Thanks for the "information" innerline. But the truth is these conspiracy theories are based primarily on suspicion and conditioned thinking, coupled with a dislike for Amber and Orange, rather than facts. I agree that Bush and co is an anti-democractic bunch who would make themselves absolute despots over the land if they could, and of course they have been trying to do just that for 6 or 7 years now. But it's really not evil--this is where you're making a big mistake. I do get the sense there is something pathological there, in Cheney, the PNAC, the neocons in general, but if we started looking at it from a developmental, AQAL perspective rather than good and evil a lot of this will clear up. George Bush wants an Amber/Orange America and a world without a trace of Green, and Cheney wants an Orange America and world with America winning--they are not like Red ethnic cleansers like Slobadan Milosevic who truly want to be despots. When I said up above they were trying to make themselves absolute despots, I don't believe that entirely. They both may well resort to Red means occassionally, and they have flouted the constitution for sure and don't really give a damn about it, but I don't think they have a Red agenda. They make me a little nervous, and I'll be really glad when they go, but I think the kind of stuff they evoke in people sometimes gets the better of them and takes over. They evoke suspicions in me as well, but we have to make sure those suspicions don't become who we are.

monkmonk:

 The fall of the World Trade Centers, the hijackings, the attack on the Pentagon cost the U.S. economy billions and severely damaged some U.S. airlines, U.S. tourism, among many other things. How could they see it in their interest to do this?
 

Hi monkmonk,

HHMmmm, good question.  When you say "cost the U.S. economy billions", what exactly are we talking about.  Yes, a lot of stocks took a beating, yes already failing airlines got hit pretty bad.  That lasted about a year and a half roughly, just a guess.  In light of the exploding corporate profits of the banking, defense, OIL industries (just to name a few), that post 9/11 period looks like a mere ripple in an otherwise straight up curve.  Just google the phrase "record profits" in the News option to get an idea.  Unprecented explosion of earnings!  Most of the losers in this period were good old American manufacturing like domestic automakers, etc.  Exactly those that stood most to gain from a "searing event" of 9/11 are exactly those that DID profit with unprecedented earnings. 

See, I don't think it's all about Iraq, or Afghanistan.  It's about reshaping the world, creating our own reality, conditioning people of all countries to accept America as a unilateral super-power, not for the benefit of Americans (although the rosier view might argue that these actions were essential to preserve our current standard of living), but for the controllers of global capital and enforced by a privatized, revolutionized, military-industrial complex.  And yes, securing oil and gas reserves are a big part of it.  Some people make the Peak Oil argument, which is compelling, others are more interested in beating China, Russia and India to becoming a competing superpower.  Iraq and Afghanistan, as our leaders have told us over and over, are the first of many conflicts to come. 

I guess my point is that there are many layers of motivation, but that it was first and foremost a psychological warfare operation that made so many other policies and projects possible.  If we are to take the neo-cons at their word, then this is only the beginning.  How often do you hear someone accussed of having a "pre-9/11 mindset".  Nearly every political speech by anyone, Replicans and Democrats alike mentions 9/11 ceaselessly.

From a good summary of the PNAC agenda here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

"Recently [Richard] Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."


And from the blueprint itself: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

"Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.  Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor." [my emphasis]

Everyone should read this document.  Almost everything the administration is doing and has done can be understood in the context of their own manifesto. 

Thanks monkmonk for your response. You put more into it. This statement:

" They make me a little nervous, and I'll be really glad when they go, but I think the kind of stuff they evoke in people sometimes gets the better of them and takes over. They evoke suspicions in me as well, but we have to make sure those suspicions don't become who we are. "

When you said "I'll be really glad when they go" . Tell me when they go, because this has been a Republican/ Democrate joint con on the american people. So when do the forces working through our government go? When a Democrate gets elected? PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Part of Integral awareness is that not much of the population is AQAL. So that is no solution. I think you think you have time. I am not into 9/11 as what gets you to see some of the deeper truths in the social and cultural. The fact the FED bank is a private bank. Has implications so far stretching to render an individual reassesing the basic assumtions we have about the world. Integral is a map and tool of orientation. So how does this fact ( FED BANK is private) fall into place in AQAL. Some seem to think it is controlled by congress. It is not. What are the interests of the people who own the FED BANK. This is important?yes. You don't think their red. When the stain of blood is through out history showing their work. Do you know how much influence J.P Morgan had in WW I? He funded both sides almost completely. Sounds like red to me. If you keep the perspective from just a financial one, you would see so much red.

I would not be on these forums if I did not have an answer to all this corruption. I wish I had the time to walk throught connecting the dots. Your still trying to find what dots to put on the board. You can connect the dots however you like. The Fed reserve bank is a private bank is just one dot. I can give you more dots. Now you might not think those dots as fact, but then you would have to find out for yourself. And will you do that? And thats were I sound like a conspiracy nut, because you have not done your homework.

Anyway. The answer for now to "What can I do about it?" is : Support RON PAUL for president.

Don't know who Ron Paul is? Start here www.ronpaul2008.com

 

monkmonk:

But the truth is these conspiracy theories are based primarily on suspicion and conditioned thinking

Especially that one about the 19 arabs that didn't know how to fly defeating all North American air defenses! 


All in fun, and I really am enjoying the thread.

I think both of you guys are reaching a bit here, conflating spiral dynamics with Integral.  It's not very enlightening to have something this complex reduced to a war of the vMemes.  The Neo-cons are indeed largely organge.  They want to WIN!  and have a very rational argument to make if you ask why (although phrased in mythical language for public engagements).  So yes, maybe evil is not the right word, but then again, if this ain't, we're in for a bumby ride!

Last time I was hanging around here someone was campaigning for Newt Gingrich. Now it's Ron Paul. This is kinda strange for an integral forum. Anyone for Pat Buchanan? Lyndon LaRouche?

One thing I notice about consipiracy theorists is that they tend to be very anti Orange and anti Amber.

The nineteen hijackers clearly caught everyone off guard, kinda like Pearl Harbor. They didn't outmaneuver any air defense system, because there really wasn't one that was prepared for such an attack, not really.

I agree, though, that the U.S. is some kind of oligarchy/democracy, that Bush and co are an anti-democratic force, and that Republicans will cheat if they get the chance, as they did in Florida in 2024 and probably Ohio in 2024. The congress is terribly corrupt and the Vice President's office ethically challenged, but noone's presented any evidence for a conspiracy on 9/11. There was surely a lot of lying in the aftermath, but the "evidence" presented is so vague. Can anyone present a single piece of solid evidence?

Monkmonk,

I hear that this might sound  naive to promote a candidate. But I want you to take a good look at Paul and see if there is anyone in recent history like this. Monkmonk you do not know me. So let me tell you a little. I am a hatha yoga teacher and a Rolfer. These are just some of my faces. On the cognative development I score very very high. I was a electrical engineer at IBM. The truth is not complex. People make it complex so they do not have to deal with "What can I do about it?". Seems like a dumb statement. It is not. What do I do to maximize the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. It is not talking about AQAL or Integral to people at this time. It is informing people of the lie that we live, not just the internal but the EXTERNAL( the one I think Integral has not processed, it just has a map at this time). Which is not complex. It only gets difficult when you have to actually look at "What can I do about it?". People feel like they can not do anything to make deep changes in the cultural and social order of things. I have had nothing but disdain for every presidental candidate since I've been alive. Ron Paul does stand out as a person who would do the right thing, the same thing JFK got killed for. He will abolish the FED. If anything, the dialog will change dramatically if he was heard closer to the vote in 2024.

Your stated "The nineteen hijackers clearly caught everyone off guard, kinda like Pearl Harbor.They didn't outmaneuver any air defense system, because there really wasn't one that was prepared for such an attack, not really."

Good job promoting propaganda. Do you realize how untruthful this statement is. The facts of Pearl Harbor shows that it did not catch anyone off gaurd but the people and the lower ranks of the military, other than the subs watching from below. Planes flying into buildings is no suprise. The twin towers were engineered to withstand this. The CIA has had planes flying into building in their radar for a long time as a threat. There has been alot of protocol designed around this threat for a long time. You just expressed the lies that have been told you. This is very sad for me. That even smart people can not see they are being lied to ALL THE TIME.

Before Ron Paul came around I was going to wait till a big disruptive shock happened, making 9/11 look very insignificant in comparison. Then people would naturally be seeing the horror I and people aware of the global cabal have been seeing for at least five years, many have been aware sooo much longer. I guess you just have to wait and see monkmonk. And Ron Paul is an answer. So instead of seeing mass murder on a very very large scale, to give the impetus for change, I am supporting Ron Paul, our last hope.

If you just look at the financial situation in the world, a disruptive shock is an almost certainty. Owe ya, since this forum about the NOW. Thousands of people in Zimbabwe are dying every day right now cause of action from the IMF and World Bank ( agencies of the Global cabal) policies. Right now thousands are dying and going through the bardo from starvation. Were is your universal compassion. What can I do about it?  

I don't know if you're serious or just playing games, innerline.

monkmonk:

I don't know if you're serious or just playing games, innerline.

Of course, the same could be asked of you. Are you just playing games, mm?


From my own experience I know how hard it is to even contemplate the implications of what we are discussing here. It collapses an entire world view. Not a trivial matter, for sure.
That said, has anyone here seeen the Zeitgeist videos ?

Edit: This should link directly to Zeitgeist, Part 2, "All the World is a Stage". It's a 33 minute summary of 9/11 facts versus government-controlled myths and continuing obfuscations.




M

 

monkmonk:

but noone's presented any evidence for a conspiracy on 9/11. There was surely a lot of lying in the aftermath, but the "evidence" presented is so vague. Can anyone present a single piece of solid evidence?

I agree.  The 9/11 commission report produced not one single piece of compelling evidence to make me believe the official conspiracy theory.  I too would like to see the evidence.  Why no NTSB investigation, why was the biggest crime scene of the century dumped into the Fresh Kills landlfill, why does even the director of the FBI say their is no hard evidence proving OBL's involvement?  There were'nt even any arab names on any of the passenger lists.  Did they sneak on the planes? 


The solid evidence for controlled demolition is the news footage we've all seen so many times.  If there was one piece of evidence to help explain the WTC 7 collapse to me, I probably would have never gotten over my revulsion against these 'conspiracy theories'.  I used to get just absolutley pissed off at anyone who tried to talk to me about this stuff, including my own father.  I'm not pretending to know anything definite about what happened, but I have witnessed controlled demolition twice in the past and witnessed WTC 2 colllapse with my own eyes.  It sure as shit looks the same to me. 

If you go back and watch actual news footage from that day (tons of network news is on youtube), you begin to see that in that time lapse between actual reporting (eyewitnesses in the street, reporters describing the events they are watching) and official scripting, a good deal of the truth comes out.  Explosions were reported consistently by nearly every news account and every person interviewed on the street, PRIOR to the collapses.  When the collapses did happen, all the respected anchormen mentioned the eerie resemblance to controlled demolition.  Why?  Because they were telling the truth!

Think about it.  The 1993 bombing at the WTC used actual explosives at the foundation.  Towers were damaged but still standing.  Now jet fuel is no high explosive.  One of the WTC architects appearing on a PBS documentary explained described the towers being hit by a plane as "a pencil passing through a screen door", to explain the redundancies designed to protect against multiple airplane strikes from jets roughly the size of the 737's.  And again, WTC 7 wasn't hit by any planes.  It was further away from the collapsing towers than any other building in the complex or surrounding office towers.  The Deutsche Bank building is still being demolished, piece by piece, six years later, and it's directly across the street from where the south tower stood.  It was terribly damaged but stil standing.  Now just how did everyone know WTC 7 was going to collapse in advance but no one was concerned about any others? 

From the perspective of life, I am dead serious, from the perspective of death , I am playing games.

Do we really believe that the BBC and other networks knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse ahead of time because of a conspiracy? That would mean quite a few people being in on the conspiracy, wouldn't it? And noone speaking out? And, really, if you were going to commit such an act, would you share it with the networks?

Now your thinking of the implications of this new knowledge. I am not sure which video you saw on this. But I found a link that has the video pointing out building 7 behind the reporter as she reports it is collapsed. It also has a time stamp. I will also work on finding the CNN version. Crazy is-in-it. How do you connect the dots? What are the implications of this? The media is not neutral at all. Very far from it. Even more amazing is what they don't tell us. Rudy Guliani has been recorded stating that building 7 will be demolished before it did. His office is in building 7. I will need to find the info on this , so you are not just taking my word.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

What is scary to me is that people watch the news and do not know how sneaky their lies are, all the time. It is not that they lie a little here and there. They are subtlely lying all the time, and there is info that they are not telling us which is key in understanding the topics at all. Here is a video of someone not willing to take the subtle lies anymore while being interview by Europes sky news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-brkmfrxrQY&mode=related&search=

Those lies are not so subtle when you know the truth.

 

Monkmonk,

I don't know that the BBC incident points to its complicity necessarily.  It does point to the fact that our media is not what we thought for a very long time.  They simply don't do their jobs.  Most of the only real reporting comes from the local level.  The great corporate media empires have just been going through the motions, mindlessly parroting government and corporate "experts" and "unamed officials" for so long that for the BBC to read from a well-timed script would have been business as usual. 

If you're interested, you really should read what they themselves have to say on the matter.  Among other gems is this:

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."

REALLY!?!  The BBC lost all of their own 9/11 coverage!  Oh yes, the incompetence angle again. . .

Read the BBC's account here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

This has been quite an expansive exercise. Really, no kidding, not being sarcastic here. I've watched these videos, the last one in its entirety, and watched my mind expand and contract with alternating moods of skepticism, paranoia, horror, fright, suspicion, derision, and the like.

Well, the Zeitgist part 2 raised some interesting questions, along with a lot of other stuff. It has at least left me wanting to look into a few things, but at the same time hasn't convinced me of anything.

1) For one, the people making these videos are not serious scholars. In one, the first person they interviewed was Hunter S. Thompson, the Gonzo journalist. I like the guy; he's a wonderful maniac, and I liked Hells Angels and some of his short stories--he always leaves me thinking I live a very tame, uneventful life. But really, for serious news, I don't open up a Hunter Thompson article. Yet, in one video he's the first person they interview. Because Hunter is the best person they can find or because the people making the video don't know enough to know that Hunter Thompson doesn't have a serious academic mind? Really, Hunter S. Thompson. . . And on the other we get Charlie Sheen ranting away and bunch of other . . . really, it's not a cast of characters that inspires confidence, and half the time the person speaking isn't even identified. You just get this raving voice in the backround making allegations like, "All the hijackers were funded by the U.S. government, were in fact agents of the U.S. government!" Proof? No, no proof offered there, just allegations. And why all the suspicion-creating music? Isn't the "evidence" enough?

2) A bunch of broadcasters saying that the buildings collapsed "as if they had been demolished on purpose" doesn't mean it's the case, but we aren't given much more evidence than that that they were.

3) Firemen saying they heard explosions while huge fires were going on in sky scrapers does not mean that the CIA or the FBI or Cheney's super secret paramilitary organization were in there setting off bombs. Other things happening could sound like explosions.

4) A whole lot of things were presented as proof of consipiracy when they could easily or more easily mean other things. That some people in the government imagined such attacks happening doesn't mean that they were the ones who carried it out. That a Pakistini general who had had indirect ties to Mohammad Atta had lunch with government officials in Washington on 9/11 doesn't mean they were all in cahoots on 9/11--in fact, if they were, would they be so careless as to meet with eachother publicly in Washington on the day of the attacks?

5) I mentioned this one before, but at one point one unidentified voice says that the hijackers were given money by the U.S. government, houses, and the unidentified voice cries, "In fact, they were agents of the U.S. government!" Proof to back any of this up? No, just allegations by an unidentified man delivered in an hysterical tone of voice.

Still, the video does bring up somethings that I would like to know more about. A passport on the sidewalk, apparently or allegedly having fallen from the sky. It obviously couldn't have gone in the building and survived the collapse, but there was a lot of debris from the buildings on the streets, a lot of paper. Very unlikely, but possible that it could have been blown out of the airplane? At least as possible as some neocon's agent being so unwise as to plant it there?

6) Bin Laden's family with ties to GW and the Bush family. The U.S. gets nearly 20% of its oil from Saudi Arabia; Saudia Arabia is strategically important for other reasons as well, by its location, influence, etc. The Bin Ladens had invested in a company owned by GW in the 70s or 80s--in short, there were alot of reasons that Bush and the U.S. governement might have ties to the 16 billion dollar Bin Laden family. Those ties don't necessarily mean they were working in conjunction with Osama to pull off the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

7) The video goes into strangely absurd territory when it starts alleging that all the terrorist attacks of the last 20 years were actually carried out by the U.S. governement, or neocon forces within it, including the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Kobart towers (sp?), Oklahoma City, USS Cole. Near the end one guy actually alleges that the London bombings were all a part of some plot that was orchestrated by "the States" somehow in collaboration with British Intelligence. And some of the attacks they allege were carried out by the U.S. government occurred during the Clinton presidency. So is Bill Clinton really a neocon agent himself? The Republican party does want to create an enemy as a politcal tool; they did it with communism, drugs, Russia, numerous smaller enemies, the Axis of Evil. But to allege the Reagan adminstration blew up 200 plus Marines in Beirut and the GHW Bush adm. blew up the USS Cole and the Clinton adminstration or some neocon outfit blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City (among other attacks) is really absurd.

8) Earlier they said the pilot of the plane who allegedly flew into the Pentagon was an incompetant or terrible pilot, but in one of the other videos the instructor who checked him out in Arizona said he was average or a bit below average. Also, skewed facts to deflect blame from one agency or another shouldn't be construed as evidence of a plot. If there is a video of that crash that hasn't been released I would like to see it, but there is a lot of eyewitness testimony of it, apparently. Or are all they part of the scam? That's a lot of people in on the conspiracy.

9) Just because the architects designed a building to withstand a crash from an airplane doesn't mean they succeeded in this.

There do seem to be some discrepencies that need answering, but there are other explanations than a conspiracy by Cheney and company. A lot of things to be untangled and surely a lot of wrongdoing  on the part of Cheney and co yet to be uncovered, but I still haven't seen too much evidence for a conspiracy. The allegations of explosions before the first plane hit raised my eyebrows a bit, but the link below seemed to explain some of that away. There are some interesting questions and discrepencies, but I don't see any reason to conclude there was a conspiracy by Bush/Cheney and co.

This looks like a pretty good site to me:

http://www.911myths.com/

With love,

mm

PS. Building 7 is still a bit of a mystery. Some say that it actually did suffer serious damage when one of the big towers fell. I don't really know. But they have the landlord, Silverstein, saying "pull it," which in demolition jargon means demolish it. For one thing, isn't the allegation that they had it planned before hand? Would Silverstein really be there making the decision that morning and announcing it for all to hear if he had been one of the conspirators? And wouldn't he be taking a risk blowing up the two buildings since he had such a huge financial stake in them? Did he really have to take that risk? Why? Because he too is bent on U.S. world domination and a police state in the U.S.? And Rudy Gulliani too was in on it we're led to believe? He too cares more about Republican domination than the city of New York and all those people?