Ideas for Dealing with the Reality of 9-11

[MahatmaWatcher]

Originally Posted by Seashore

What does this mean?

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

[Seashore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?