Charles I still think we are saying the same thing. If my center of gravity  is at Integral .I would be at the effect of the stage above (say holonic) and not comprehend or have choice at that level or as you say predictability. I would be working on the Integral level in my awareness, horizontal growth. Charles I am with you with what your saying. You are not telling me anything new.  You sound like your trying to save us by showing Integral. Hello, what is this forum about. Integral right. So you are not telling anything new. And again charles you really do not know me. So I think I am getting the picture with your son  saying " Who do you think you are?". You do not know how much interior development I have done. I DO NOT come onto this forum to talk about what has been clearly expressed by Ken Wilber and others. Some one can be Integrally aware and not know history very well. I come to this forum to see if Integral minded people would see what is happening in the lower left and lower right AT THIS MOMENT. Lets look at what is happening on the planet at this moment. You said" 

Sorry i cannot agree. There is a test of the capacity of having understanding of a given stage, simply put it is predictability. Predictability can happen because to a great extent that which folks tend to say is largely the effects of a stage speaking through them. This works for baby talk, the romantic musings of a teenager, those caught in a mindset, the ravings of the mad, and importantly the words of the enlightened."

When you said"Predictability can happen because to a great extent that which folks tend to say is largely the effects of a stage speaking through them."  Yes, That which they have not completed is coming out the mouth. Because they are talking about it shows they do not understand. So maybe we are not saying the same thing. Are you saying that because someone is talking through a stage they understand that stage? My experience tells me that someone is talking through a stage because they don't understand it. I see predictability as the outcome of unawareness, and integration of a stage showing unpredictability, freedom.

Interesting to consider whether a battle of proofs could actually further entrench both sides. Certainly it does happen that way much of the time with this sort of thing. I don't know if it necessarily has to be the case, however. When arguements are not responded to and considered but simply replied to with a different arguement, that would seem to be a sign that this is happening.

Random question: Charles, you said Hilary has a blind spot--what is that in your opinion?

So, I don't simply want to get into a battle of proofs here. I've done that enough to know that it often doesn't lead anywhere, and I don't want to polarize things. I've found looking into this interesting, however. I was surprised at how many very interesting and good questions conspiracy theorists had and how interested I was in looking into them. I still am interested in looking into them. I got interested in WTC 7 and compiled a few links and such for it, but I'm hesitating about posting it since  I don't want to entrench positions. It's actually not much different than what I posted before about it, but just an elaboration with a few new details.

I also looked into Gen. Wesley Clark's position on 9/11. I didn't find anything regarding his ideas about who actually pulled it off, but I did find something really amazing:

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq -- the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2024, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

 

Regarding the apocalypse, maybe a collapse isn't inevitable. Maybe if we all do our part, things will continue to improve. And even if the worst happens, we'll still be alright, right?

---

Peace & Prosperity

Paul Williams
http://Paul.ikarma.com

Hi Paul,

 

“Why is it so important to some that he (GW Bush) be not just in over his head, but rather an evil genius bent on world domination like some comic book super villain?”

 

It’s likely that your quoted question here is rhetorical, but what if it is treated as an actual inquiry into the mind of a generic conspirista?

 

But before any such inquiry proceeds we need a starting point, comprised of some sort of postulates; for example; the human mind though complex is understandable, and that the mind itself is a subset of greater being, and that in taking on human form that being in part forgets itself, and in forgetfulness tries to establish itself as being separate from the rest of existence, and that the business of manifestation always comes in the form of the play of the opposites. (Pardon me if these basics are overly simple and hardly need explication here.)

 

However a potential conspirista is at best only vaguely aware of these postulates, a situation made more complicated by the fact that this unawareness can take a form that hides information from the separate self. One possible example happens in a continuum, the poles of which are belief and doubt. Our potential conspirista lives, in part, on this continuum, and until the play of this pair is transcended, cannot but turn the spot light of doubt inwardly, doubting his or her self, this is experienced as uncomfortable at least and painful at worst. A typical reaction to which is to swing to the opposite pole: belief. Now in order to repress a big doubt, a big belief is necessary.

So with the separate self in charge of mental operations it gets ‘enhanced’ by ‘taking down’ a cultural icon such as the president of the United States, one of the most powerful persons in the entire world. My guess is that the part of our potential conspirista that cannot die, the part that ‘remembers’ his/her intention before birth, and has its home in the world of truth is suffering and is not quite able to overcome the inertia of the separate self, and is limited to the seemingly odd, but very important function of adding energy to the conspiratorial thrust based on the notion that if a thing is to be expanded (in this case the consciousness of a given conspirista) then it must first be compressed.

 

From the view point of an outside observer this often presents in a way similar to the behavior of certain miscreants who are said to ‘want to be caught’.

 

Warmly,

 

Charles

88W18'28" 41N58'02"           

Yes.  We would all like to distance ourselves as humans from those who make inhuman mistakes.  But we all make little mistakes in our little lives, and those who appear "larger than life" to us will often make mistakes that we all have to clean up.  In my mind Bush would have made a great Junior High School gym teacher, but he should never have been elected President.  But we will never learn to avoid electing people like him until we examine what in our national psyche caused so many of us to vote for him (for the record I voted for Kerry LOL).  Perhaps for some it is easier to believe that Bush was an evil genius who tricked everyone than it is to believe that we were all personally at fault in some way for electing him.  I say "all of us" because even those of us who didn't vote for him obviously did not campaign, persuade, donate  or push hard enough to elect anyone better.  In a democracy we all share the blame.

---

Peace & Prosperity

Paul Williams
http://Paul.ikarma.com

charlesb:

 

Engaging a ‘conspirista’ on the level of ‘proofs’ is not simply a matter of wasted effort but is likely to be a detriment to the person caught in that mindset because it tends to set them looking for more ‘proofs’ and ends up re-enforcing their original positions, ‘deepening the groove in their synapses’; as this thread amply demonstrates.

 

 

Charles,

I'm really failing to see your point in your last couple of posts.  You seem to say that it would best for these conspiritas to just get over it.  What you fail to see in your own blind spots is that I could simply change conspiristas to "sheeple" to expain the ever deepening grooves in synapses of the masses who have come to believe that our greatest threat is islamic fundamentalism, instead of the fact that our leaders are openly discussing the use of preventative nuclear strikes against nations that have not attacked us, or any number of other issues that in my mind far outway Al Qaeda. 

What the hell is a "potential conspirista"?  Sounds like a human being to me. 

Paul,
I appreciate your participation.  I would like to point out again, that most of us investigating 9/11 do not believe that this is about Bush.  In fact, the evil supervillain that we are foolish to believe in is exactly what we've been coerced into believing about Osama.  Until we can get past thinking in terms of black and white, good/evil, Bush/Osama, you're with us or against us, we cannot have a rational debate and will just be running in circles.  We need to shine some light on all those grey areas where our international institutions, criminal networks, financial networks, government, military and media intersect, even within our own 'conspirista/sheeple mindsets'. 

Let's take a step back here.  Can we agree that conspiracies do exist?  Regardless of our beliefs about 9/11, can we agree that a criminal conspiracy pushed us into war in Iraq?  Do we merely want to attribute it to incompetence?  Last night PBS rebroadcast an excellent piece by Bill Moyers critically analyzing press coverage leading up to the war.  It is utterly damning.  Did all of the powers that be that are not out in the light of day just allow Bush and Cheney to go off on a lark?  Of course not.  Again, it is not about Bush or Cheney.  They are playing their roles as the public face of power.  I hope that you guys will look at this documentary and then give me your thoughts about the nature of conspiracy and the conspiratorial mindset.  My point here is that just because common sense of the day and every newspaper and television station are presenting a consistent version of reality does not make it so. 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

Best,
Eric

Let's be careful about taking a superior attitude to "conspiristas." It could turn out, for one thing, that some people in our government--it would have to be a very small number--actually knew there would be an attack and let it happen, underestimating its effect. I'm not saying I believe that, but it's possible. So the truth could turn out to be somewhere in the middle here. Also, as I've said before, the Bush adm. is probably the sneakiest bunch we have ever had in there, with the only rival in modern history being the Nixon adminstration (Cheney beginning his tricks there and in the subsequent Ford adm.), so it is not as though people are imagining something out of nothing. The Bush adm., by modern standards, lie and cheat right and left. And they certainly conducted a shoddy investigation, covering up incompetence before and after the fact, so this triggers a lot of stuff in people as well.

But I think a big part of the issue has to do people seeing "evil" in the Bush adm. rather than seeing it from an AQAL perpective. Cheating and using whatever means are necessary, legal or illegal, are fairly typical for Amber. Amber is also ethnocentric and doesn't care too much about lost lives of a different race and country. They also don't care so much about people of another religion; they're all going to hell anyway. And Orange doesn't give a damn about the consumer. So all this stuff can trigger things in people. But when seen through an AQAL perspective things clear up a little. This is just what people do when they're living at that level of consciousness. It's also seen that certain sorts of behavior are unlikely from Amber and Orange--they both care very much about country and economy.

*Warning: wild speculation ahead*

Another thing to consider is the unconscious. This is pretty far out, but sometimes people do strange things without being aware of it on a conscious level. So on some level, people in government, even those working in homeland security type positions, might have seen that an attack was coming and let it happen because they wanted it to happen. Not that they were evil or sabatourers; there was just some shadow content there that prevented them from doing their jobs well or wanting to protect their government or country. Or there may even have been some evolutionary intelligence that informed them that perhaps it would be best if there were a terrorist attack. People could also be intuiting something like this, that is, from one perspective it could be said that they did it to themselves or brought it on in some way, partly because they wanted to attack some Middle Eastern countries and perhaps also because they felt they deserved to be attacked. I'm just playing around in this paragraph, so don't take it too seriously.

Also, a very big part of it has to do with what one wants to believe. For whatever reason, if you want to believe the conspiracy, you will think that the hole in WTC 7 was not big enough to cause a collapse, and if you don't want to believe in the conspiracy for whatever reason, you will imagine the hole extending far enough to cause the collapse (along with fires). There are no clear pictures of the south face of WTC 7, perhaps because it was covered with smoke; all we have is a picture of the SW corner. Some of those conspiracy sites show pictures they say shows that the hole was not that big, but I don't see that their pictures show anything.

With love,

mm

 

Monkmonk,

There are actually tons of photos of the south face of WTC7 out there.  The photo you posted is the only one I've seen that appears to show that extent of damage.  If you compare to other photos carefully, it is not clear what is damage here and what is smoke passing between the building and the camera lens. 

But that aside, even if that corner had been completely scooped out, even if the building was a raging inferno like WTC5 (which did not collapse), even if diesel fires were raging from generators, it is a big big stretch to use that to explain a free-fall speed, straight down into it's own footprint collapse.  If anyone could point out a single incident in history of a steel frame skyscraper collapsing in this way, from anything other than controlled demolition, I'll pack it in and blubber away to myself and sleep wearing my tinfoil hat. Wink wink.  If there was such an event, you can bet it would be cheered by debunkers and be plastered all over the media to quell the ever growing numbers who realize we are being fed lies.  9/11 commission report does not even mention this collapse; FEMA report speculates that collapse due to fire is not a plausible explanation; the NIST report does barely covers it but is working on a report due out sometime this fall.  Popular Mechanics has been the chief propagator of advancing the ever-shifting debunking arguments.  In all of these efforts to explain away WTC 7, I find the argument full of misdirection, straw man arguments, appeals to "common sense" that smell of vile propaganda, the authors in an acrobatic dance to make this just go away.

Oh, and as far as our leaders "wanting it to happen", if you've been paying attention to this summer's fresh batch of fear mongering, some of our leaders are practically begging for another attack.  They are giddy and foaming at the mouth hoping it will happen this summer, according to the schedule of Chertoff's "gut feeling", so that all this growing dissent is forgotten in another patriotic fervor, and that the war machine can get on with the spilling of blood in the name of vengeance.

Hi Monkmonk, thanks for posting that image.
On first impression, it looks to me like the side of the building is scooped out. However, is not all the smoke obfuscating the view of the building?

---

Thinking has become a disease. Not to be able to stop thinking is a dreadful affliction, but we don't realize this because almost everybody is suffering from it, so it is considered normal. - Eckhart Tolle

I feel like the boat for this research left a long time ago in  2004. The info is overwhelming at this point to start. All this points beyond the 9/11 event and into a much more difficult task of researching the people who own OUR central bank. The disjucntion between those who did not find out then and those who are starting to look now , also those that don't know anything but what they heard from the media, is great at this time. To help you see how the US is in a bubble on 9/11, and with it, the powers behind the NWO, listen to this audio. 

Von Buelow is the former German Defense Minister and Minister of Technology. Von Buelow went public to say the US government carried out 9/11. His book is one of the bestsellers across Europe.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/020804vonbuelow.html

How much more credability do you need telling you, "You have been lied to BIG TIME."

I find it funny that the person who started this post is from Germany.

The conspiracy theorists have been misquoting Von Buelow and misleading people on at least one issue, the remote-controlled airplane theory. You can read about this on the following link:

http://www.911myths.com/html/home_run.html

You're welcome, Healey. I don't see smoke obscuring the view of that particular gouge out of the SW corner, but there was certainly smoke obscuring the entire south face of the building, even though conspiracy theorists continually maintain there were "just a few small fires" (something I believe one firefighter said on one particular floor early in the day). WTC 7 on 9/11/2001:

So we have to take the firefighters' word for it that there was considerable damage to the building--or not, but that's an awful lot of people to have in on the conspiracy, and it doesn't seem likely at all to me that New York City firefighters would be corruptable in that way. Here is one example:

"Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Here is another:

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

Here is another:

"Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634"

One more:

"Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html"

I don't think it is likely that these people are lying.

This link shows a very significant series of photographs of WTC 1 falling on WTC 7:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html

Another photo of WTC 7:

 

From this page:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

With love,

mm

I did not give you a link of what someone thought based on Von Buelow. I gave you Von Buelow SPEAKING HIMSELF. Please follow the links before you say something about them.

Monkmonk,

I'd really like to commend you on asking tough questions.  It isn't easy.  Regardless of what conclusion you eventually come to, I think you can see why a new investigation is crucial. 

Your post with the firefighter quotes got me thinking about something I haven't thought about in a long while.  I was working as an assistant property manager in a large office building on 24th St. from 1998 until 2024.   Among my many responsibilities was coordinating training seminars for all of the fire wardens and their teams throughout the building.  The building was over two million square feet of office space, so it was a pretty big group.  Our main tenant in the building also had a large block of space in WTC 5 or 6.  Their employees there were transitioned up to my building in the months after 9/11 as they felt ready to come back to work.  These people were severly traumatized and many never returned.  For the ones that did, we made every effort to make them feel that the building was safe.   We had a couple of unfortunate incidents where our fire alarm system malfunctioned and went into "fail-safe" mode.  The entire building "self-evacuated" twice, and all hell broke loose.  The main tenant (an investment bank) had a couple of trading floors in the building, so lots and lots of money was at stake.  We almost lost our contract with the owner over the two incidents.

Needless to say, the next round of fire-safety training was the focus of intense attention from the tenants, the owner and the management team.  We hired security consultants (Kroll), fire-safety consultants, and met nearly every day with the company that handled maintenance on our fire protection systems.  The seminar was held over three days in an auditorium, with all of the fire teams and a handful of executives and human resources people from all of the companies in the building. 

On day two, a retired fire chief (I think his name was Werner) gave a presentation where he discussed in depth the fire safety aspects of high-rise construction, and the proper way to handle an emergency evacuation.  There was apparently a lot of push and pull between departments at the investment bank, between Human Resources and others, about the fact that it was impossible to stop people from evacuating the building after 9/11.  The chief re-iterated over and over that steel high-rise buildings do not collapse from fire alone.  He felt adamant that having that large of a building evacuate all at once posed a greater danger than following regular procedure.  To emphasize his point, he showed training videos that included footage of high-rise fires that raged uncontrolled for hours.  No collapses.  I wish like hell I could remember his exact handling of the 9/11 collapses, but the gist of it was that these were the only time this had happened, that we don't have all the facts, that this was an anamoly and we should still follow standard procedure.  A lot of people were terribly upset by this session, and many walked out.  Our building was a much different building than the WTC towers and was originally designed as the base of a 100 story tower that actually was stopped at 30 stories when finished in the '50's.   The chief insisted,  "Even if this building was hit by a plane, I guarantee you it 's not coming down".  I have forgotten about this debate until now, because at the time I was simply not very curious except as it affected my job.  Anyway, I bring this up because there are some real differences of opinion out there among firemen, architects and engineers, about what changes should be made to fire codes and building codes.  There's a real disconnect here because to retrofit buildings with new design elements or to build new construction with more fire stairwells is an enormously costly proposition.  You see this same sort of ambivlance now in the avation and naval shipping industries over better screening of cargo; is it worth the expense, etc.

Anyway, there are plenty of firefighters that are questioning the official accounts of 9/11.  I actually first heard of Loose Change in 2024 from an NYC firefighter.  He was dating my co-worker and told me I should check it out (I don't know why, unless he could sense my inner "potential conspirista mindset" waiting to emerge!).  I was pretty much uninterested until months later, after I started hearing about it from more and more people. This second link brought tears to my eyes:

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2024-
Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2024 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7471885217846396761

I listened to the Von Buelow recording. It's interesting to note that the guy interviewing him was selling a book and a few DVDs, interupting at least one point to give his toll free number that people could call to buy them, implying that doing so was an important step in preventing a police state. Once and awhile he interjects something like, "Bin Laden was known CIA!"

Well, Von Buelow runs down the usual list of conspiracy theories, such as, why did NORAD stand down? Either he or someone else has mentioned that this happened about 60 other times during the year. It was the first time someone had ever hijacked a plane and crashed it into a building in the United States and as far as I know anywhere else, so as much as people might have thought it was a possibility it's understandable and actually typically American not to do anything about it until it at least happens once.

 So we go through all the things that make 9/11 unusual, motives the Bush adm. might have had for doing the whole thing (oil in the Middle East), and then the interviewer asks Von Buelow, "Okay, so what proof do we have that the Bush adm. did it?" Von Buelow answers, "Well, you see, it was a covert operation, so there are no proofs." No proofs? "No, it was all taken away immediately." It was a little anti-climactic. Von Buelow doesn't add anything new.

According to the Wikipedia article Von Buelow hasn't been recieved well by the German critics. This could be just a sign that the CIA has taken over the webpage as someone said before (I'm not being sarcastic; I would be surprised if the CIA hadn't gotten into Wikipedia). But I suppose if someone were interested one could google his name and find the German reviews. Here is one webpage about him in German taken from the Wikipedia page:

http://www.werboom.de/vt/html/von_buelow.html

Yes, garbageman, I also believe that a new investigation is important as there really wasn't one, but that fireman (Bill Manning) wasn't suggesting that the Bush adm. carried out the attacks.

Here's a picture of WTC 1,2, and 7 on 9/11. WTC 1 (north tower) is 1,368 feet not including the antenae, and WTC 7 is 750 feet:

And here's a picture of WTC 1 when it first starts to collapse: (a big portion of it at the top is falling towards WTC 7, which is 350 feet away; if you look at the video take from the north side of WTC 7 you can see that there was a lot of energy going in that direction; I could post that if you like, if I can find it; but you've seen it: a cloud of smoke and debris pour down the street as people run away from it):

The original FEMA report found that the collapse of WTC was due to fire. Many people were not satisfied by this. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is conducting another study. From the Wikipedia article:

"In a New York magazine interview in March 2024, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".^[28]

 The whole study is due to be finished by the end of 2024. Here is another excerpt:

"Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.^[29][30] When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder [NIST] said, "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."^[31] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."^[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse

With love,

mm

Hi monkmonk, You made some critical misunderstandings when you listened. The 60 times was 60 times that fighter jets were sent up that year already within the normal protocol of about eight minutes. The 60 times was not , 60 times that NORAD stood down.
You said" Once and awhile he interjects something like, "Bin Laden was known CIA!" ". This is true, do you have a problem with that.
Alex Jones is a very passionate person about getting the truth out. Do you think the truth going to come to you gracefully at first?
You said"Okay, so what proof do we have that the Bush adm. did it?" Von Buelow answers, "Well, you see, it was a covert operation, so there are no proofs." No proofs? "No, it was all taken away immediately." It was a little anti-climactic. Von Buelow doesn't add anything new."

Folks on this post are looking for proof. Well their is no proof because they ruined the evidence. Now why would they do that? And this is were I get out of 9/11 and get into following the money. It is not Bush, who is pulling the strings. Who controls government? Well who controls the money? Who owns the FED bank? It is a private bank you know. Who is gaining from all of this? Who owns the Military, Industrial Complex? Wow the same people. Who are these very small group of people who have way more influence than any other group, including governments, companies, you name it. And you will see that it was not our government that did this. It was the same people who did this in Germany, who funded WW I and II. You see, we have not even moved into the money aspect. Please do not spend to much time on 9/11. It is setup to be a room of mirrors on purpose so we do not get to have our proof on 9/11. But these facts are what are behind it.

Fact, the Federal Reserve Bank is a PRIVATE bank.
Fact, Personal income taxes is volutary and illegally collected. These taxes do not pay for any services but goes strait to the owners of the FED. Wow, makes 9/11 look like a small fry stuff. But you might have trouble thinking of the implications of what I just said. Your mind might not know what to think. Maybe you thought the government was the big cheese. IT IS NOT.

 This is the deal. Based on future projection of technology, humanity will become much freer. These people( who own the FED bank) have had it good for long time. They do not want their chickens in the  chicken coop to get out of there cages. They have been woking very hard so that humanity does not get its chance to get out of the cages they made. Are you going to just accept your slavery or are you going to do something to take back your rights? My suggestion is to support Ron Paul . He will abolish the FED bank and the IRS. This will take care of many, many, many, many of the injustices of the world in a very quick and effiecent manner. And I believe Integral is key after Ron Paul gets into office. The constitution has the declaration of individuality but we also need a declaration of unity for humanity to be revitalized. If Ron Paul gets into office we will have our individual rights, this is huge, but we would, over time, endup in the same position as now, without a declaration of unity. Thats were Integral comes in, to have that dialog on our unity.

Keep going monkmonk. I hope it does not take a long time, to get to the implications of what your finding now. We do not have much time. If Hillary or Obama are in office, I will have to move out of the country. Not a small step. I would kinda feel like my Mom when she came here from Ireland. Will I be apart of a new migration?