This is the "mind before matter" point of view.  Not the "matter before mind" point of view. 

The left and right hemispheres of the human brain are, in some ways, apparently like two different on-board "computers" for the "body vehicle" --- with different areas of specialisation. 

This was noticed especially after experiments to try to help people with severe epilepsy, when the corpus callosum was cut to separate the two hemispheres from directly communicating with each other.  The right hemisphere evidently could not use language to speak and to communicate ideas verbally. 
Image

The right hemisphere deals with the left side of the body and the left hemisphere with the right side of the body.  Many people are left hemisphere dominant, which means that they "favour" the right side of their body (right eye, right hand, right foot).

By about 30 years ago researchers started to view the two sides of the brain as dichotomously opposed: the right hemisphere was seen as a gestalt processor, good at “seeing the big picture” whilst the left hemisphere was attributed with detailed processing skills. 

Other views at that time attributed the left hemisphere with being more logical and analytical (male) whilst the right hemisphere was considered more intuitive (female).  The left hemisphere was again found (from things like head trauma brain damage) to be involved in "language" and it seemed to be where "conscious" thoughts expressed as "language" came from.  The right hemisphere was more involved in tasks like artistic appreciation etc.  There was even a suggestion that phonetic written language using Roman letters was left brain and written language using "pictures as concepts" (Ancient Egyptian, Chinese Characters etc.) was more right brain. 

If we view the human body as a vehicle for the "mind" (soul or ghost in the machine) the body also can be viewed as providing "feedback" to the mind.  So, as an analogy, would the driver of a two-seat, two-door sports car (male) feel different (inside such a sports car) compared to the driver inside a five-door, five-seat hatchback (female)?  Yes, because the "vehicle feedback" will create a different kind of driving experience for the driver.  Likewise, things like hormones and neurotransmitters and body strength and body shape create a different kind of "vehicle feedback" through the brain/mind interface, between male and female bodies, especially after puberty. 

Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that is not only responsible for modulating a lot of our physical movement, but also sex, aggression, motivational drive, and long-term planning and restraint, or impulse control. In nearly all right-handed and most left-handed humans who are left-brain (male brain) dominant, dopamine rules the left (male) side of the brain.  Lateral dopamine pathways modulate working memory, cognitive shifting, and other executive functions (such as planning).  "Male brains" are often better at "far off" work, throwing spears to hit some hunted prey, the planned thrill of the chase etc. with hormonal brain rewards for obtaining a kill.  In modern western society the "male thrills" of hunting and killing animals can find outlets in "business" where some people might aptly talk of "making a killing" in business.

On the right side of the brain - the "female" artsy part - serotonin and norepinephrine are more dominant. Serotonin and norepinephrine have more to do with emotional activation and arousal systems. The serotonin systems manage movements and focus on a close personal level. They work in close concert with the opiate reward system and some other hormonal and neuronal systems associated with "close in" and repetitive work, like picking berries in hunter (male) gatherer (female) tribal societies and like in breast-feeding babies, so getting an opiate like rush and oxytocin hits, as a reward for being such a good nurturing female. 

Now for the last 100 years or some of the Elites have evidently been alarmed by the population explosion of farmed humanoid sheeple on this planet.  Various methods have been attempted to cull the population.  War disease, famine etc. have indeed killed hundreds of millions of farmed humanoid sheeple, but the population still keeps on growing.  As H.G. Wells observed in his famous book "The New World Order" around 1940:

"In the technically crude past, the illiterate Have-nots were sweated and overworked. It was easy to find toil to keep them all busy. Such surplus multitudes are wanted no more. Toil is no longer marketable. Machines can toil better and with less resistance." H.G. Wells, The New World Order.

The Chinese have attempted a one child per family idea, but that can lead to other social problems of course, not to mention the economic problems of care of the elderly.  The Americans appear to be trying a mass forced (and hidden) sterilisation of the global sheeple idea.  With their toxic, genetically modified, chemical and biological warfare "pseudo-food" program, including the use of the "Epicyte gene" that when eaten makes female sheeple allergically reject sperm and male sheeple produce sperm with very low mobility.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA5yQ4_De_M
[ADMIN: Video removed. You can find the link above.]

Now in terms of programming women to use their left brains more, we can see that the "education" of women can be used to reduce their fertility.  The "Women's Liberation" movement mind-programmed women to want to compete with men in "business" as their birth right.  Women were encouraged to want to go to work (to do the male "hunting" job) and to demand equal pay with men.  "Double Income No Kids" couples (DINKS) could think that they were relatively wealthy, but actually what was happening was that male wages, to support a wife and children in a "nuclear family" were being systematically reduced by this female competition. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJCTFZf03A
[ADMIN: InfoWars video removed. You can find the link above.]

Economic "taxation" of the couple was also increased by them both working.  Children became an expensive luxury and, as women delayed child bearing from late teens early 20s (maximum female fertility) until their 30s and even 40s (reduced female fertility) so that she could "have a career in business" --- a significant impact on sheeple population growth could be achieved. 

An added benefit of "Female Liberation" was that as females became more masculine (and as males were encouraged to be more feminine) the "sexual attraction" between the "opposites" of male and female could be reduced.  Sometimes with males feeling somewhat emasculated by aggressive (thus sexually unattractive) females, who looked like they would make really crap sensitive and feminine mothers of any babies created by any male insemination of the she-male.

"School" and "left brain education" has also been used deliberately to dumb down the sheeple population, especially in the USA, as Charlotte Iserbyt has explained. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezTIYd5UFRY
[ADMIN: InfoWars video removed. You can find the link above.]

As Aldous Huxley also amusingly pointed out, shortly before his death, the sheeple were being systematically (left brain) mind-programmed "to love their servitude" to the global oligarchy, in what he called the "Ultimate Revolution" in 1962. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9RiRfMYVlQ
[ADMIN: Video removed. You can find the link above.]
Andrew1484
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:03 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby hoi.polloi on October 15th, 2012, 3:18 pm

Thank you for explaining your perspective. You seem to have a lot on your mind that you like to shed on our forum with little explanation. I don't like the rambling, really. But I think I understand what you mean.

After reading your post, I still disagree about some your wording of these chemical discoveries. Despite all the words, there is only a little science in your post. For instance, male and female assumptions have been among some of the very worst examples of pesudo-science; frequently in the similar vein as phrenology used in conjunction with colored skin as evidence of inferiority. There is such a broad range of genders, gender identifications, sexual "orientations" (sexualities), and so forth, that once you dive into the chemical compositions of our bodies (as you have), it feels strange that you should resurface at such tired cliches and stereotypes (as you also have).

I do agree with Pinker's ideas about language formulation mostly being in the left side of the brain, but we must make room for exceptions even there. For instance, many left-handed people were shown to have language formulation in both sides of the brain. What then becomes of the analogy?

There is more nuance and variance in humanity than any Religion about male and female can create dogma around.

Also, you've used a lot of Alex Jones videos to make your points, which I find a little troublesome. For instance, Aaron Russo doesn't appear to be much more (if any more) than a highly edited, CGI-looking, mucky, muddy "interview" by the disembodied voice of Alex Jones. Long ago, Simon and I noticed this fishy character who "knew 9/11 would happen" and who made a bunch of other claims that seem challenging to believe at face value, let alone prove.

Maybe there is something to what you are saying about ... many things ... but is it real? I feel you are not asking yourself this question enough. Is it real? Does all the information you are re-posting on our forum have immediate relevance? Charts and figures make sense to me, but Alex Jones videos seem to make your arguments less believable.

And while I am very familiar with this kind of "let's renew the divine female principle" thinking, I believe it is sexist, egotist and deeply prejudiced language that doesn't face the diverse, collaborative effort that destroying the world has been. Plus, I don't know if you've noticed this, but it's the kind of language being used by a lot of people right now, but not being backed up with so much science as there was in the post you just made (which was alright! I'm defending your post a little.).

Blaming men (and/or their chemical makeup? and/or anyone who likes "manly" things?) is kind of like blaming the Jews. Or the Jesuits. Or the Muslims. Or the women. Or whatever other single group you want to isolate as "the problem".

Please, let us preserve the nuanced dialogue on this site. I know you are capable. Maybe it would be helpful if off-the-cuff remarks like "things are too male left-brained" can be explained better when they are made.

Also, please, please stop posting "Info Wars" as evidence for pretty much anything. Unless there is due explanatory caution given about the source.

So please, to conclude, stop re-posting every video you've seen if it seems related to your point; think first, especially if you are going to post very dubious evidence. Also, please try to keep posts on topic. Intriguing stuff about Epicyte, though. Could use a topic all on its own!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby fbenario on October 16th, 2012, 3:35 am

Andrew1484 wrote:9/11 was real enough in that this Operation Northwoods or Gleiwitz type false flag terrorist event was used as a bogus pretext for several illegal wars of aggression and mass murder that have killed, maimed and displaced innocent people in their millions. It was a massive fraud and a massive crime against all of humanity.

I think it is now fair to say that 9/11 was/is the biggest, and worst, war crime and crime against humanity in history. The Geneva Conventions defined 'aggressive war' as "the ultimate crime, because it includes within itself all other crimes."

I agree with Hoi, this thread serves no purpose at all, and likely never did. It's wasted far too much of our time already, and consequently should be locked.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby Andrew1484 on October 16th, 2012, 4:41 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Maybe there is something to what you are saying about ... many things ... but is it real? I feel you are not asking yourself this question enough. Is it real? Does all the information you are re-posting on our forum have immediate relevance? Charts and figures make sense to me, but Alex Jones videos seem to make your arguments less believable.


One problem with "confirmation bias" is that minds will tend to seek out ideas and to filter things so as to try to confirm their preexisting bias towards a particular way of looking at the world.

This thread probably could not really get anywhere because the original poster, that I had challenged to a debate about the "reality" of 9/11, has probably been stopped from responding. Banned right away as being disruptive or something.

Not really listening to others and not really engaging with "new" others, who may or may not be "honestly" trying to find out what is going on, banning people, "swarming onto them" with hate filled posts, makes it sound like this "CF group of minds" is highly polarised, intolerant, narrow minded and extremist. Dissidents and heretics beware!

I get that you want to say that nothing is "real" (when it is found elsewhere than what you show here on CF) but of course many people think that a lot of what you show here is also not real. Some of it may be real and some of it may be lies. Like "Rat poison" some of it might be "good food" but then the "poison" percentage mixed in with the good food is designed to do the damage.

"In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Churchill

We are in a war. I am not sure that it matters if people wittingly or unwittingly lie about stuff. The more interesting question for me would be why are they lying (if they are) --- not that they might be lying, by accident or on purpose. That is what good psychologists should do with all their clients, they do not prejudge or really care if they are being lied to.

But for you it would probably be a case of "look at that, they look like they are lying" but it is always really very easy to suggest that somebody might be lying, with no real evidence. I suppose we could look for non-verbal cues that might suggest that Aaron Russo was lying, or try something else more technical, like voice stress analysis. But no, for you it is enough that he was talking to Alex Jones in the video, who you say you do not trust and anything that Alex produces is thus less "believable" for you.

Video on the internet is always pretty mucky or muddy. I liked Aaron Russo and I thought that his documentary about the money scam "America: From Freedom to Fascism" was very brave of him. I don't know if he was "murdered by cancer" for it or not. No way to know. Was Khazar Aaron Russo lying about fellow Khazar Nick Rockefeller talking about 9/11 before it happened? I don't know. Clearly a lot of people DID know about 9/11 before it happened, so if Nick also knew in advance then my attitude would be "OK, so what?" It is not like it really matters at the end of the day. The brainless US branded sheeple evidently don't care. They still volunteer to join the US military, as state-sponsored hired henchmen thug terrorists, to go off and murder innocent brown skinned people in illegal wars of aggression.

The brainless sheeple are the real problem, not the Nick Rockefellers. But you CF people do not really try to engage the sheeple or try to change their minds politely, calmly and rationally. You CF extremists instead talk utter bullshit about how WTC1&2 could ONLY have been destroyed by bottom up demolition behind a smokescreen, when you obviously have no evidence at all for that theory, since you have dismissed all of the video evidence as fraudulent. That is internally incoherent theorising, that just makes CF look insane. Yes, so the video record may be fraudulent, possibly to hide some strange visual WMD effects, evidence of things that are still military secrets.

Confronting the Evidence, In Plane Site, 9/11 Mysteries, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, A&E for truth, Pilots for Truth, CIT, Loose Change, Painful Deceptions etc. etc. have all worked coherently to wake the sheeple up. Alex Jones does try to change the sheeple, to wake them up and his method of appealing to the sheeple, I think, is far more likely than yours to stop the sheeple volunteering to be state-sponsored hired henchmen thug terrorists, murdering innocent brown skinned people in illegal wars of aggression.
Andrew1484
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:03 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby Andrew1484 on October 16th, 2012, 4:45 am

fbenario wrote:
Andrew1484 wrote:9/11 was real enough in that this Operation Northwoods or Gleiwitz type false flag terrorist event was used as a bogus pretext for several illegal wars of aggression and mass murder that have killed, maimed and displaced innocent people in their millions. It was a massive fraud and a massive crime against all of humanity.

I think it is now fair to say that 9/11 was/is the biggest, and worst, war crime and crime against humanity in history. The Geneva Conventions defined 'aggressive war' as "the ultimate crime, because it includes within itself all other crimes."


That was at Nuremberg I think, not the earlier Geneva Conventions. But I agree with you. Especially if it starts WW3. Right now it is as bad as the Gleiwitz or Tonkin Gulf frauds. We should note that nobody in the mass murdering, war criminal, US regime was prosecuted for the Tonkin Gulf fraud, no financial terrorists have been prosecuted for the banking fraud or planned economic collapse and nobody will be prosecuted for the 9/11 fraud. Law is a fraud. So what we really need is for the global sheeple herd to stop being slaves to evil and to wake up. Who was to blame for 9/11? We are all to blame for it. We are even more to blame for it if we do and say things now that aids the average sheeple to remain confused and asleep. Keep the message simple.

"The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1946
Andrew1484
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:03 pm

Re: What was real about 9/11?

Postby hoi.polloi on October 16th, 2012, 3:49 pm

Not really listening to others and not really engaging with "new" others, who may or may not be "honestly" trying to find out what is going on, banning people, "swarming onto them" with hate filled posts, makes it sound like this "CF group of minds" is highly polarised, intolerant, narrow minded and extremist. Dissidents and heretics beware!


Why do you take an Internet forum personally? In fact, how can you? It's not a person. It's impersonal. It's digital 1's and 0's. It's information in a kind of "purely" artificial form. It's fabricated from computers. You couldn't be "nice" if you wanted to. It just translates into fakeness and an unwillingness to speak about matters on a forum concerned with science - and what is possible and what is not.

There is no reason to engage with users who behave as though they are not honestly trying to find out what's going on. And I resent that you put honestly in quotes. Honesty is important here. It's more important than being a cushion for your sensitivities or sense of politeness or whatever you call dodging the point. Why do you make yourself out to be a "dissident" or a "heretic" when all you really are is someone who doesn't care about the truth? And someone who actively posts disinformation on forums concerned with truth?

Sorry, that's an assumption on my part. Perhaps you only target this forum in particular?


I get that you want to say that nothing is "real" (when it is found elsewhere than what you show here on CF)


Actually, we don't even subscribe to the content created here. That is the difference, actually, between following (as you are doing) and thinking for yourself, which is what we are trying to encourage people to do.

Now you may say there is a paradox in trying to get everyone to think for themselves, and to believe nothing that they don't sense for themselves, but I think it's a paradox I am comfortable with. At least I am much more comfortable with it than I am with people like you coming on here saying they care about the truth and then making up things that aren't true -- about this forum and its users -- especially trying to give us the character of a cult.

Case in point, much of what we link to is to stuff outside this forum. But I am not being vague about the stuff from you I dislike. I am specifically referring to the Aaron Russo video and the videos by Alex Jones that are highly suspicious to me. Why is that so offensive to you? Why do you rush to the suspicious character of Aaron Russo's defenses? Why are you so quick to ignore our accusation that he may not be entirely real and so quick to endorse his tiny simulated existence online? Perhaps he is more real than not, but your response to the possibility that he isn't, is telling. You are defensive of things you know no more about than anyone else on the Internet! It's amazing! And sad.


but of course many people think that a lot of what you show here is also not real.


Meaning ... what? Isn't that the very point of our forum that we emphasize over and over? To research for yourself - to not trust anything posted anywhere on the Internet? So your point doesn't make sense.

Some of it may be real and some of it may be lies. Like "Rat poison" some of it might be "good food" but then the "poison" percentage mixed in with the good food is designed to do the damage.


Which is why we always, always encourage everyone to research everything for themselves. But does that give you the right to protest our doubt? No, it does not. Doubt is a human right - beyond a human right - a biological function that keeps us healthy. Doubt is what everyone exercises on a daily basis without even trying. Don't attack that and claim you're defending it. It doesn't come across as "nice" here. It comes across as shillery.


"In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Churchill


You treat that quote as if you believed in Churchill's methods. Have I not explained that we don't welcome a climate for half-truths and pseudo-science? We only want what can be as close to empirically proven as possible.


We are in a war.


Are "we" at war? Am I at war? I don't know. I don't think so. Why do you say so? Because that's basically Alex Jones' fucking mantra for life?


The brainless sheeple are the real problem, not the Nick Rockefellers. But you CF people do not really try to engage the sheeple or try to change their minds politely, calmly and rationally.


So because you have no idea how individual users here "engage the sheeple" outside of this forum, you defend the Rockefellers? Interesting. Nick Rockefeller just isn't a problem in your book? The people he exploits, dupes and treats like dirt are the bigger problem? Fascinating perspective. I wonder how those you insultingly refer to as "the sheeple" feel about that.


You CF extremists instead talk utter bullshit about how WTC1&2 could ONLY have been destroyed by bottom up demolition


Which CF extremists are you talking about? Only Heiwa insists that top down is impossible, and even then, he was not always insisting that "bottom up" is the exclusive method. How does he feel now? Instead of isolating him and asking him, you claim everyone is groupmind. How odd. What's utter bullshit is that you are making this mistake as such a newbie here. What we (and I can only speak for some here) discuss is the general difficulty in not knowing how they did it, not in saying we absolutely know how.

Furthermore, bottom up demolition is just one alternative to top down, and demolition isn't even on the table in some peoples' books. The fact that you later contradict this straw-man proposition by saying there must have been some "secret weapon" used tells me all I need to know about your double-thinking hypocritical stance:

1. You say we are not allowed to doubt

2. You mistake (on purpose?) our doubt in the official conspiracy theory for a blind belief in a single possibility - and tell us we are wrong for collectively thinking something that is not collectively thought. In fact, it was one (or two? maybe three?) user(s) here that individually expressed the possibility that top-down demolition is unlikely.

3. You posit that there could have been a secret weapon and imply that we are trying to cover it up. On the contrary, if there was a secret weapon used, we want proof and not the productions of Alex Jones or Judy Wood or another character that denies the evidence of vast video fakery.


behind a smokescreen


The method by which the facts were hidden is confusing and probably more diverse than mere fake video evidence. Who here is claiming that it could ONLY have happened behind a smokescreen? Nobody. So who are you calling a bullshitter and who are you calling "you CF extremists"? You sound like an Alex Jones follower alright. You demonize people the way he does - with lies and distortions. My hunch was a little too close to home, perhaps? You can't even get your facts straight about what we are exploring on the forum and whose stance is what.

You take some speculations and extrapolate them into blind beliefs, the opposite of what happens on this forum.

You demonize a collective belief we don't even have.

You introduce your own possibility that is open to doubt, because it's supported by shitty evidence and led by morons such as Alex Jones and his ilk.

You claim the myriad different users from different backgrounds and from so many different parts of the world are part of an extremist cult? For posting on the same forum together? For wanting posts to remain scientific? On topic? What? You claim this is extremism. Interesting. Perhaps it's just called not being lazy. I'd hate to see the kind of forum you would run if you were afraid to ban disruptors.


when you obviously have no evidence at all for that theory


Also false. We have about as much evidence as anyone has for any theory about 9/11, which is to say: very little evidence for a smoke screen. But not "no evidence" and since your point is already moot - there is some evidence of 9/11 events, but not much - your statement here makes very little sense.


since you have dismissed all of the video evidence as fraudulent.


Some discriminating users claim they haven't seen a single non-fraudulent video. I don't think most people deny that there is the possibility some legitimate video exists. But then why hasn't it surfaced in the 11 years since 9/11? Because all the video that has surfaced is, in fact, fraud. It is computer generated, it is fabricated, doctored - MADE UP! FAKED! And nobody has proven otherwise. In fact, once a video is shown to be (what can only be deliberately) made fraudulent, there isn't much more to say about it except that it is an animated lie. So why do you keep insisting we should look further at a lie and consider some truth in it? What is your purpose in directing our attention, and repeatedly, to those who mix truth and fiction so liberally?

What can be the point except to distract us from the incredible truths found? There is truth. It can be left untainted. You don't seem to believe in such a thing.


That is internally incoherent theorising, that just makes CF look insane.


The wobbly wind-up. Aha.

So the points you just made - the straw man you just depicted, of a bunch of "extremists" unwilling to believe in your speculations and blindly beholden to a belief none of us actually has -- this is what you call "incoherent theorising"? Hm, couldn't help but agree there, "Andrew". Good thing we don't write things up the way you do. Your contributions (and the kind like it) are the very things that are insane. Thankfully, we have the power to ban them, which is going into effect right now.


Yes, so the video record may be fraudulent, possibly to hide some strange visual WMD effects, evidence of things that are still military secrets.


And the pitch! Whizz! Wow! So all this ...

Confronting the Evidence, In Plane Site, 9/11 Mysteries, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, A&E for truth, Pilots for Truth, CIT, Loose Change, Painful Deceptions etc. etc. have all worked coherently to wake the sheeple up.


... is to promote Nico Haupt, Judy Wood "energy beam from the [non-existant] ISS" theory? Or - forgive me - I was doing a bit of strawman there myself. I guess you got me in the mood. So you're promoting strange visual Weapons of Mass Destruction? You're promoting CIT and A&E gatekeepers? Wow!

How does something like Loose Change "work coherently" ("coherently"? You're not being coherent here) to "wake the sheeple" if you're still trying to get people to follow liars, tools and guru-types like yourself, Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and the bunch of seemingly fake actors and sims marching across YouTube? And how can you even turn, in a matter of two posts, from an intellectual supporter of the truth into another name-calling attempt to discredit it and skew it, just like that parade of hucksters?

It is all too clear why you came on here in time with peacebabynow to spread your pseudo-truthish pop celebrity garbage and rob people's precious time with links away from CluesForum. I am going to go delete the Alex Jones shit you posted, because if people really are responding to it in the way you claim, they can certainly do so on the rest of the Internet, where that confusion-factory dominates.

That is quite enough out of you. Bad pitch, man. Or ... whatever you were.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Next

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests