[Images] The Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists and Theories

Rium


  • Total voters
    8
To be completely honest with you muir, whether or not I get a vaccine in no way establishes that my argument is false. That's blatantly ridiculous. Perfect example btw for this thread on the psychology of conspiracy theories. Thank you for that demonstration muir.

To make sure everyone got that....

Perfect example of the kind of argumentation that conspiracy theorists take as proof of something. Doesn't hold up in the least.
What if I get hit by a bus and die in two weeks muir? What if zombies attack within the next three weeks? Does that mean vaccines are toxic because I didn't get my vaccine? Well, I suppose if the zombies were created by vaccines......
(btw muir, that was a joke)

Even your own claims of vaccine toxicity suggest that the only threat is to infants. Or did you forget about what your own argument hinged on...?

You twist your arguments for buzz words. Not if they are consistent or even intelligible.

These are all just hot air words

You blow a lot of smoke out....but at the end of the day...all that matters is whether or not the vaccines are harmful and to what extent they are harmful

Everything else is ego bullshit

You can say what you like about me, but if i'm right, i'm right
 
[h=2]The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll[/h] [h=3]A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day.[/h]


ShareThis
[TABLE="align: left"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 198"]
groundzero060320_1_198b.jpg

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 198, align: left"]Free fall: The speed at which the towers came down—they were almost in free fall—suggests controlled demolition rather than catastrophic collapse. (Photo: Jim Collins/AP)

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
1. 11/22 and 9/11
They keep telling us 9/11 changed everything. But even in this Photoshopped age of unreliable narrators, much remains the same. The assassination of President John Kennedy, the Crime of the Last Century, occurred in plain sight, in front of thousands—yet exactly what happened remains in dispute. The Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald, fellow traveler of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, shot Kennedy with a cheap Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. The commission found that Oswald, who two days later would be murdered by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, acted alone.

The Plane Truth
A list of 9/11 conspiracy theories, from nuts to soup.


Yet, as with so many such events, there is the sanctioned history and the secret history—players hidden from view. In the Kennedy murder, the involvement of shadowy organizations like the Mafia and the CIA came into question. This way of thinking came to challenge the official narrative put forth by the Warren Commission. It is not exactly clear when the grassy knoll supplanted the sixth-floor window in the popular mind-set. But now, four decades after Dallas, it is difficult to find anyone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman.
But if Oswald didn’t kill the president, who did? So 11/22 remains an open case, an open wound.
Now here we are again, contemplating the seemingly unthinkable events of September 11. An official explanation has been offered up: The nation was attacked by the forces of radical Islam led by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda jihadists. Again, this narrative has been accepted by many.
But not all.
2. War Without End
“Just your average wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy nuts,” Father Frank Morales told me as he surveyed the 200 or so graying beatniks and neighborhood anarchist punks sporting IS IT FASCISM YET? buttons who had assembled in the basement of St. Mark’s Church for the weekly Sunday-night meeting of the New York 9/11 Truth Movement to hear a lecture by Webster Tarpley, author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.
Saying he was in New York “to debunk the outrageous myth . . . the absurd fairy tale” that the tragic events of September 11, 2001, were the work of nineteen fanatics with box cutters sent by a bearded man in a cave, the 60-year-old Tarpley projected a slide designated “State-Sponsored False Flag Terrorism,” depicting a Venn diagram of three interconnected circles.
Circle one was labeled patsies, comprising “dupes,” “useful idiots,” “fanatics,” “provocateurs,” and “Oswalds.” Included here were the demonized bin Laden and alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta. The second ring, marked MOLES, contained “government officials loyal to the invisible government,” such as Paul Wolfowitz, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and, of course, George W. Bush. The third circle, PROFESSIONAL KILLERS, encompassed “technicians,” “CIA special forces,” “old boys”—the unnamed ones who did the dirty work and kept their mouths shut.
September 11 was the true face of corporatized terror, said Tarpley, graduate of Flushing High School, class of 1962 (also Princeton), and author of an “unauthorized” biography of George Herbert Walker Bush. The book paints the Bush-family patriarch, Senator Prescott Bush, as knowingly profiting from Hitler’s Third Reich in his role as a director of the Union Banking Corporation, where, Tarpley’s book says, the Nazis kept their money.
According to Tarpley, this, roughly, is how it went down on September 11: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Pet Goat–engrossed president played their assigned roles enabling the strange events of the day, including the wholesale “stand-down” of the multi-trillion-dollar American air-defense system. Cued by fellow mole Richard Clarke, the main players made sure the CIA-owned-and-operated Osama and his alleged 72-virgin-craving crew got the blame, the towers collapsing not from fire, as reported by the brainwashed mainstream media, but thanks to a well-planned “controlled demolition.”
Laying out his scenario, Tarpley touched on many of the “unanswered questions” that make up the core of the 9/11 Truth critique of the so-called Official Story.
Like: How, if no steel-frame building had ever collapsed from fire, did three such edifices fall that day, including 7 World Trade Center, which was not hit by any airplane?
And why, if hydrocarbon-fueled fire maxes out at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,700 degrees, did the towers weaken sufficiently to fall in such a short time—only 56 minutes in the case of the South Tower?
And why, if the impact destroyed the planes’ supposedly crash-proof flight-recorder black boxes, was the FBI able to find, in perfect condition, the passport of Satam al Suqami, one of the alleged American Airlines Flight 11 hijackers?
And how to explain the nonperformance of the FAA and NORAD?
How could they, an hour after the first World Trade Center crash, allow an obviously hostile airplane to smash into the Pentagon, headquarters of the entire military-industrial complex, for chrissakes? And why did the Defense Department choose to stage an extraordinary number of military exercises on 9/11—occupying matériel and spreading confusion about who was who on that day?

And why was it so important, as decreed by Mayor Giuliani, to clear away the debris, before all the bodies were recovered?
And what about the short-selling spree on American and United airlines stock in the days before the attacks? Betting on the stocks to go down—was this real sicko Wall Street insider trading?
There were so many questions. But when it came to the big “why” of 9/11, there was only the classic conspiratorial query: “Who benefits?”
For Tarpley and others, this was a slam dunk: September 11 was a holocaust-as-ordered by the neocon cabal Project for the New American Century, which, like its Svengali, Leo Strauss, recognized the U.S. masses to be meth-addled, postliterate, post-logical lard-asses, a race of “sheeple” that would never rise to inherit the mantle of post–Cold War world-dominators without “some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” In other words, a new Pearl Harbor like the old Pearl Harbor, which Roosevelt was supposed to have known about and used as an excuse to get us into World War II.
Pearl Harbor, the Reichstag fire, take your pick. What mattered was that 3,000 human beings were dead, freeing Manchurian Candidate Bush to decree his fraudulent War on Terror, a Social Darwinian/Hobbesian/with-us-or-against-us struggle to corner the planet’s dwindling bounty—a global conflict without end in which only the strong, the white, and the Republican would survive.
3. Your “HOP” Level
In his paper “What Is Your ‘HOP’ Level?” Nick Levis, who co-coordinates the N.Y. 9/11 Truth meetings with Father Morales and Les Jamieson, categorizes the basic narrative theories about September 11. The options essentially boil down to four.
(A) The Official Story (a.k.a. “The Official Conspiracy Theory”). The received Bushian line: Osama, nineteen freedom-haters with box cutters, etc. As White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, there was “no warning.”
(B) The Incompetence Theory (also the Stupidity, Arrogance, “Reno Wall” Theory). Accepts the Official Story, adds failure by the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. to heed ample warnings. This line was advanced, with much ass-covering compensation, in The 9/11 Commission Report.
(C) LIHOP (or “Let It Happen on Purpose”). Many variations, but primarily that elements of the U.S. government and the private sector were aware of the hijackers’ plans and, recognizing that 9/11 suited their policy goals, did nothing to stop it.
(D) MIHOP (“Made It Happen on Purpose”). The U.S. government or private forces planned and executed the attacks.
Tarpley’s conception of a far-flung, supragovernmental alliance of intelligence agencies (he reserves a key spot for Britain’s MI6) and military forces is only one of many MIHOPs floating around 9/11 Truth circles. Popular are various configurations of a Cheney-Bush MIHOP, with most asserting that the vice-president, who appeared to be in charge on 9/11, was the main actor in the plot. Also ambient is the ecodoomsday Peak Oil MIHOP, the idea that the “peaking” of petroleum reserves required a false provocation to start an “oil war” in the Middle East.
More controversial is Mossad MIHOP: the conjecture that Israeli intelligence (and kowtowing by the U.S. to the “Israel lobby”) played a crucial role, attempting to draw the U.S. into a prolonged struggle with Israel’s enemies. Notable in this is the “white van” story: Five men observed filming the attacks from Liberty State Park were later pulled over by cops near Giants Stadium. One man was found to have $4,700 in his sock. “We are Israelis,” the men reportedly told the cops. “We are not your problem.” The men were quickly deported to Israel, after which the Forward claimed that the company that owned the van, Urban Moving Systems, was a Mossad front.
Mossad MIHOP dovetails with the baseless rumor, widely believed in Arab countries, that 4,000 Jewish World Trade Center workers were told to stay home that day, showing that conspiracy theory can be tricky terrain. Mossad MIHOP easily morphs into Zionist MIHOP or Jewish MIHOP, leading to the charges of anti-Semitism that have dogged the 9/11 Truth movement. “Do I believe Israel has undue influence over U.S. foreign policy?” asks one activist. “Absolutely. But there are people in this movement who are fucking Nazis. You have to draw the line at Holocaust denial.”
Deeper into late-night-talk-radio, Da Vinci Code territory are numerous incarnations of the New World Order MIHOP, defined by Nick Levis as the work of “a global ruling elite seeking greater control of the world Zeitgeist.” Ever elastic, NWO MIHOPs often date back to secret societies like the Knights Templar, founded in 1118 during the First Crusade. (Bush’s alleged slip of calling the terror war a “crusade” was a key hint to the real, if surreal, agenda.) The continuity is clear to any student of the hidden history. The Templars begat the Freemasons (look at the pyramid-meeting-the-eye on every dollar in your pocket, fool!), from whom emerged the nefarious Illuminati, and onward to current standard-bearers like Yale’s Skull and Bones society (both Bushes are Bonesmen; John Kerry, too), the Council on Foreign Relations, and the blue-helmeted armies of the United Nations.


Less-cited scenarios include Sino MIHOP, claiming the attack was a first strike in the inevitable conflict between China and the West. Scientologists have suggested a Shrink MIHOP, imagining evil Thetan psychologists as culprits. In the postmodern battle of paranoid narratives, we get to choose our terror dream, identify our own evil genius.
4. Inevitable MIHOP
“For me, MIHOP was inevitable, because the more you know, the more you know,” says Les Jamieson, a friendly, eminently reasonable 51-year-old from Brooklyn who remembers the moment the scales of Official Story hallucination fell from his eyes.
“I read a story in Newsweek, which said these generals were told earlier that week not to fly. Obviously, someone knew. My reaction was, ‘Holy shit.’ This process has been one holy shit after another.”
Father Frank Morales’s conversion was more dramatic. Raised in the Jacob Riis Projects, Morales, who if not for his priest collar could be mistaken for an East Village hipster, is a longtime Lower East Side hero, primarily for his work with local squatter communities. The day after 9/11, the diocese asked if he’d go to ground zero to perform last rites. “They said be prepared, because ‘we’re not talking bodies, Frank, we’re talking body parts.’ ”
“I could feel myself getting madder and madder, not the way a priest is supposed to feel,” says Morales. Sitting with a fireman, Morales called out, “If I had somebody in this mess, I’d wanna get those motherfuckers.” It was then, Morales says, that the fireman whispered, “Hey, that’s not it. You wanna know something? Bush and bin Laden have the same banker.”
It was everything that happened afterward, the Patriot Act and Iraq, that turned him into a 9/11 Truth activist, says Morales, who likewise sees little alternative to MIHOP.
“To me,” Morales says, “this is about history. History and truth, the nature of truth in a not particularly truthful age.”
“We’re like the minutemen of Revolutionary times, prosecutors in the discovery phase for a trial that is sure to come,” says Jamieson, who on Saturday afternoons can often be found at ground zero holding up a banner proclaiming that 9/11 was AN INSIDE JOB.
As 9/11 Truth advocates know well, the veracity they seek is unlikely to meet the ontological standards of Saint Anselm. They’ve got people on their side like the “WebFairy,” who runs a site “proving” the towers were not hit by planes but holograms, or “ghost planes.” Still, the truth movement wields one irrefutably puissant weapon in its struggle. As Nick Levis says, “Would you believe anything George W. Bush told you?”
5. A Fast-Moving Meme
Google “911 conspiracy” and the bytes bury you. The first great conspiracy theory of the Internet Age—imagine JFK assassinationology with the Web!—9/11 Truth is a fast-moving meme. The thicket of “truth” sites is myriad. There is “911truth.org,” 911forthetruth.com,” “911truthla.org,” “nakedfor911truth.com,” “911truthemergence.com,” “911citizenswatch.org,” “911research.wtc7.net,” “911review.com,” and hundreds more.
It can be argued that a whole new kind of politics is being waged in the 9/11 Truth assault. Apocalyptical survivalists and extreme Bush-haters are equally attracted to the movement’s blanket J’accuse. Be you a Starbucks-window breaker or John Bircher, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way Thomas L. Friedman and his globalist windbaggery blows.
This is not a movement that takes its Nagra tape recorders to document Dealey Plaza acoustics to ascertain which bullet came from what angle. When 9/11 Truth “researchers” cite “the physical evidence,” they usually mean the referred reality of photographs or videos posted on the Net. Paul Thompson, whose 9/11 timeline has become the undisputed gold standard of Truth research, does all his work on the Net. “I don’t have to be any particular place to do this,” says Thompson, who for a while moved to New Zealand so it would be easier for him to concentrate.
Yet it is difficult to deny the allure of this movement. The conspiracist has always relied on a degree of magical thinking. As Marshall McLuhan would swear if he weren’t dead, there has never been a more conspiracy-ready medium than the Net. It is an exhilarating serendipity that every surfer has felt: the glorious synchronicity in the way one link handshakes the next, the sensation of not knowing how you got there but being sure this is the right place. Such miraculous methodology cannot simply be random. For the moment, it feels like Truth.
“There’s reality, and there’s illusion,” says William Rodriguez. “When illusion becomes reality, that’s a problem; 9/11 is a giant illusion.”
Coincidences are rife. What is to be made of reports that prior to September 11, parties unknown purchased the domain names “nycterrorstrike.com,” “horrorinnewyork.com,” and “tradetowerstrike.com.” Was this Mohammad Atta’s idea of a cyberjoke?
Consider Pammy Wynant, protagonist of the novel Players, by Don DeLillo. Published in 1977, the book describes how Pammy, working for a firm called Grief Management Council, which has its offices in the World Trade Center, at first thought the WTC was “an unlikely headquarters for an outfit such as this. But she changed her mind as time passed. Where else would you stack all this grief?” Later, DeLillo writes, “to Pammy the towers didn’t seem permanent. They remained concepts, no less transient for all their bulk than some routine distortion of light.”


[TABLE="align: left"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 198"]
groundzero060320_4_198.jpg

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 198, align: left"]Mystery Plane: The plane that hit the Pentagon isn’t seen in any photographs. Some ask if it existed at all. (Photo: AP)

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Even dismissing numerological smut—like how 9+1+1=11 and there are eleven letters in both George W. Bush and The Pentagon, for which ground was broken September 11, 1941, exactly 155 (=11) years after the Masonic-dominated Founding Fathers opened the Constitutional Convention on September 11, 1786, not to mention, for CIA MIHOP fans, that Kissinger and the Langley boys chose September 11, 1973, to overthrow Chilean socialist president Salvador Allende—we appear to have entered the realm of the precognitively strange.
Does it matter that the pilot for the conspiracy-themed Lone Gunmen (a short-lived Fox knockoff of The X-Files), which aired on March 4, 2001, tells the story of a U.S. government agency’s plot to crash a remote-controlled 727 into the World Trade Center as an excuse to raise the military budget and then blame the attack on a “tin-pot dictator” who was “begging to be smart-bombed”?
And why does every 9-year-old know how to fold a $20 bill so it forms a likeness of the burning Pentagon on one side and the Trade Center on the back? (See clydelewis.com/twenty.html.)
German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen may have been roundly chastised for calling 9/11 “the greatest work of art ever.” Yet what is the conspiracist’s obsessive attempt to make sense where there is no sense but a kind of (paranoid) art? No wonder Jungian shrinks, who churn out copious papers on the topic, are so crazy about 9/11. It’s got so much archetype. Perhaps one of these learned men will pen a monograph on mandala-like smoke patterns (wwnet.fi/users/veijone/satan.htm) in the burning South Tower, which seem to form a likeness of Lucifer?

6. Inside the Truth Vacuum
“People are always coming up with stuff about holograms and planes shooting pods. That’s what happens when the truth is systematically suppressed,” says Monica Gabrielle, whose husband, Richard, was killed in the attacks.
Monica, who describes herself as being “a completely normal housewife paying my taxes, raising my children” before 9/11 and who now lives on Long Island “with my dog, my alarm, and some plants,” testified before the 9/11 Commission. She ended her statement saying she hoped “this commission understands the need to leave a legacy of truth, accountability, and reform as a tribute to all of the innocent victims . . . We look to you for leadership.”
Asked if she ever expected to get a “legacy of truth,” Monica, who manifests an endearingly New Yorkish manner, laughs. “I must be an idiot because, yeah, I did. I was brought up to believe in things like the U.S. government. But we got screwed. The commission was whitewash, a stonewall. Maybe 3,000 people dead wasn’t enough to do the right thing. Did they need 5,000, or 10,000?
“They had these people come in, made them promise to do better next time, and gave them medals. Rich was dead, and nobody was at fault. To me, that’s a sin . . . With them, everything is fake. The government gave out ceremonial urns to the victims’ families. It had beach sand inside. From Coney Island or somewhere. They could have at least used the dust from the Trade Center. Something real.”
Asked about 9/11 Truth, Monica laughs again. “You want tinfoil-hat-wearing nutters? I get these e-mails from this woman. She’s nice, supportive. Then she says to be careful because ‘our thoughts, feelings, and bodily functions are being controlled 100,000 percent by electromagnetic waves.’ But I write back. I know she means well. Everyone needs a friend.”
“Conspiracy theories,” says Lorie Van Auken with a sigh. She’s one of the “Jersey girls” who pushed the Bush administration to convene the 9/11 Commission. Her husband, a Cantor Fitzgerald employee, was killed in the North Tower. She says, “That’s why we demanded the commission, so there wouldn’t be any conspiracy theories.
“Now, when I hear Philip Zelikow [the 9/11 Commission’s executive director] wrote a book with Condi Rice or was seen with Karl Rove, it drives me crazy. I feel like I’m trapped in a truth vacuum.”
One thing that has changed over Lorie’s “career as a 9/11 widow” is that she’s come to appreciate “these conspiracy nuts, or whatever you want to call them.
“At first, we widows didn’t want to be seen with conspiracy people. But they kept showing up. They cared more than those supposedly doing the investigating. If you ask me, they’re just Americans, looking for the truth, which is supposed to be our right.”
7.Why 7 WTC Fell
Talking to these women was not unlike watching the Zapruder film, I thought. The famous 8-mm. movie shot by ladies’-garment manufacturer Abraham Zapruder has been used to justify any number of Kennedy-assassination theories. Think the driver of the limo was the actual shooter, as a few nutbags have postulated? It’s in the Zapruder film, if you’re stoned and squint enough.

[h=2]The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll[/h] ShareThis [TABLE="align: left"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 198"]
groundzero060320_5_198.jpg

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 198, align: left"]Hot Zone: The fact that people, like the woman in this picture, could survive near the impact zone suggests the fires weren’t hot enough to melt structural steel. (Photo: Amy Sancetta/AP)

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
However, you always get to the part where the president’s head explodes in a flash and shower of blood. It remains a horrible, frozen moment. One look and I am back in geometry class at Francis Lewis High School, the principal’s voice on the loudspeaker saying that the president had been shot, that he was “dead.”
Speaking with the widows, or simply walking by a firehouse, was a teleportation back to the raw unspun brutality of the Day. This isn’t as much of a stretch as it sounds, since I was there on September 11.
I’d just walked right into what would come to be called ground zero. No one stopped me. I knew the towers had fallen, seen it on TV. Still, I didn’t expect things that big to totally disappear, as if the ground had swallowed them up.
“Where are the towers?” I asked a fireman. “Under your foot” was the reply.
Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.
“That building is coming down,” he said with a drained casualness.
“Really?” I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. “When?”
“Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning.”
This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.
“Shit!” I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.
Now the 9/11 Truth movement tells me I saw much more. According to Jim Hoffman, a software engineer and physicist from Alameda, California, where he authors the site 911research.wtc7.net, what I saw was a “classic controlled demolition.” This was why, Hoffman contends, 7 WTC dropped so rapidly (in about 6.6 seconds, or almost at the speed of a free-falling object) and so neatly, into its “own footprint.”
For 7 WTC to collapse unaided at that speed, Hoffman says, would mean “its 58 perimeter columns and 25 central columns of structural steel would have to have been shattered at almost the same instant, so unlikely as to be impossible.”
What happened at 7 WTC might be the key to the entire mystery of September 11, contends Hoffman. The $500 million insurance profit made by Larry Silverstein is a garden-variety motive, but the list of 7 WTC tenants sets conspiracy heads spinning.
To wit: The IRS, the Department of Defense, and the CIA kept offices on the 25th floor. The Secret Service occupied the ninth and tenth. The Securities and Exchange Commission (home to vast records of bank transactions) was on floors 11 through 13. The 23rd floor was home to Rudy Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management, his crisis center. If this wasn’t enough, the mortgage of 7 WTC was held by the Blackstone Group, headed by Pete Peterson, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, stalwart players in any NWO MIHOP.
In the 9/11 Truth cosmology, the destruction of 7 World Trade Center is akin to Jack Ruby’s shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. Seven WTC was the home of secrets. It had to go. Central to the scenario is a comment made by Silverstein in a 2002 PBS documentary.
“We’re like the minutemen of Revolutionary times, prosecutors in the discovery phase of a trial that’s sure to come,” says Les Jamieson.
“We’ve had such a terrible loss of life,” he quotes himself as saying on 9/11. “Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
Pull it,” as Truth people never tire of repeating, is the term usually used for controlled demolition.
These were vexing questions, especially since 7 WTC is not even mentioned in The 9/11 Commission Report. Nor is the building given much shrift in the subsequent “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Towers,” compiled by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
And there I was, thinking all I saw was a building falling down.
8. The Magician and the Expert
A few days after the St. Mark’s meeting, I went to a Community Board No. 1 forum where the NIST report would be discussed. The meeting was in the Woolworth Building, the world’s tallest structure when it was completed in 1913. Since it was still standing, it seemed a good place to talk about the only former world’s tallest building(s) to fall down. I was with William Rodriguez, who, as he always does, brought along his video camera, “so they know I’m watching them.”

As a boy shining shoes in Puerto Rico, William dreamed of being wrapped in a straitjacket and suspended upside down from a flaming rope. “That was going to be my big trick. It was my goal to become a magician, the greatest illusionist in the Caribbean basin.”
Later, Rodriguez met James Randi, a.k.a. the Amazing Randi, the magician best known as a debunker of supernatural claims, offering the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge to anyone able to demonstrate verifiable evidence of psychic powers.
“Randi was my mentor,” said William. “I admired him for his tricks but also because he never said they were anything but tricks. He separated the truth from the phony.”
William moved to New York, but beyond some gigs at Mostly Magic, his career did not take off. He started working for a cleaning company in the World Trade Center. He’d stay there twenty years.
On 9/11, William was late. Instead of mopping the stairwells on the 110th floor, where he almost certainly would have died, he was chatting with the maintenance crew on level B-1 in the basement. “I heard this massive explosion below, on level B-2 or 3. I saw this guy come up the stairs. The skin on his arms was peeled away . . . hanging. Then I heard another explosion, from above. That was the first plane, hitting the building.”
In possession of one of the few master keys in the building, William led firemen up the stairwells. He was responsible for getting at least a dozen people out of the towers. Trying to escape as the North Tower fell, he found himself beneath a half-buried fire engine.
“I told myself this is going to be a slow death, but I should make it last as long as I could. My training as an escape artist helped me. I knew to be calm. They found me just in time. I understood my whole life had been pointing to this moment.”
Acclaimed as “the last man pulled from the rubble,” William became a hero of 9/11. “I was at the White House. They took my picture with President Bush.”
Four years later, after repeatedly being rebuffed in his attempts to tell officials his story about the basement explosion, William is suing the U.S. government under the rico statute, legislation drafted to prosecute Mafia families. The suit reads like an Air America wet dream, with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, George Tenet, Karl Rove, and others (the Diebold Company is thrown in for good measure) listed as defendants.
“They say I’m a conspiracy theorist; I call them conspirators, too,” William says.
“It is like Randi said. There’s reality, and there’s illusion. When illusion becomes reality, that’s a problem. Nine-eleven is a giant illusion. Besides, what can they do to me? I’m a national hero, Bush told me so himself.”
“That’s him, the NIST guy,” William said, indicating Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the institute’s Trade Center report.
An elegantly attired man in his fifties, Dr. Sunder, holder of degrees from the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi and MIT, took his seat beside Carl Galioto, a partner at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, architects of the new $700 million replacement for 7 WTC. Behind them was a slide of “the new downtown skyline,” dominated by another Skidmore project, the Freedom Tower, which, at an iconic 1,776 feet, is next in line to be the world’s tallest building. Like the new 7 WTC, which Galioto said featured a “two-foot-thick vertical core encasing the elevators, utility infrastructure, and exit stairs,” the Freedom Tower will be “among the safest buildings ever built.” This was important, the architect said, because “constantly building and rebuilding” was what New York was all about.
After Dr. Sunder’s presentation (planes and fire did it), a woman from N.Y. 9/11 Truth stood up and said she hadn’t been able “to sleep at night” since her best friend had died at the WTC. She had hoped NIST would clear up doubts, but this was not the case. “I have here a report which contradicts much of what you say.”
The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University, in front of Dr. Sunder. Jones makes the case for controlled demolition, claiming the persistence of “molten metal” at ground zero indicates the likely presence of “high-temperature cutter-charges . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”
“I hope you read this; perhaps it will enable you to see things a different way,” the woman said.
“Actually, I have read it,” Dr. Sunder said with a sigh.
Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?
This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.
NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”
Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
9. Can 49.3 Percent of the People Be Crazy?
Late in the summer of 2004, as the Republicans in Madison Square Garden extolled George Bush’s staunch protection of the homeland, a Zogby poll asked New Yorkers if they believed that “some of our leaders knew in advance attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and consciously failed to act.”
Of city residents, 49.3 percent said yes.
A year and a half later, doubt had increased, at least according to my own informal canvassing. Per Nick Levis’s “HOP” paper, I offered four choices: (A) the Official Story; (B) the Official Story plus incompetence; (C) LIHOP; (D) MIHOP.
Of the 56 respondents, 28 said C, 23 picked B, with 4 (including two Muslim cabdrivers) opting for MIHOP.
Almost every white person with a straight job said B. Many disliked Bush but said they couldn’t bring themselves to believe the U.S. government would take part in the death of 3,000 of its countrymen.
Typical was the opinion offered by an investment banker at a downtown bar. “I can see them wishing it would happen, secretly happy it did. But on purpose? Look at the way they’ve managed Iraq. They’re boobs. They couldn’t have pulled off 9/11 without getting caught. Not possible.”
Uptown, responses were different. “Yeah, they knew,” said a retired transit worker on 116th Street, one of the 17 of 22 black people questioned who picked C. He said he’d heard Marvin Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a director of Securacom, a firm that on 9/11 was in charge of security not only at the World Trade Center but also for United and American airlines as well as at Dulles airport, where Flight 77 took off.
“That true?” he asked.
Yeah, I said. That’s what I heard.
“There anywhere he ain’t got no brother?”
“Bush’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, worked there, too.”
“Wirt? The third? You’re shitting me.”
This was pretty much the opinion. If Katrina proved the government was willing to let people die, right there on TV, why should 9/11 have been any different? Only one person picked A, the official story. This was a fireman, who was smoking a cigarette outside a downtown engine company. Truth be told, I wasn’t keen on quizzing firemen about 9/11 Truth, but I knew the guy’s brother from high school.
“Not answering that,” he said, warning not to ask others in the company, which had lost men on 9/11. This didn’t mean he wasn’t of the opinion that if he lived to be a million he’d never “see anything as corrupt, bullshit, and sad as what happened at the WTC.
“They got their gold and shipped us to Fresh Kills,” he said. Call it one more conspiracy theory, but many uniformed firefighters believe the powers that be cared more about finding the gold reserves held in vaults beneath the Trade Center than the bodies of their fallen brothers.
Still, the fireman said, if he had to pick a letter in my poll, it would be A.
“Osama fucking bin Laden, like Bush says. If I thought it was someone else, then I’d have to do something about it. And I don’t want to think about what I’d do.”
10. Disinformation
It weighs on you, thinking about 9/11, the day and the unremitting aftermath. Being a supposedly unflappable New Yorker offers little solace. The wound remains unhealed, emotions close to the surface.
Certainly there was an urgency as activists gathered at the Veselka restaurant after the Tarpley meeting.
With all the saber-rattling about Iran, this was no time to decrease vigilance, said Nick Levis, proposing a toast: “That in 2006, we will crack the Official Story so we can stop being 9/11-heads and return to normality.” A classically hermetic New York conversation ensued, quickly moving from snickers about bin Laden’s supposed CIA code name, “Tim Osmond . . . as in Donny and Marie,” to speculation about the role of Jerry Hauer, Giuliani’s former OEM guy, in the post-9/11 anthrax threats.
Talk came to a halt, however, with the mention of whether it was American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Broached in 2002 by Thierry Meyssan in his French best-seller L’Effroyable Imposture (The Appalling Fraud), the idea that the Pentagon was struck by a missile instead of a 757 is the most controversial tenet of 9/11 Truth–iana. The claim is based on Meyssan’s reading of photographs (“Hunt the Boeing” at asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm) supposedly showing the hole in the building to be no more than fifteen to eighteen feet wide—far too small to fit a plane with a 125-foot wingspan.
But there are problems, such as the many eyewitnesses who saw a plane flying low near the Pentagon shortly before impact. Disputing the no-crash theory, Jim Hoffman has argued, “This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.” In other words, Meyssan and other no-plane believers were either wrong, unknowing dupes or spreaders of disinformation.
The D-word is nothing to take lightly in conspiracy circles. For, as Thomas Pynchon notes in his “Proverbs for Paranoids,” if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.
At Veselka, the question was, if Flight 77 did not crash, what happened to the 56 people on the plane? This query did not sit well with Nico Haupt, a thin, black-clad man from Cologne, Germany, compiler of the 9/11 Encyclopedia (911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Topics.shtml).
“Gassed,” he hissed. “Have you ever heard of gassing? It is very easy. You open the door of the plane, and it spreads.”
“You think they gassed them?” Would even the Illuminati stoop this low?
Haupt cast a withering look. “That, or some other method of murder. Assholes!”
“Nico, calm down,” said Tarpley. “This is tactics. There’s no reason to make an enormous moral issue out of everything.”
But Haupt was past consoling. “You are motherfuckers. Stupid motherfuckers.” Slamming the tabletop, he gathered his things and stormed out.
“Nico is so emotional,” said one activist, returning to her plate of pierogi.
11. 250 Greenwich Street
After dinner, I stopped at ground zero. Before the towers were built, my father took me here when the area was called Radio Row and sold tubes cheap. After 9/11, I spent many nights watching the great plume of water, shining in the vapor lamps, raining onto the smoking pit.
Now I was in front of the replacement for 7 WTC, Silverstein’s $700 million baby, a nifty parallelogram with a stainless-steel finish like a Viking stove in a Soho loft. According to the Web brochure, 7 WTC collapsed “probably” as a result of “the ignition of Con Edison diesel stored in the base.” To “avoid this hazard in the new building, the diesel is stored under the new plaza across from the reopened Greenwich Street.”
Another change is the offering of an alternative address, 250 Greenwich Street. Apparently, Silverstein felt this would play better in “the trendy Tribeca neighborhood.” Call it real-estate MIHOP.
When the new 7 WTC opens, N.Y. 9/11 Truth plans a demonstration here. Now, however, it being late Sunday night, the place looked like a neutron-bomb landscape, lights on in the finished lobby, gleaming card-reading security gates in place, but no sign of humanity anywhere.
A giant LCD screen scrolled various alphabetical fonts, one after another. It was numbing watching this, thinking that time was moving on, new fortunes would be made here, and like 11/22, it would never be known who did what on 9/11.
A cop car pulled up. They wanted me to move on. Cops always want you to move on. Not that I was in any hurry. Larry Silverstein didn’t own the sidewalk. I had as much right to the disaster as anyone.
Then I remembered one more factoid. David Cohen, who headed the CIA office at 7 WTC on September 11, was the same guy hired by Ray Kelly as deputy commissioner of Intelligence. It was Cohen who instituted the subway bag search, one more chimera of security in the post-9/11 world. Who knew what a guy like that might be up to? So I moved on. Can’t trust anyone nowadays.

The Plane Truth
9/11 conspiracy theories, from nuts to soup.
Mossad Did It
A common theory, especially in the Arab world, holds that Israel orchestrated the attacks in order to bring the U.S. into conflict with Israel’s enemies. Evidence cited ranges from the arly spurious and deeply anti-Semitic (the oft-heard, oft-refuted canard that Jews were told to leave the towers before the attacks) to the apparently true but unexplainable. (Five men who were seen filming the attacks in Liberty Park were later apprehended and found by the Forward to have ties to Mossad.)
Oilmen Did It
A theory based on the idea that worldwide oil production, having reached its peak, is beginning a long decline, leading to surging energy prices and global economic collapse. The 9/11 attacks, goes this scenario, were orchestrated by Cheney, Bush, and their friends in the oil industry and government, in order to begin a process that would secure further reserves in Iraq and increase the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf.
Bush and Cheney Did it
The most basic of conspiracy theories. Bush and Cheney orchestrated the attacks, for much the same reason Roosevelt was sometimes said to have orchestrated Pearl Harbor: in order to begin the conflict that would allow them to realize their global ambitions.
The New World Order Did It
After winning a long struggle against the old Kissingerian pragmatists and balance-of-power devotees, neocon idealists centered at the Council on Foreign Relations initiated the conflict in order to establish the United States as the sole global power.
A Rogue Network Did It
A secret government used Bush and Cheney as patsies in carrying out the attacks. Bush was kept on the run in Air Force One (code-named “Angel”) by an anonymous call saying, “Angel is next.” Bin Laden and his henchmen were CIA plants and double agents. Britain’s MI6 intelligence service was involved. The towers were blown up from inside, by teams of secret government assassins. Even Bush and Cheney are in the dark about why the attacks took place.
Shrinks Did It
Scientologists believe that psychiatry (through a mechanism that remains murky) helped give birth to the suicide attackers “through drugs and psycho-political methods.”

–Reported by Janelle Nanos
http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/
 
^ predictable spamming of articles and videos by muir.

Here's a prediction for you muir. I predict that you will CONTINUE to spam videos and articles.....

Now either of two things will happen:
1. You continue and prove my point that vague, and wide scoped predictions mean almost nothing
2. You stop and do all of us on this thread a favor....

Those things are called video clips dogman

They are basically a way in which we are able to hear what other people have said at various times

I share them so that people who are interested can listen to people who have insight that they might like to benefit from

Whether you will listen to them or not is another issue (plenty of the closed-minded people won't so you wouldn't be alone in burying your head in the sand)
 
[h=1]Wolfgang Halbig ~ Sandy Hook Staged Government Community Capstone Exercise False Flag[/h]

[video=youtube;K3QTCh3BLNE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3QTCh3BLNE[/video]
 
Update: Original video pulled, here's a clean version. What was really behind 9/11? Now it can be told, at least by Scientologists: psychiatry.
It should comes as no shock that Scientologists, who think psychiatry is behind all the great wrongs of the world from the Middle Ages forward, would also cause terrorism. Still, it's just perverse to blame psychiatry for 9/11. But that's what Dave Figueroa, president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (founded by the Church of Scientology), does in this video clip from Xenu TV.
"To take a person who's very religious," says Figuero, "and turn them into a killing machine against their will... you need something behind that, you need something fairly powerful. And psychiatrists employ drugs and conditioning techniques in order to change people from what they normally would be into killing machines. And the terrorist factions that we hear about on TV, behind those individual acts of mayhem, you find psychiatrists, psychologists, and their drugs."
The host asks about Ayman al-Zawahiri, a prominent Al-Qaeda lieutenant, whom Figueroa says "was the force behind" bin Laden. The important thing about al-Zawahiri, says Figuero, is that "he's a psychiatrist." (No one's proven that he has that certification, but presumably in the caves of Afghanistan unlicensed practitioners also qualify.)
He further says that though bin Laden has become the "poster child for terrorism... his whole thought patterns and his entire viewpoint was changed by Zawahiri. And whatever types of drugs that Zawahiri used to make that change in bin Laden we don't know." But, he adds, "we know that there was a real change in that guy's attitude," which is our favorite line in the whole thing.
As to whether Zawahiri is "100 percent the person behind 9/11 or not, I don't know if we're ever gonna know," but "that ideology of terror was coming from bin Laden" -- who, we are reminded, "was influenced by a psychiatrist."
The host prods Figueroa to further explain the causes of terrorism, giving him an opening to mention the well-known, timeless forces of ideology and religion. But Figueroa sticks with "psychiatric drugs," among which he includes the amphetamines used by Kamikaze pilots in World War II. (Presumably psychiatry is also responsible for long-distance truck driving and Ted Haggard.)
Some other guy briefly appears to emphasize that Zawahiri is a psychiatrist and the "guy who runs" bin Laden, and the host offers you a pamphlet from which you may learn more. But you don't need a pamphlet to get the message: if you're depressed or anxious, don't go to a shrink or you may wake up with the blood of 2,752 New Yorkers on your hands.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/02/scientologist_r.php[/QUOTE]http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/02/scientologist_r.php
 
Astronomy
[h=1]World Domination From Denver Airport?[/h] Dec 8, 2011 04:17 PM ET // by Benjamin Radford



6a00d8341bf67c53ef0162fd8be47e970d-800wi.jpg





Almost no one likes being in airports these days, but some people believe that one airport in particular – the Denver International Airport – is not only a hassle but also tied to conspiracies about the collapse of Western civilization.
Some say there’s a top-secret underground bunker for the world’s elite to survive a nuclear war (or the impending Mayan 2012 apocalypse). Others say the airport must have a connection to Nazis since the runways form a perfect swastika (actually they don’t).
Even ex-Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura got into the act, interviewing a man claiming that massive tunnels under the airport were built not for luggage handling or mass transit (that’s what they want you to think!), but instead for much more sinister purposes.
[h=2]ANALYSIS: UFO Disclosure Day: Is the Conspiracy Out There?[/h] On his TV show Conspiracy Theory, Ventura says, “There’s a lot of strange things about this airport. It’s twenty-five miles from Denver; that’s nineteen miles further away from old Stapleton Airport, which seemed to be just fine…” It’s not clear why Ventura believes that new airports are always built closer to the nearest city than previous airports, but skeptics are not so sure anything mysterious is going on.
6a00d8341bf67c53ef0153916b3c4a970b-800wi.jpg


WATCH VIDEOS: Aliens, UFOs, Hoaxes and Other Mysteries


Brian Dunning, host of a podcast called Skeptoid which examines unusual claims from a skeptical, science-based perspective, researched conspiracies about the Denver airport.
He told Discovery News, “It’s nearly impossible to summarize the vast number of ordinary events and objects at Denver International Airport that have been misinterpreted, twisted, and sensationalized into ‘evidence’ for a Zionist New World Order Illuminati conspiracy to control and kill American citizens. There are facets of its planning, its design, its construction, its operational history, and even its artwork that conspiracy theorists point at as proof that we’re all doomed.”
The airport’s artwork?
Yes, perhaps the strangest claim of all is that the conspirators have gone out of their way to announce and describe their evil plans to the world. They say all the signs are there; it’s all laid out in front of you, if you just understand how to interpret the clues and signs.
[h=2]ANALYSIS: 9/11 Terrorists Debunk 9/11 Conspiracies[/h] Conspiracy folks point to murals in the airport depicting World War II-era genocide and environmental degradation, along with a message of global unity, peace, and hope. Reading meaning into art is a time-honored tradition, but the conspiracy-minded find messages about Nazis, Mayan 2012 doomsday predictions, global destruction, the collapse of the American government, and even extraterrestrial contact. Conspiracy theorists love to uncover (or fabricate, depending on your point of view) clues to innumerable hidden agendas.
This illogical contradiction is common in conspiracy thinking: It’s a carefully-hidden top-secret plot that no one is supposed to know about–except that the conspirators made sure to leave important clues so the public would know about it.
For example, those who believe that NASA didn’t go to the moon point out that the moon has no atmosphere – yet the American flag waves in photos supposedly taken on the moon! Is this proof that the images were shot on a sound stage somewhere, proof that NASA botched their cover-up and left a glaring error betraying their deception? Or maybe NASA and the astronauts intentionally left little clues and hints for the clever conspiracy theorists to reveal? (In fact the reason the flag waves has long since been revealed by many including “The Bad Astronomer” Phil Plait: “It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one… In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way.”)
[h=2]ANALYSIS: Faked Moon Landings and Kubrick’s ‘The Shining’[/h] Perhaps the most famous case of a conspiracy claiming that the conspirators purposely left clues about a hidden truth was in the late 1960s, when The Beatles guitarist Paul McCartney suddenly died. The remaining Beatles–along with their manager and others–conspired to keep McCartney’s death a secret, going so far as to hire a look-alike and sound-alike to take his place in public appearances.
Why? As any good conspiracy theorist worth his salt (or is it sugar? Taste can be deceiving; did anyone have it chemically analyzed?) will tell you, follow the money to reveal the truth: The Beatles were the most popular band in the world, and earning obscene amounts of money for promoters, record companies, merchandisers, and others. McCartney’s death could not be allowed to kill this cash cow.
Yet while the conspirators carefully kept the public from finding out about McCartney’s death, they also decided that they should reveal the truth in album covers and music.
For example, on the cover of the Abbey Road album, all four Beatles are photographed striding across a zebra crossing–but only McCartney is barefoot. On the cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, McCartney is the only Beatle photographed with a hand over his head, which – for those smart enough to understand the reference – is a symbol in some cultures that he was memorialized in death.
[h=2]ANALYSIS: UFO Conspiracy Theories has Holes[/h] There were dozens of other references in photos and lyrics, all cited as proof and evidence of the conspiracy. It all made sense to many people. And it was all, of course, completely wrong.
For his research into the mystery-shrouded Denver airport, Dunning could have followed the path of many before him (including Jesse Ventura): free-associating in front of murals and asking various anonymous and quasi-anonymous sources to share their wild-eyed, fact-free speculations.
Instead, Dunning chose to examine claims about the Denver airport through basic research and logic.
Dunning offers a simple analysis for the questions that stumped conspiracy expert Ventura, such as why the new airport was built farther from Denver since the previous one was just fine: “The old Stapleton International Airport was 65 years old, was a major noise nuisance being in the middle of the city, and had only three 10,000-foot runways, the minimum needed for large jets at such a high elevation, and barely adequate for fully loaded international jumbos. Denver International has six runways all over 12,000 feet, and one at 16,000 feet, that can accommodate any jet in the world. Its location clear of Denver alleviates the noise concerns.”
Countless other claims have been thoroughly addressed by Dunning and others (including The Skeptic Project). These simple and straightforward rebuttals won’t, of course, satisfy those who are sure a conspiracy is afoot. For them, such answers are too obvious to be true.
In the end, Dunning says, “These conspiracies and beliefs would be comical if they weren’t, as a search of YouTube or the Internet will reveal, so astoundingly widespread.”
Image: In Google Maps, after searching for “Denver International Airport,” you can see some other common search terms for the airport. “New world order” an “conspiracy theories” are top of the list. Credit: Google
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/world-domination-from-the-denver-airport-111208.htm
 
So stu you seem unable to answer a straight question!

I asked you if you are saying you believe in the official narrative of 911?

Also i asked you if you are being paid to be here?

Why are these so difficult for you to handle?
 
So stu you seem unable to answer a straight question!

I asked you if you are saying you believe in the official narrative of 911?

Also i asked you if you are being paid to be here?

Why are these so difficult for you to handle?

I told you muir. a lot of people don't bother with you because you don't even listen to the counter arguments, or give a fair chance to other people's opinions.
 
These are all just hot air words

You blow a lot of smoke out....but at the end of the day...all that matters is whether or not the vaccines are harmful and to what extent they are harmful

Everything else is ego bullshit

You can say what you like about me, but if i'm right, i'm right

If that's all you see, then that's your own failing. The very important point was:
Even your own claims of vaccine toxicity suggest that the only threat is to infants. Or did you forget about what your own argument hinged on...?
because it shows how you change your argument for what sounds good. You keep on talking like vaccines in general are dangerous, but your own argument hinges on it being given to infants. You say that vaccines would be dangerous to myself and Stu, and yet by your own admission in the past, that's not true. You fit your argument to what you want, not to what you think (or what actually is) the truth. Which is what conspiracy theorists are known for. Which is why this thread applies to you. Which is why you are taking offense.
 
Just because there are logical fallacies in someone's reasoning doesn't mean that their conclusion is wrong. Relying on logic strictly will keep you from incorrectly believing you know something to be true, but the actual truthiness of the proposition is removed from any reasoning used to assess accuracy, unless tautologies are applicable. Ie, B might be true even if A => B is not true. People use illogical reasoning to come to all sorts of conclusions, which may end up being right or wrong anyway. Thinking that because a person's reasoning is illogical means that their conclusion is wrong is equally illogical. Logic is a way of limiting one's beliefs in order to try to make sure that they're not wrong, practically, and not necessarily a way to come to real-world conclusions which are correct. I let my intuition go and try to reign it in with reasoning for reality-checking... it also leads one to the areas where one could look for more information to have a higher confidence in their conclusion, new routes to consider, or discard it as needed.

It's interesting when somebody has a good track record of being right w/o necessarily having properly expressed reasoning... really, in the Kantian sense anyway, I think the only thing that anyone can know is what their perception of something is, not necessarily its accuracy w/ outside reality, which is necessarily a step removed from our perception of it, though it may mirror it reasonably well. The constructed understanding that we live by is almost totally inferential, if not totally, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Listen.....forget all the argumentative bullshit for a minute......there was a group of jewish marxist intellectuals in germany called the 'frankfurt school'

They left germany when the nazis came to power

They were given jobs in US universities by the powerful jewish banking fraternity centred mainly in new york who influence education through 'foundations' through which they channel funds into causes they wish to further and to people they wish to support for example the banking family the rockefellers of standard oil and chase manhatten bank (who are also one of the shareholders of the federal reserve bank and david rockefeller was also the chairman of the council on foreign relations) created the rockefeller university

The point of the frankfurt school is to destroy capitalist society in order to then create a new society where everyone is controlled by a central authority that spies on them constantly and controls every aspect of their lives

david rockefeller wrote his university thesis on fabian socialism

These guys want to create a world government that they will control so they gave the frankfurt school jobs in the universities and funded them and in return the frankfurt school created 'critical theory' which is about constantly criticising every aspect of capitalist society in order to discredit it in the minds of the young (students) to prepare them to accept a new system of government (a dictatorship)

So when you say your professor is a 'marxist' this does not suprise me, but these marxists do not want to create a society where the workers exercise power from the bottom up, they want to create a society where the workers are RULED from above by the banking fraternity

So let go to 911

below is a clip of a GENERAL from the US military admitting that there was always a LONG RANGE plan to invade a whole bunch of countries in the middle east. This is part of the bankers plan to subjugate the critical oil fields of the middle east in order to build their global government ('new world order')

[video=youtube;9RC1Mepk_Sw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw[/video]

President Bush telling you about their 'new world order':

[video=youtube;Rc7i0wCFf8g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g[/video]

A right wing neo-con think tank called the Rand Corporation wrote a paper called 'a project for a new american century' in which it said that in order to achieve its new global objectives it would need a new pearl harbour event in order to win the support of the US public for the actions they wanted to take

A year later they got their pearl harbour when the world trade centre was knocked down

Another professor looking into 911:

[video=youtube;mVxaf6mhagM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVxaf6mhagM[/video]

Here's the problem with what you have here.

Some of this information is correct, and I have no doubt that there are groups of powerful people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who do many things to try control many aspects of society, including particularly the financial world (banking), the media and government. However, most of these people gain a lot from capitalism so I seriously doubt that they want to be rid of it, and even if they wanted to there are too many people that gain from it and would not let it happen, the American political system and the Republican party in particular demonstrates this all the time. Also, the idea that everybody is either in on it or has fallen prey to the brainwashing (except conspiracy theorists) is ridiculous. My professor is not trying to create a world controlled by the bankers at the top. You have not spoken to him. You do not know his ideas and therefore you cannot credibly state something like that. I have had many discussions with him and I have no doubt that his criticism of capitalism is based on his concern for the fact that he sees us all as alienated from our true nature by the capitalist system, and not because he wants the bankers to control things. That idea doesn't even make sense. It's like whenever there is some evidence to oppose the ideas brought up by the conspiracy theorists they just make up something else out of thin air. Because there is some truth to what you say doesn't mean that all the added stuff that doesn't even make sense is true.
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] you do realize that if the media and government can spin the messages to fit their narrative then anybody else can do the same thing, including these people in your videos. Why would I believe that they have any more credibility than the mainstream media?

I really think the biggest flaw in all these theories is that they give way too much credit to the people who make up the government and institutions that you say are covering this all up. People are stupid, greedy, big-mouths, disorganized, controlling, power-hungry, selfish...there is no way that this many people could be that organized and do what you say they do.
 
Last edited:
Just because there are logical fallacies in someone's reasoning doesn't mean that their conclusion is wrong. Relying on logic strictly will keep you from incorrectly believing you know something to be true, but the actual truthiness of the proposition is removed from any reasoning used to assess accuracy, unless tautologies are applicable. Ie, B might be true even if A => B is not true. People use illogical reasoning to come to all sorts of conclusions, which may end up being right or wrong anyway. Thinking that because a person's reasoning is illogical means that their conclusion is wrong is equally illogical. Logic is a way of limiting one's beliefs in order to try to make sure that they're not wrong, practically, and not necessarily a way to come to real-world conclusions which are correct. I let my intuition go and try to reign it in with reasoning for reality-checking... it also leads one to the areas where one could look for more information to have a higher confidence in their conclusion, new routes to consider, or discard it as needed.

You are absolutely correct. A lack of an argument (or a badly designed argument) is not itself proof that the conclusion is false. While someone can limit beliefs to those things that are logically defined do lead themselves to being more reliably correct, but also without an answer to a far greater number of things, and therefore limited in their scope of reality. And you are very much right why intuition is extremely important. If hand in hand, they are very powerful.

It's interesting when somebody has a good track record of being right w/o necessarily having properly expressed reasoning... really, in the Kantian sense anyway, I think the only thing that anyone can know is what their perception of something is, not necessarily its accuracy w/ outside reality, which is necessarily a step removed from our perception of it, though it may mirror it reasonably well. The constructed understanding that we live by is almost totally inferential, if not totally, anyway.

The reason for past "rightness" is definitely something that needs explaining. By probability, someone will be correct about a number of things by pure chance alone. The old saying, "even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while" describes as much. If that person is above random chance, then there is some relation or method that the person has that makes them more reliable. It's also true that if intuition is being used, then that person is not necessarily able to describe how they might know something. That leads a person to after-the-fact rationalization of how they might know something (or they might accept that they don't know how they know), and therefore won't have effective arguments. However, notice that "rightness" is very vague. How right a person is depends on many factors....it's not binary. Consider an example of a computer written in binary code. One might ask what the probability is that, on going to a random location in the computer code, you will pick out a 1. You might be tempted to say 50% and that a 50% collection of 1s is the standard random, but that's not correct. Suppose that the computer 's code is 60% 1s and 40% 0s. Now if a person always guesses 1, then they will eventually come to near 60% correct responses as compared to the apparent 50% for randomness. That might make you think that the person knows more about the computer, and perhaps is more reliable to agree with, but that doesn't change the fact that the person really doesn't know anything and is just lucky. This is the idea behind vague responses. The probability of being correct with a vague answer, like you will die at an old age, is significantly greater than the probability of being right with a specific answer, like you will die at the age of 87. If a person gives a lot of these vague answers, then the appearance of "rightness" for this person will be significantly greater than a person who is giving specific answers. That doesn't change the fact that said person is guessing, and doesn't really know what he is guessing about. If a person has even a little relevant information, they can guess with much higher accuracy and appear even more right. That's how a lot of fortune telling works.
Now if a person claims that there will be riots, or there will be more protests, or there will be more media on X, or they are spying on us, or X thing is dangerous, or X group is manipulating the media.....each of these things are just as vague. There are protests and riots every single day somewhere, on a massive number of different ridiculous (and not so ridiculous) things. It's just that it doesn't get covered usually further than local media. For example, when Joe Biden came to U of I to support his campaign again rape in universities, there was a protest against his being there talking about how he is....physical...with a lot of women, and is a hypocrite, and that the university is a hypocrite for a number of other reasons on the topic.....I doubt anyone here even heard of Biden's visit to UIUC. Similar effect on the other things. The claims are just so vague, that the chances of being correct are greater, by guessing, than specific instances.

That's why any such person with a supposed track record of being "right" still needs to be considered with a grain of salt. While a track record of being right does call attention to idea, it is still necessary to determine it as true. Otherwise, we are subject to superstition.

This is what I think muir is doing, and also why I think his reasoning/explanation is unreliable.

Edit: as a side note, you only used the example with deductive logic, but I'd also like to mention that there are many other kinds of logic that have there own limitations and valid applications. The most common example is inductive logic. It has its own limitations, but has applications where deductive logic fails miserably. Check this link out for a number of informal different forms of logic: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=logic
 
Last edited:
I told you muir. a lot of people don't bother with you because you don't even listen to the counter arguments, or give a fair chance to other people's opinions.

You are assuming that i don't listen because i don't bend

You are also assuming that i don't know why their counter arguments are wrong

Lets take the vaccine debate as an example. For me to give your opinions a 'fair chance', as you put it, is to consider that the government is not lying over vaccines

But the problem is that i already know that the government is lying over vaccines; whistleblowers have told me that the government is lying over vaccines

Here is the healthy way to approach someone who is putting forward a 'conspiracy theory': ask them for clarification

Ask them what it is exactly that they are claiming and also what it is they have found out that leads them to then believe that

This is a sensible and open minded approach to take towards new possibilities

Sometimes you will find the person is mistaken and sometimes you will find the person has indeed come across good information and has suddenly broadened their consciousness to encompass a greater understanding about what is really going on
 
Last edited:
If that's all you see, then that's your own failing. The very important point was:

because it shows how you change your argument for what sounds good. You keep on talking like vaccines in general are dangerous, but your own argument hinges on it being given to infants. You say that vaccines would be dangerous to myself and Stu, and yet by your own admission in the past, that's not true. You fit your argument to what you want, not to what you think (or what actually is) the truth. Which is what conspiracy theorists are known for. Which is why this thread applies to you. Which is why you are taking offense.

No i have not said vaccines are only dangerous to infants

Where did you get that idea from?

I think vaccines are harmful period

That's why i said to you above not to gte the flu shot. I was only pushing the point about you not having got it to make a point that it seems strange for you and stu to tell other people to go out and vaccinate themselves and their children and yet neither of you are going out and getting your vaccines

But i think they are harmful to adults and children

I would say children are particularly targetted though and that is being done for a reason that is not to do with immunity from diseases
 
You are absolutely correct. A lack of an argument (or a badly designed argument) is not itself proof that the conclusion is false. While someone can limit beliefs to those things that are logically defined do lead themselves to being more reliably correct, but also without an answer to a far greater number of things, and therefore limited in their scope of reality. And you are very much right why intuition is extremely important. If hand in hand, they are very powerful.



The reason for past "rightness" is definitely something that needs explaining. By probability, someone will be correct about a number of things by pure chance alone. The old saying, "even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while" describes as much. If that person is above random chance, then there is some relation or method that the person has that makes them more reliable. It's also true that if intuition is being used, then that person is not necessarily able to describe how they might know something. That leads a person to after-the-fact rationalization of how they might know something (or they might accept that they don't know how they know), and therefore won't have effective arguments. However, notice that "rightness" is very vague. How right a person is depends on many factors....it's not binary. Consider an example of a computer written in binary code. One might ask what the probability is that, on going to a random location in the computer code, you will pick out a 1. You might be tempted to say 50% and that a 50% collection of 1s is the standard random, but that's not correct. Suppose that the computer 's code is 60% 1s and 40% 0s. Now if a person always guesses 1, then they will eventually come to near 60% correct responses as compared to the apparent 50% for randomness. That might make you think that the person knows more about the computer, and perhaps is more reliable to agree with, but that doesn't change the fact that the person really doesn't know anything and is just lucky. This is the idea behind vague responses. The probability of being correct with a vague answer, like you will die at an old age, is significantly greater than the probability of being right with a specific answer, like you will die at the age of 87. If a person gives a lot of these vague answers, then the appearance of "rightness" for this person will be significantly greater than a person who is giving specific answers. That doesn't change the fact that said person is guessing, and doesn't really know what he is guessing about. If a person has even a little relevant information, they can guess with much higher accuracy and appear even more right. That's how a lot of fortune telling works.
Now if a person claims that there will be riots, or there will be more protests, or there will be more media on X, or they are spying on us, or X thing is dangerous, or X group is manipulating the media.....each of these things are just as vague. There are protests and riots every single day somewhere, on a massive number of different ridiculous (and not so ridiculous) things. It's just that it doesn't get covered usually further than local media. For example, when Joe Biden came to U of I to support his campaign again rape in universities, there was a protest against his being there talking about how he is....physical...with a lot of women, and is a hypocrite, and that the university is a hypocrite for a number of other reasons on the topic.....I doubt anyone here even heard of Biden's visit to UIUC. Similar effect on the other things. The claims are just so vague, that the chances of being correct are greater, by guessing, than specific instances.

That's why any such person with a supposed track record of being "right" still needs to be considered with a grain of salt. While a track record of being right does call attention to idea, it is still necessary to determine it as true. Otherwise, we are subject to superstition.

This is what I think muir is doing, and also why I think his reasoning/explanation is unreliable.

Edit: as a side note, you only used the example with deductive logic, but I'd also like to mention that there are many other kinds of logic that have there own limitations and valid applications. The most common example is inductive logic. It has its own limitations, but has applications where deductive logic fails miserably. Check this link out for a number of informal different forms of logic: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=logic

I have a track record of being right because i understand the underlying factors at play

I'll give you an example

I said the Ukrainian economy was going to be destroyed by them going over to the IMF and then it was

How did i know in advance this was going to happen?
How could i make such a confident public assertion with no fear of being ridiculed?
How was i so sure that i would turn out to be right?

Easy....i know the agenda of the IMF, i also know its track record and i know about what its neoliberal principles do to countries

if you don't know those things you cannot make predictions

I know those things because i have followed them for a more than a decade

Have you been digging into this stuff for more than a decade?
 
Here's the problem with what you have here.

Some of this information is correct, and I have no doubt that there are groups of powerful people, Jewish and non-Jewish,

Can i just clarify the whole 'jewish' thing for the record....

I don't really see them as 'jews' in the sense that to me a jewish person is a person of faith who is trying to live within spirit but the conspirators are descended from khazars who converted enmasse to judaism over a thousand years ago; they don't follow the torah they follow an ancient occultism

So what they do is they hide behind certain groups and manipulate them all from behind the scenes so we end up with fake jews, fake muslims and fake christians who constantly fan the flames of hatred between those groups to keep them all divided

The occultists meanwhile carry out their rituals in secret societies behind closed doors

So when some political leader like say Bush says he's a 'christian' he isn't really....he's an occultist. He has a totally different reading to the bible than say a genuine christian as we understand the term

If you invest time into studying the occult as I have you will begin to see and understand other readings of the bible

The conspirators believe in a dog eat dog world. In their philosophy there is nothing wrong with them dominating us and even killing us as and when it suits them because they believe that the world is really ruled by the law of the jungle and they live their lives accordingly; this is why the guys at the top of society are constantly involved in sex scandals, murder, corporate thievery and inter-country warfare....they do not think in the same way that you do

So when i say they are 'black magicians', to the uninitiated that sounds a little melodramatic but lets break that down a bit.

Crowley described 'magick' as the art and science of producing change in conformity with will

Black magick is when you do this to gain personal advantage (selfish)
White magick is when you do it to help others (selfless)

So under this umbrella term of 'magick' would fall all sorts of sciences that today we have given fancy names to like 'psychology' or 'sociology' or 'propaganda' but which are really very old and have been understood within the secret societies for thousands of years and which have been used by centralised power down the ages to control the populace

Unfortunately blood sacrifice has always formed a part of the dark arts as has sex magick. The rape and murder of children forms part of their ritual magick. This too crowley speaks about in his 'book 4' and i can give you a link if you would like to read more on the subject

The 'black lodge' are people who have failed on the magickal/spiritual path to cross what is called the 'abyss' but what is a psycho-spiritual stage in their spiritual evolution. A person that is unable to let go of their ego then finds that their ego ossifies and becomes their ruling power centre

The 3 degrees of freemasonry relate to: the generative organs, the heart and the mind (the centre of ego) and a genuine mystery school should teach the balancing of the generative organs and the mind through the mediator of the heart

However a person in the black lodge is completely detached from heart. They have bypassed it! They have no compassion, feel no love or joy and are stuck living purely through the machinations and manipulations of mind with none of the blessings and grace that come from connection with heart and indeed crowley for example said that he did not understand or experience love

Without connection to heart we cannot lovingly connect with other human beings and instead begin to see them as merely resources to be used and discarded as we see fit

To a perosn in touch with their heart it would be totally unacceptable to spray the public covertly with harmful particulates as a way to control them but to a person disconnected from heart this is simply a logical step to take in order to control them

You could use modern terminology i guess like 'psychopath' and that would work well to understand these people; they basically create networks of inter-married bloodlines who then recruit other psychopaths to carry out their plans of domination. They brutalise their own children with their own form of cultural mind control to shape them into psychopaths

I don't know if you read much history but the royal families of europe are famed for their cruelty; even in recent times the british queen used to sign the death warrents of people in the caribean where colonies had maintained the privy council as their highest law court. She is a blood descendent of vlad 'the impaler'

If you take an example from popular fiction for example do you watch 'game of thrones'? In that there is a character called 'Bolton' who is an example of a cold blooded psychopath who plays manipulative games with people whilst seeking to maximise harm to them. He hunts down people and kills them for sport. He is also a member of a bloodline and as a result inherits positions of power. Well....that maybe fiction, but those people are out there and they form political and business dynasties

who do many things to try control many aspects of society, including particularly the financial world (banking), the media and government. However, most of these people gain a lot from capitalism so I seriously doubt that they want to be rid of it,

All the ideologies or '-isms' are no more than a means to an end for the conspirators

They seek total control over every aspect of our lives and the ideologies are simply tools to shape society in different ways on the road to creating the most totalitarian system that they can get away with

What they want though is a powerful government that they can control because the government then acts as both their shield against the people but also their hammer with which they can beat the public into submission

So 'fascism' is when corporate power takes over government....so they like 'fascism'

Alternatively in the US the corporate media uses the term 'socialism' to mean big government and equally this then provides them with what they want: a two tier society with them as a ruling class ruling over the rest of society

This is what there is in china for example; however we are seeing there a growing middle class and it is possible that it will increasingly challenge the centralised power of the ruling class

The black magicians have tried all these different systems throughout history and they have come to the conclusion that the only way to control everyone is to control things on a global scale so that there is no alternative system or country that people can flee to

Secondly they believe that ultimately the only way to control human consciousness is to merge us with machines and in order for them to be able to force that on the public they must achieve two things; this process is called 'transhumanism' (perhaps you could research into that and maybe into DAARPA and google and microchips in the body etc)

Firstly they must weaken us: physically, mentally and spiritually so that we cannot moutn effective resistance and they are doing this through a variety of means which i talk about at length on various threads

Secondly in order to force such changes on us they must have us living under an oppressive system that has enough power over us that it can force us to do things like be injected with nanotechnology and with RF frequency micro chips

These processes are now well under way and accelerating rapidly so that we are faced with fresh examples of this process regularly

and even if they wanted to there are too many people that gain from it and would not let it happen, the American political system and the Republican party in particular demonstrates this all the time.

They control the republican party

They control both ends of the poltical system and they play both ends agaisnt the middle. This is what is called the 'false left/right paradigm'

Professor Quigley, writing in the 1960's summed this up as follows:

''The chief problem of American political life for along time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international…(therefore) argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers…Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy'' (Tragedy and Hope: 1247-1248).

What the system does is make you think that the only solution to your problems is to hand over all power to political parties and ask them to do it

But they won't

The hard truth that people don't want to hear is that the change is going to need to come from you and me making changes at grassroots level to what we support, how we spend our money, what food we eat, how we engage with community etc and in building a decentralised peer2peer economy

People don't want to hear that because it means taking responsibility and taking responsiblity is scary to people who have been raised to have a slave mentality


Also, the idea that everybody is either in on it or has fallen prey to the brainwashing (except conspiracy theorists) is ridiculous.

It's a spectrum

People are at different levels of cogniscense

Even those who are initiated into the agenda are at different stages of understanding what is going on and why. It's a hierarchical pyramid

Just to confuse things further there is a process in the evolution of perceptions that i have observed that people go through. Maybe someone else has defined this already in more academic terms but i can't think off the top of my head of any instance of anyone else putting it this way so perhaps i should call it the 'muir principle'! lol

So the muir principle is that there are 2 stages to understanding something

The first stage is the KNOWING stage. This is when you become consciously aware of something. So for example if you had never heard of the 'new world order' and someone said to you ''hey did you know that there is a cabal of corporate interests seeking to create a global world government that they will control?''

If you had not heard that before then you are now at the stage of knowing about it but at first because you have not heard this idea before you don't initially believe it. Perhaps you have some qualifications like a degree or something which makes you feel pretty clever and like there's no way that such a big piece of information coulda slipped by you in all those years you spent reading those books the system gave you to read at school then university

However later on you stumble across some information...perhaps an intelligence officer gives a talk you listen to in which they blow the whistle on top secret programmes going on at the top level of society which then make you wonder that maybe if all that had been going on without you knowing about it. that maybe other stuff could be going on as well (your mind creaks open a little more)

Then you come across some more information about the history of the United Nations and about how there has historically been 'globalists' calling for a world government

Suddenly you remember what that person said to you before about a conspiracy to create a world government. You do a little research and you find out that actually there is TONS AND TONS OF INFORMATION, EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY out there all pointing to the existance of a conspiracy to create a world government and yet none of that information was given to you at school and university...'how strange' you think!

So you go back to that person who first spoke to you about the new world order and you ask them for more information about it; they are happy to give the information because they have spent large amounts of their own time and effort researching into it because they have already gone through the stage that you are going through of discovering this incredible body of information

So they share video clips of politicians speaking about the plot, of businessmen speaking about it, they share books that follow the money trails piecing the hard evidence links proving the process and much more evidence besides

Wow...suddenly a switch goes in your head.....it is exactly like that...a switch that suddenly turns to 'ON'

Suddenly you can see it all.......you can see what they're talking about, suddenly you start making connections yourself as you can suddenly see how all the things youv'e been learning about suddenly fit together and make sense

Everything suddenly slots into place as you begin to see how all of it is connected and as you learn more information you then understand why those events happened the way they did.

You listen to other people as they try to make sense of the events using only the cherry picked information given to them by the system servers at the university and you can see a few pieces of crucial evidence that you have that you could share with them that would suddenly make sense of what they are so confused about

You feel it would be wrong to leave them in their confusion when they seem so perplexed about it. 'Hey' you say 'have a look at this' and you hand them some information

You are now at the UNDERSTANDING stage and you are about to help someone to the KNOWING stage

One main difference between the stages of the muir principle is that you can help someone to the KNOWING stage because to know about something they only have to have heard about it

So if you look at Stu's posts that are mocking various conspiracies, for example 'chemtrails', they show that the person making the article and the person posting the article are at the KNOWING stage (unless they are shills of course who are pretending not to understand to keep you fro the understanding stage by ridiculing the information so that you don't look at it becasue you are afraid of being made to look stupid and then allow yourself to be suppressed by 'groupthink')

But the next 'UNDERSTANDING' stage requires a person to properly understand that it is not just a theory but that it is actually true; but to get to that stage they must have assimilated enough evidence to prove to them in their own mind that it is true

But here comes the problem!

In order to get that information you must first be open minded enough to approach it!

So if you take invisible for exmaple....he said above in this thread that he 'won't even engage with conspiracy theories'

This means he will never devleop beyond the KNOWING stage because here is the next big barrier to evolving perceptions...and this is a key one:

Although you can help someone to the knowing stage YOU CANNOT MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND; only the person themself can allow themself to assimilate the information.

Sure you can try and facilitate this by constantly putting forward more information for them to help them build up that critical mass of evidence that then flips their world view but you cannot make them a) look at the information or b) analyse it objectively and critically

At this stage they might acuse you of 'spamming the thread' (because they don't realise/understand that you are offering them up the informational doorway to a fresh world view)

There is another barrier to critical analysis

This is that humans are NOT RATIONAL CREATURES they are emotional creatures capable of rational thought. They are also GROUP creatures and will make decisions based on emotion for example on what impact the information will have on their standing in the group

For this reason the people who are able to stand apart from the group, on their own two feet, and not allow groupthink to stop their perceptual evolution are sadly quite rare; these then become your seers and visionaries (seers....see-ers...those who can see)

For example if a person has a lot invested in a perception of reality they are less likely to let that perception go and embrace a new perception of reality; lets take 911 for example. A lot of people have a lot invested emotionally in being a US american citizen and they want to believe that a good citizen is loyal to their government so they WANT to believe the government. For them to believe that their government is lying to them then throws their world view and their emotional connection to their mental construct of nationhood into dissarray....this is a psychically painful experience to go through and therefore they perceive the path of least resistance to be to cling to the lie

As a result they fall down at one of the critical thinking hurdles and fail to initiate because they a) choose not to engage with the evidence that would initiate a change in how they perceive reality and b) refuse to assimilate it into their being (accept it as fact)

Fascinating stuff isn't it? The problem is that it isn't a game...because whilst people are going through or in the case of some stubbornly refusing to go through this process of becoming more consciously aware of what they were once unconscious of (the 'awakening') the conspirators are growing in strength and continue to poison us and weaken us (1 in 50 kids now with autism and the number is rising rapidly whilst at the other end of society more and more people are going down with dementia and alzheimers at younger and younger ages.....the population is literally being dumbed down through brain damage)

My professor is not trying to create a world controlled by the bankers at the top. You have not spoken to him. You do not know his ideas and therefore you cannot credibly state something like that.

Well the problem with me telling the truth about that statement is that i will come over sounding arrogant

For exampe if i say to you that due to my understanding of the system gained from digging into it for well over a decade I could now make certain assumptions with a high degree of accuracy i would sound like i am not being scientific and am being arrogant

However if my assertions are accurate then they are accurate and no amount of griping about lack of 'empiricism' will change that

This is because the machine i use to make my assertions about things (my intuition) now has vast amounts of information in it which all feeds into each assertion. If an assertion does not rise with clarity from my intuition i will not assert it or i will warn the person i'm speaking to that i am not sure about it

I have had many discussions with him and I have no doubt that his criticism of capitalism is based on his concern for the fact that he sees us all as alienated from our true nature by the capitalist system, and not because he wants the bankers to control things.

''The road to hell is paved with good intentions''

The problem is that many people are being duped into behaving certain ways that suit the system even though they think they are doing what is right

So even if the professor has legitimate concerns about capitalism (and i have too) the fact remains that by helping to tear down the current system he is paving the way for a new one and at the moment the people who are placed in the positions of power to be able to then implement a new system are people who want to create an increasingly centralised form of power, which means that you have less say in matters and when that happens you better hope that you agree with everything that they are going to force on you because if you don't agree you will clash with the might of their system that you have aquiesced into being (and if you think police brutality is bad now...just what until you see what they have in store for us).

Orwell described poetically their aim as a 'jackboot on the neck of humanity forever'


That idea doesn't even make sense. It's like whenever there is some evidence to oppose the ideas brought up by the conspiracy theorists they just make up something else out of thin air. Because there is some truth to what you say doesn't mean that all the added stuff that doesn't even make sense is true.

Try not to get confused with all the talk about ideologies for example: fascism, capitalism and socialism etc because these terms are missused deliberatly by the corporate media anyway to disable peoples ability to communicate clearly on these issues (orwell describes that corruption of language in his book '1984' and chomsky a professor of lingusitics speaks of 'abuses of language' by the political el-ite)

A far more accurate way to see things is to see them in terms of a struggle between two currents

One current believes that power should be centralised in the hands of a small group of people who believe that they have some sort of right to dictate to everyone else. They might even cite the ideas of Plato's 'Republic' for example as a philosophical justification for the dictatorship they intend to create

The other current believes that power should be decentralised so that everyone has a say in the decision making process; through this approach no one should be oppressed because they are able to speak out and have their criticism of any potentially harmful action heard and analysed by the community and thereby averted

The decentralised current is not allowed a voice in the arena of the corporate media. The closest you will get is to hear the views of certain right wing libertarians like Rand Paul who in the same breath will publically declare his loyalty to israel (thereby paying homage to the banking interests who created and control Israel, chief among whom are the rothschilds). These right wing libertarians (as opposed to left wing libertarians) are still capitalists and therefore the system believes it can manage them through its track record of subverting the money supply

Also the corporate media will subconsciously undermine the libertarians in the minds of the public for example how they used to repeat oevr and over again in their newscasts that Ron paul was 'unelectable' during his bid for presidency

The system (currently centrally controlled eg through government or the economy through 'central banking') does not want you considering and discussing the possibilities of decentralising power

So it makes sure that in the elections only parties that uphold the concept of centralised control are funded and provided with a political platform

And people keep voting for them because they are not at the KNOWING stage or the UNDERSTANDING stage of the dynamic of centralised v's decentralised power

As an exercise think of all the dictatorshsips in history and ask yourself: 'were they centralised power systems or decentraliseed systems?'

If you take for example the nazi party they were in bed with the big industrialist familes (eg the Thyssens) and bankers (eg the Bush's and Warburgs) and they centralised power into the hands of the nazi party

If you take the so called 'communism' of the USSR it had a central authority eg the Politburo which then dictated its polices of a 'planned economy' down to the workers who then had to obey

This is the dream of the new world order globalists...except they want to do it on a global scale! Well you can't say they're not ambitious....but the problem is that they are also extremely determined and also very clever (cunning) and not hampered by the moral and ethical considerations that come from a connection with the heart
 
Last edited:
@muir you do realize that if the media and government can spin the messages to fit their narrative then anybody else can do the same thing, including these people in your videos. Why would I believe that they have any more credibility than the mainstream media?

This is definately a barrier in the evolution of perceptions....

This barrier exists after the KNOWING stage of the muir principle

I should maybe give these barriers names....i'll think on that...anyway...

This barrier is that in order for a person to achieve the UNDERSTANDING stage they must have received and assimilated enough evidence to overcome their currently held view of reality

This means that the person the 'conspiracy theorist' is speaking to must be willing to listen and then must be able to critically assess in an objective way what they are hearing...and those are big ifs!

Many people cannot get over those barriers

One reason is intellectual pride. For example you can hear some people saying ''i've done such and such course and this equips me to be able to critically assess information'' and yet in the same breath they will say that they do not 'engage' with fresh information!

ha ha haaaa! Sorry sometimes i have to laugh to keep myself sane...anyway....moving on

So if someone shows interest in what i'm saying....i have a small window to say something that might just sow a seed in their mind that will grow when watered with more evidence into a new perception of reality

Sometimes i try to put a lot of evidence forward and then i'll be accused of posting a 'wall of text post'

ha ha ha haaa!

So basically the keyword relating to the point you have raised is DISCEARNMENT

This is something that stu has not yet grasped

Ok.....if you look at his posts he is posting these montages of all the theories out on the internet however bizarre implying that they are all equally invalid (that is surely a logical fallacy no? Surely each theory must be analysed seperately as some will be true, some will be false and some will be partially true)

So how does a person learn to discearn what information is true and which isn't?

Sadly there is no fast-track to that....it is basically a case of putting in the legwork in terms of building up your knowledge and understanding (and body of evidence) to such a depth that you are then able to make better judgements about what is credible and what isn't

Having the EVIDENCE helps you to DISCEARN and i take in fresh evidence every day and have been doing so now for well over a decade. So my mind has loads of information not only about what is happening but also about where there is information that can be shared about what is happening...which is why i freely encourage people to speak to me about these things because i am very happy to explain why i am making certain assertions

I am also confident that if an open minded person speaks with me that if they invest enough time i will be able to get them to see what i can see; but if they are not open minded then information is just being thrown against a brick wall

This is because only the individual can CHOOSE to assimilate new understanding. You cannot make someone understand something...they must choose to do it

I really think the biggest flaw in all these theories is that they give way too much credit to the people who make up the government and institutions that you say are covering this all up. People are stupid, greedy, big-mouths, disorganized, controlling, power-hungry, selfish...there is no way that this many people could be that organized and do what you say they do.

lol

They're not covering it up!

They even speak about it and i post clips of them speaking about it all the time on the forum!

I also post quotes of theirs!

The information is out there but it is not to be found in the usual channels for example the education system and the mainstream media

If you dig a little however the information is there.

But you have to be at the KNOWING stage to even be knowing that there is information out there to find and that there are places out of sight in which to find it

So stage one: know it's going on and seek out information to help you then move to stage 2 which is truly understanding that it is going on

But to seek the information you must KNOW about the possibility and be open minded enough and curious enough to seek it out

The black lodge are those that cannot let go.....they hold on too tight to things

For example if they hold on too tight to power they become corrupted and inhuman towards others

If they hold onto too tight to a scientific paradigm that is being proven false by someone else then they are holding back the evolution of perceptions and will become angry and hostile and exhibit black lodge behaviours

Look for example at the vatican persecution of galileo when he made scientific assertions that countered their world view

So 'conspiracy theorists' (genuine open minded seekers, not trolling dabblers) are people who have learned to let go of false perceptions and instead to flow on a journey of discovery

By letting go of false paradigms they heal themselves of the cognitive dissonance that builds from living a lie and they avoid the spiritual pitfalls of the frozen hearted black lodge
 
Last edited:
Since its creation in 1947 under President Harry Truman, the CIA has been credited with a number of far-fetched operations. While some were proven - the infamous LSD mind-control experiments of the 1950s - others, like the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the crash of the Savings and Loans industry, have little or no merit. In 1996 the agency was accused of being a crack dealer.
A series of expose articles in the San Jose Mercury-News by reporter Gary Webb told tales of a drug triangle during the 1980s that linked CIA officials in Central America, a San Francisco drug ring and a Los Angeles drug dealer. According to the stories, the CIA and its operatives used crack cocaine--sold via the Los Angeles African-American community--to raise millions to support the agency's clandestine operations in Central America.

The CIA's suspect past made the sensational articles an easy sell. Talk radio switchboards lit up, as did African-American leaders like U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, who pointed to Webb's articles as proof of a mastermind plot to destroy inner-city black America.
One of the people who was accused in the San Jose Mercury-News of being in the midst of the CIA cocaine conspiracy is one of the most respected, now retired, veteran D.E.A. agents, Robert "Bobby" Nieves.
"You have to understand Central America at that time was a haven for the conspiracy theorists. Christic Institute, people like Gary Webb, others down there, looking to dig up some story for political advantage," Nieves said. "No sexier story than to create the notion in people's minds that these people are drug traffickers."
But in the weeks following publication, Webb's peers doubted the merit of the articles. Fellow journalists at the Washington Post, New York Times and Webb's own editor accused him of blowing a few truths up into a massive conspiracy.
Amongst Webb's fundamental problems was his implication that the CIA lit the crack cocaine fuse. It was conspiracy theory: a neat presentation of reality that simply didn't jibe with real life. Webb later agreed in an interview that there is no hard evidence that the CIA as an institution or any of its agent-employees carried out or profited from drug trafficking.
Still, the fantastic story of the CIA injecting crack into ghettos had taken hold. In response to the public outcry following Webb's allegations--which were ultimately published in book form under the title Dark Alliance--the CIA conducted an internal investigation of its role in Central America related to the drug trade. Frederick Hitz, as the CIA Inspector General-- an independent watchdog approved by Congress--conducted the investigation. In October 1998, the CIA released a declassified version of Hitz's two-volume report.
The IG's report cleared the CIA of complicity with the inner-city crack cocaine trade. It refuted charges that CIA officials knew that their Nicaraguan allies were dealing drugs. But, the report said that the CIA, in a number of cases, didn't bother to look into allegations about narcotics And the Hitz report describes how there was little or no direction for CIA operatives when confronted by the rampant traffic in drugs in Central American during the 1980s.
What follows is a closer look at the Hitz report, drawing on interviews with Frederick Hitz and others interviewed for FRONTLINE's "Drug Wars" series.
blank.gif
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/cia.html
 
Back
Top