Ideas for Dealing with the Reality of 9-11

Seashore · 01-01-2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahatmaWatcher

It takes a lot of courage to shoot yourself in the foot, unless you're totally mad and/or you'd at least have to be focused on something else while pulling the trigger. From what I've understand, Alexander isn't exactly Braveheart unless the camera is rolling. Maybe he really thought it was a neat idea under the circumstances that was suffering from at the time?

(...regarding the post that was referred to)

9/11
I never thought it would come to this.

But I'm actually starting to doubt the UNofficial explanation regarding 9/11.

At "one point" in time, lasting for almost two years, namely late 2001-2003 I felt very alone. I have never considered myself as someone who has a conspiracy theoretic attitude (I'm sort of lying now actually), but I found it rather strange that most people (what am I saying "most people" - EVERYONE) showed such resistance towards the idea that the Bush Boyz (as we called them back then) had anything to do with it. It was just a theory popping up in my mind, that the whole thing was orchestrated... to good to be true.

Motives are important. Motives are often what is most important in a given situation. But I didn't base my assumptions on what motive that was behind. I based it on how obvious it was. I mean, isn't it obvious? Really? Too obvious, almost? I'm actually starting to have second (parallel) thoughts here. Several leisure time investigators tend to forget that "people" who are orchestrating events like these (IF it was orchestrated, that is) are working from a perspective span (regarding duration) that could last for centuries. When I realized how the "brilliant" implementation of communism (which was only a part of a bigger plan) was developed, planned and tested by the same source I was also baffled over the fact how smart these guys really are. If we take 9/11 and look at it for what it really is in its own expression, it is actually something so insignificant that everyone should have moved on by now. What do I mean insignificant?

With all do respect, I am very found of my American brothers, please don't take this the wrong way - but two buildings and 3000 people (yes I know how many buildings including pentagon, it was - don't bother me, I'm trying to make a point) - is nothing! Yes I dare to say - nothing - in comparison to other - more extreme events almost noone know about where 500.000 men women and children were slaughtered in less than two weeks etc. Nobody ever talks about modern events such as Rwanda or Bosnia. And that's what makes 9/11 so special. We're giving it so much attention. That is why I also dare to say that we are still unable to judge what happened there, in regard to motive. I am not actually making any judgements, I am only trying to widen my perspective and share it here since our site isn't up yet.

"I don't believe the US administration had something to do with the attacks on September eleventh, I know it did."
...needs, IMHO to be rephrased. As a careful suggestion I'd say:

"I don't believe George W. Bush would be convicted (found guilty) if he was charged with planning the attacks on September eleventh. I KNOW he would!"
What is it I see? What am I trying to say? Actually nothing! I'm just trying to get my thoughts straighten out (I said that to satisfy category #1). I know I may be vague - it's kind of the point - but anything (specific) above should wake any ideas, don't hesitate to post a few lines.

Regards,
MW

This post is too hard for me to read.

If it is on-topic, please edit it to re-format it into regular text...

MahatmaWatcher · 01-02-2010, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seashore

This post is too hard for me to read.

If it is on-topic, please edit it to re-format it into regular text...

[ REPOST ] - - - [ REPOST ] - - - [ REPOST ] - - - [ REPOST ]

It takes a lot of courage to shoot yourself in the foot, unless you're totally mad
and/or you'd at least have to be focused on something else while pulling the
trigger. From what I've understand, Alexander isn't exactly Braveheart
unless the camera is rolling. Maybe he really thought it was a neat idea
under the circumstances that was suffering from at the time?

(...regarding the post that was referred to)

9/11

I never thought it would come to this.

But I'm actually starting to doubt the UNofficial explanation regarding 9/11.

At "one point" in time, lasting for almost two years, namely late 2001-2003
I felt very alone. I have never considered myself as someone who has a
conspiracy theoretic attitude (I'm sort of lying now actually), but I found it
rather strange that most people (what am I saying "most people" - EVERYONE)
showed such resistance towards the idea that the Bush Boyz (as we called
them back then) had anything to do with it. It was just a theory popping up
in my mind, that the whole thing was orchestrated... to good to be true.

Motives are important. Motives are often what is most important in a
given situation. But I didn't base my assumptions on what motive that
was behind. I based it on how obvious it was. I mean, isn't it obvious? Really? Too
obvious, almost? I'm actually starting to have second (parallel) thoughts here.
Several leisure time investigators tend to forget that "people" who are
orchestrating events like these (IF it was orchestrated, that is) are working
from a perspective span (regarding duration) that could last for centuries.
When I realized how the "brilliant" implementation of communism (which was
only a part of a bigger plan) was developed, planned and tested by the same
source I was also baffled over the fact how smart these guys really are. If
we take 9/11 and look at it for what it really is in its own expression, it is actually
something so insignificant that everyone should have moved on by now.
What do I mean insignificant?

With all do respect, I am very found of my American brothers, please don't take this the wrong way - but two buildings and 3000 people...
(yes I know how many buildings including pentagon, it was - don't bother me, I'm trying to make a point)
...is nothing! Yes I dare to say - n o t h i n g - in comparison to other - more extreme - events almost noone know about where 500.000 men
women and children were slaughtered in less than two weeks etc. Nobody ever talks about modern events such as Rwanda or Bosnia. And that's what
makes 9/11 so special. We're giving it so much attention. That is why I also dare to say that we are still unable to judge what happened there, in
regard to motive. I am not actually making any judgements, I am only trying to widen my perspective and share it here since our site isn't up yet.

"I don't believe the US administration had
something to do with the attacks on September eleventh,...
- - - I know it did."

...needs, IMHO to be rephrased.
As a careful suggestion I'd say:

"I don't believe George W. Bush would be
convicted (found guilty)
if he was charged with planning the attacks on September eleventh.
I KNOW he would!"

What is it I see? What am I trying to say? Actually nothing!

I'm just trying to get my thoughts straighten out (I said that
to satisfy category #1). I know I may be vague - it's kind of
the point - but anything (specific) above should wake any
ideas, don't hesitate to post a few lines.

Regards,
MW

Seashore · 01-02-2010, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahatmaWatcher

From what I've understand, Alexander isn't exactly Braveheart
unless the camera is rolling.

What does this mean?

MahatmaWatcher · 01-05-2010, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seashore

What does this mean?

That there's a difference between William Wallace and Alex Jones

Seashore · 01-05-2010, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahatmaWatcher

That there's a difference between William Wallace and Alex Jones

I don't know who William Wallace is, and I don't know what your point is or how you are contributing to the subject of this thread.

MahatmaWatcher · 01-05-2010, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seashore

I don't know who William Wallace is, and I don't know what your point is or how you are contributing to the subject of this thread.

Whoaa!! there monsignore(tte). Is that hostility I sense?

Then, might I ask what contribution your criticism of my contribution has? Maybe you would have known my contribution if you had known the name of William Wallace? Not that I hold that against you, chap. Not everybody knows everybody. But what of "trying"? You don't want to know! You have already decided - made up your mind. Ignorance is bliss. How about if you showed a little confidence in the concept of search engines before you judge, eh?

I suggest you point that blade of moralism somewhere else... before someone gets hurt around here.

My post was - which you would have known if you had been paying attention - the insinuation that someone else was behind the attacks of nine eleven. Not the al qaeda. Not the C I A - duh - but another... third party who was trying to frame Bush - in a recent future... so to speak.

That it was all planned from the beginning, you see. Someone so smart and cunning to figure out how people would "figure out" that the so called Bush Boyz was behind it.

But why would someone want to blame them?

According to the theory, which I don't even believe in myself - so there's no need for yapping around or hit yourself over the chest - someone is trying to clear his own name by defining the evil in the world.

If we define the administration of USA as the most evil thing there is, and something that is separated from rest of humanity - we would most likely miss out on all other clues of even greater evil there might be.

But don't you worry Mrs/Ms Shore, im sure it is only imagination.

Seashore · 01-05-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahatmaWatcher

Whoaa!! there monsignore(tte). Is that hostility I sense?

Then, might I ask what contribution your criticism of my contribution has? Maybe you would have known my contribution if you had known the name of William Wallace? Not that I hold that against you, chap. Not everybody knows everybody. But what of "trying"? You don't want to know! You have already decided - made up your mind. Ignorance is bliss. How about if you showed a little confidence in the concept of search engines before you judge, eh?

I suggest you point that blade of moralism somewhere else... before someone gets hurt around here.

My post was - which you would have known if you had been paying attention - the insinuation that someone else was behind the attacks of nine eleven. Not the al qaeda. Not the C I A - duh - but another... third party who was trying to frame Bush - in a recent future... so to speak.

That it was all planned from the beginning, you see. Someone so smart and cunning to figure out how people would "figure out" that the so called Bush Boyz was behind it.

But why would someone want to blame them?

According to the theory, which I don't even believe in myself - so there's no need for yapping around or hit yourself over the chest - someone is trying to clear his own name by defining the evil in the world.

If we define the administration of USA as the most evil thing there is, and something that is separated from rest of humanity - we would most likely miss out on all other clues of even greater evil there might be.

But don't you worry Mrs/Ms Shore, im sure it is only imagination.

This thread is about how to spread the word that the official story of 9-11 is bogus.

What are your ideas for that?

MahatmaWatcher · 01-05-2010, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seashore

This thread is about how to spread the word that the official story of 9-11 is bogus.

What are your ideas for that?

To find these new ways, you are speaking of, you need to see the whole picture. To illuminate the context.

Illumination of contexts requires a certain category of facts. To make it easy on you we can call these facts "true facts" as compared to "false facts".

But "true facts" alone is not enough. Remember I was saying "illumination of contexts". Once you have these facts, which I believe you do, you will have to put them in their right context.

In order to put the facts where they belong you will have to be able to assume, not one thing or another, as I can see you are used to, but rather one thing and another... and another.

The more perspectives from which you can shine your light on the situation, the closer you will get to your truth.

How can you even speak to people who hasn't heard about the truth movement, without convincing them that you are reallyreallyreallyreallyreally wierd?

Can you assume that the official story isn't bogus? No? Well then, I'm sorry to say - you're not the best person to inform or investigate how to inform people with an opposite disposition, unless they ask you, of course.

Sometimes the best way to "spread the word" is to refrain from preaching, step back, and let the priest do his job.

Seashore · 01-05-2010, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahatmaWatcher

To find these new ways, you are speaking of, you need to see the whole picture. To illuminate the context.

Illumination of contexts requires a certain category of facts. To make it easy on you we can call these facts "true facts" as compared to "false facts".

But "true facts" alone is not enough. Remember I was saying "illumination of contexts". Once you have these facts, which I believe you do, you will have to put them in their right context.

In order to put the facts where they belong you will have to be able to assume, not one thing or another, as I can see you are used to, but rather one thing and another... and another.

The more perspectives from which you can shine your light on the situation, the closer you will get to your truth.

How can you even speak to people who hasn't heard about the truth movement, without convincing them that you are reallyreallyreallyreallyreally wierd?

Can you assume that the official story isn't bogus? No? Well then, I'm sorry to say - you're not the best person to inform or investigate how to inform people with an opposite disposition, unless they ask you, of course.

Sometimes the best way to "spread the word" is to refrain from preaching, step back, and let the priest do his job.

So you have your theory of what really happened, am I understanding you?