Richard Cox, is 9/11 Deeply Spiritual? |428|

#1
Richard Cox, is 9/11 Deeply Spiritual? |428|
by Alex Tsakiris | Sep 24 | Spirituality, Uncategorized

Richard Cox gives us a deep dive into the spirituality of 9/11, schizophrenia and suicide.
photo by: Skeptiko
Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:00] Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. I’m your host Alex Tsakiris, and I’m really excited about today’s show, because I’m not just a podcaster and I’ve been a podcaster for a long time, but I got into podcasting because I was a listener and I still am a podcast listener today. I love to share the work of people who really inspire me and there’s a guy who has really been knocking it out of the park lately. You might have seen him on the show before, his name is Richard Cox, but he has a show, The Deep State Consciousness podcast.
So Richard, thanks so much for joining me and welcome to Skeptiko. Welcome back.
Richard Cox: [00:00:48] Thank you Alex, thank you. Nice to be back.
 
#4
I think Richard might be on to something, by looking at the evidence that the CIA prevented the attackers being stopped in time. Since he is a member already, I hope he adds some more detail to that. As he more or less says, discussing the physics of how large buildings collapse, always seems to be highly specialised, and probably even the 'experts' don't really know - even with all their computer simulations.

David
 
#5
The events of 911 did have a spiritual effect on global consciousness if we may consider that Spiritual. here is a link pertaining to that time from the Global Consciousness project: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/911formal.html
Some of us may remember how we felt just before the actual occurrence of that series of events. the stock market happened to be soaring at the time and there was, just prior, media buzz about some trillions of dollars lost somewhere. I don't think I was the only person feeling a distinct uneasiness.
 
#6
I hope Richard joins this debate. I was struck by the point in the interview where suicide was discussed as a very negative thing. I wonder if he has any thoughts on people choosing to be euthanised near the end of their lives.

David
 
Last edited:
#9
I think Richard might be on to something, by looking at the evidence that the CIA prevented the attackers being stopped in time. Since he is a member already, I hope he adds some more detail to that. As he more or less says, discussing the physics of how large buildings collapse, always seems to be highly specialised, and probably even the 'experts' don't really know - even with all their computer simulations.

David
Hello David,


Well the two hijackers in question are Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, who ended up on Flight 77 (Pentagon). There's no doubt the CIA knew they had entered the United States and took action to prevent the FBI from finding out. They were shepherded around LA by Saudi Intel. There's also basically no doubt that this effective protection allowed the attacks to proceed. Now, I would contend there's good reason to believe CIA knew about the other hijackers too, but those are the two that can be proven.

The debate is as to why the Agency did this. As you heard in the interview, National Security Coordinator Richard Clarke suggested the CIA wanted to infiltrate Al Qaeda, and saw these two as a possibility. This is also the line take by FBI agent Mark Rossini, who was privy to the cover up. It is however very hard to make sense of the actions of CIA officers from this perspective, with the extent of cover they gave these two, even when it was clear they were a serious threat. In my view the explanation that certain key figures wanted the attacks to proceed offers a better explanation. That's not to say it's true, but it makes more sense of the known facts.

I would also highlight that both the CIA, NSA and FBI had tapped Al Qaeda's central communications hub in Yemen, which was receiving incoming calls from the hijackers in the United States. No explanation is forthcoming as to why information gleaned from this hub was not of use in stopping the bombing of the Embassies, the Cole, the Millennium plot or 9/11 itself.

An additional key factor is context. Everyone knows the CIA allied itself with radical Islamists during the Soviet-Afghan war. What's less well known is that this relationship continued throughout the 90s, where the former used the latter to influence the direction of the various new 'Stan' countries, as well as the break up of Yugoslavia. So we have to consider these 'intelligence failures' in that context.
 
#10

I don't wish to be dismissive of tackling 9/11 through understanding the physics of building collapses. However I think it is a problem that it's too easy for experts to obfuscate the issue. I have recently interviewed one of the physicists associated with 9/11 Truth. I'm hoping to be able to do a somewhat Skeptiko inspired series of going back and forth with people on both sides of the issue.
 
#12
I hope Richard joins this debate. I was struck by the point in the interview where suicide was discussed as a very negative thing. I wonder if he has any thoughts on people choosing to be euthanised near the end of their lives.

David
My human instinct is that suicide is a very negative thing, but I think that most people would concur with that. I've then looked to the spiritual principally to see what can be helpful on the human level. My sense is that suicide can lead to an immense sense of waste and a total loss of meaning for those remaining here. I think testimonies like Angie Fenimore's speak to this. Angie's perception was that her struggles persisted, now just in another form. Her situation however, was not hopeless and she felt she (and therefore others) could be assisted by the prayers of those of us still on earth.

Another interesting resource on this is the book Suicide, What Really Happens in the Afterlife, Channelled Conversations with the Dead, which expresses many of the same themes. I think drawing on this kind of insight can restore a sense of hope and meaning for people's families.

I'm certainly not against euthanasia, I don't think it arises out of the same sense of despair a suicide does. I don't know how to reconcile it with the soul 'achieving death' and choosing to leave the body, but I'm not so deeply troubled by that as to think assisted dying is a bad thing. I took my dog to be euthanised earlier this year. It's an horrendous thing to actively decide to do, but the peacefulness of the process was a stark contrast to humans I've sat with slowly struggling for death.

I'd be interested as to what other people here think of it?
 
#13
An additional key factor is context. Everyone knows the CIA allied itself with radical Islamists during the Soviet-Afghan war. What's less well known is that this relationship continued throughout the 90s, where the former used the latter to influence the direction of the various new 'Stan' countries, as well as the break up of Yugoslavia. So we have to consider these 'intelligence failures' in that context.
I think this horrible tactic extended into the Syrian war. Various shady 'pro Western' groups were armed by the US so as to attack and destabilise Assad.

The rotten US tactic of entering wars in the middle East by backing and arming dissidents belonging to a different strand of Islam may finally have stopped under President Trump.

David
 
#14
I don't wish to be dismissive of tackling 9/11 through understanding the physics of building collapses. However I think it is a problem that it's too easy for experts to obfuscate the issue. I have recently interviewed one of the physicists associated with 9/11 Truth. I'm hoping to be able to do a somewhat Skeptiko inspired series of going back and forth with people on both sides of the issue.
I think ‘building collapses’, specifically the collapse of Building 7 may be the quickest way of persuading people that there is more to 9/11 than the official line. There are loads of other questions worth asking, but many of these require some degree of investigation that takes time that most people simply don’t have. Videos such as this one that appeared on my Facebook page today, are surely compelling for anyone with a slightly open mind?

 
#15
Hello David,


Well the two hijackers in question are Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, who ended up on Flight 77 (Pentagon). There's no doubt the CIA knew they had entered the United States and took action to prevent the FBI from finding out. They were shepherded around LA by Saudi Intel. There's also basically no doubt that this effective protection allowed the attacks to proceed. Now, I would contend there's good reason to believe CIA knew about the other hijackers too, but those are the two that can be proven.

The debate is as to why the Agency did this. As you heard in the interview, National Security Coordinator Richard Clarke suggested the CIA wanted to infiltrate Al Qaeda, and saw these two as a possibility. This is also the line take by FBI agent Mark Rossini, who was privy to the cover up. It is however very hard to make sense of the actions of CIA officers from this perspective, with the extent of cover they gave these two, even when it was clear they were a serious threat. In my view the explanation that certain key figures wanted the attacks to proceed offers a better explanation. That's not to say it's true, but it makes more sense of the known facts.

I would also highlight that both the CIA, NSA and FBI had tapped Al Qaeda's central communications hub in Yemen, which was receiving incoming calls from the hijackers in the United States. No explanation is forthcoming as to why information gleaned from this hub was not of use in stopping the bombing of the Embassies, the Cole, the Millennium plot or 9/11 itself.

An additional key factor is context. Everyone knows the CIA allied itself with radical Islamists during the Soviet-Afghan war. What's less well known is that this relationship continued throughout the 90s, where the former used the latter to influence the direction of the various new 'Stan' countries, as well as the break up of Yugoslavia. So we have to consider these 'intelligence failures' in that context.
Richard,
I would suggest to you to not attribute to conspiracy that which is more easily explained by incompetence.

The CIA got played. Happens all of the time. They underestimated these guys, they identified them, thought they could develop them into assets and never imagined what they were really up to.

I'm sure you've been told this before, but I'll say it anyhow. There is no way a conspiracy of this magnitude and with such massive consequences would be allowed to form, let alone survive in secrecy given the vast number of players that would have to be involved. You think some case officers could make the call to allow 911 to happen? No way. It would have to go up the chain of command and then be coordinated with various other agencies and departments. And not single patriot - of which there are many - anywhere along the way put the kibosh on the plan? Didn't leak it? Didn't arrest anyone for treason? Or just put a bullet in their ear or a drunken fall from a balcony? No way. Sorry.

There was a similar situation a few years after 911 when CIA case officers thought they had recruited a "former" AQ guy. Well, he was never "former". He too played the spooks. So sure of their mastery, the CIA allowed him into places unsearched/sans appropriate security measures. He set off a suicide vest inside of CIA HQ in Afghanistan killing 7 CIA personnel and a few others.
 
Last edited:
#16
I think ‘building collapses’, specifically the collapse of Building 7 may be the quickest way of persuading people that there is more to 9/11 than the official line. There are loads of other questions worth asking, but many of these require some degree of investigation that takes time that most people simply don’t have. Videos such as this one that appeared on my Facebook page today, are surely compelling for anyone with a slightly open mind?

I agree. If building 7 is the smoking gun then we should be able find other independent evidence of 9/11 shenanigans. that's what I think Richard's interviews have done.

to me, the important part of the story about the intelligence agency failure is:
1. someone at a higher level had no desire to act on the information given.
2. once 9/11 happened smart intelligence agents / organizations did what we would expect -- duck and cover... don't let the blame / responsibility fall on you.
 
#17
to me, the important part of the story about the intelligence agency failure is:
1. someone at a higher level had no desire to act on the information given.
2. once 9/11 happened smart intelligence agents / organizations did what we would expect -- duck and cover... don't let the blame / responsibility fall on you.
1. Bureaucratic failures. Agency silos. the same things seen in corporate failures. It's why DHS was formed after 911. Again, incompetence - and a common form of it at that; not conspiracy.

2. Common bureaucratic response to screw-ups is to CYA. CYA is proof on nothing other than career preservation. Also, on the inside, there was a period following 911 of allowing to careers to continue if even part of the screw-up because there was a desire to let people speak freely/without fear so the communications breakdowns in the IC could be remedied. This was the right move, IMO. I believe some of the inside findings are available open source for public examination. It's not as sexy as conspiracy of Hollywood proportions, but it's a lot closer to the truth.
 
#18
This was the right move, IMO. I believe some of the inside findings are available open source for public examination. It's not as sexy as conspiracy of Hollywood proportions, but it's a lot closer to the truth.
One thing that never seems to fit, is that several members of the Bin Laden family were spirited out of the US while all other flights were grounded!

Richard - can you provide any links corresponding to the various assertions you have made.

I'm sure you've been told this before, but I'll say it anyhow. There is no way a conspiracy of this magnitude and with such massive consequences would be allowed to form, let alone survive in secrecy given the vast number of players that would have to be involved.
That would have been true of the theories that suggest that the buildings were deliberately brought down by explosives, but a conspiracy that allowed some people to avoid arrest would be far more probable precisely because far fewer people would have been involved.

David
 
#20
I want to get into the idea of the "spiritually of 9/11". It wasn't an idea teased out sufficiently in the interview for my liking. The idea is intriguing, but it need more meat on its bones before we can get our teeth into it.

Alex Alex says at the end of the show "What the heck does 9/11 have to do with deep spirituality?"

So Richard......?
 
Top