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

[Alex]

In my opinion, this is how religions often begin or, if they already exist, are reinforced.

no doubt. Then again, I'm always left wondering how much we should on those who wish to exploit / co-opt. but I guess that's what you're saying... we have to acknowledge both.

in the case of Richard Dolan who has interviewed David Jacobs and Barbara Lamb. Both of these interviewees are known for their prowess with other worldly entity contact. And David Jacobs is certain these beings have the most horrific intentions whereas Barbara Lamb has a completely opposite view.

yeah, I think the good alien / bad alien question is really important, and I'm a little disappointed that dolan has been kind of flippant in addressing it. my hunch is that we are dealing with a much more complicated variety of visitors and agendas. but this is a really hard point to make due to the skeptical effect. e.g. a researcher reaches a point where their evidence suggests there are at least 50 different alien species and multiple agendas within each... well they know they can't say that... I mean it would just be game over for the tiny morsel of credibility they're seeking to gain within the mainstream.

 

[Eric Newhill]

I read The Road to Monticello by Kevin Hays. The man was brilliant. Next world. He was tapped into the voices of Intent behind the veil, which guide but do not steer.

Great comment. Love it.

We are all flawed, susceptible to the 7 deadly sins and caught up in grey areas. Such is life on this material sphere.

What does Dante have the sign on the door to hell saying? "Abandon hope all ye who enter here". The values and ideals of the founders of the USA offer hope and a vision to reach for within an atmosphere of freedom. I don't see that elsewhere in the world. It's all, at best/most ideal, dependency like a well cared for pet or, at worst, slavery (sometimes literally) to a master.

 

[Adam Fitzgerald]

great. maybe we could approach it from different angle that is more in your wheelhouse. One of the questions that came up for me during my interview with richard was the gamesmanship richard clarke and robert mueller were drawn into after 911 happened. I was kind of shooting from the hip regarding the CYA mentality that probably permeates these organizations, but I was wondering if you had any deeper insights into how these guys might have reacted once they realized they were unwittingly part of a larger conspiracy.

Well i dont think they mind it at all since most conspiracies are false, and there is enough bad information out there regarding this event that neither individual gives much thought....maybe when they are alone in their own thoughts, it is different. Clarke i dont think is as "questionable" when it comes to the actual conspiracies involving 9/11 than say Robert Mueller who did indeed gives instances of "cover-up" . For example, the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, where FBI agents from Minnesota (Colleen Rowley) who wanted a warrant to investigate Moussaoui's laptop....from which her supervisor of the Minneapolis HQ (Robert Bowman) denied, and whom got that order from someone high....Mueller. The warrant was given after the events of September 11th. that is just one instance of Muellers questionable activities in the aftermath of 9/11. There are more....Phoenix Memo, the extra prevented hijackings that were not properly investigated, United Airlines Flight 23 etc.

 

[Alex]

Never conclude anything, always stay ever open minded, keep an eye out that a deeper and deeper layer of dynamics may be at play, especially when it comes to the anomalous and/or "big time conspiratorial."

great post. thx.

 

[Alex]

Ban underlying lack of global "court awareness"

nice one

 

[Eric Newhill]

Well i dont think they mind it at all since most conspiracies are false, and there is enough bad information out there regarding this event that neither individual gives much thought....maybe when they are alone in their own thoughts, it is different. Clarke i dont think is as "questionable" when it comes to the actual conspiracies involving 9/11 than say Robert Mueller who did indeed gives instances of "cover-up" . For example, the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, where FBI agents from Minnesota (Colleen Rwoley) who wanted a warrant to investigate Moussaoui's laptop....from which her supervisor of the Minneapolis HQ (Robert Bowman) denied, and whom got that order from someone high....Mueller. The warrant was given after the events of September 11th. that is just one instance of Muellers questionable activities in the aftermath of 9/11. There are more....Phoenix Memo, the extra prevented hijackings that were not properly investigated, United Airlines Flight 23 etc.

Adam,
Several members of my immediate family and extended family were/are members of the intelligence community. One was high up in the CIA (I mentioned his name in this thread, but then deleted that post). I worked with it. My daughter and son-in-law are in the IC and specifically work counter terrorism. These are not people making up stories. The DIA badges are part of the chest bling. There are real accommodations arising from their work. I think I have left enough bread crumbs leading to false identities that I can mention that.

You have to understand that the media reports you may be relying on never get it right. They make errors of context and they make materially false statements. They insert slanted perspectives.

The IC follows-up on many leads. Sometimes these leak out and get turned into stories although there was nothing really there.

Not saying that points you make fall into that category; just that you really do need to be careful.

Also, many people claim to knowledge that they don't have.

 

[Alex]

Well i dont think they mind it at all since most conspiracies are false, and there is enough bad information out there regarding this event that neither individual gives much thought....maybe when they are alone in their own thoughts, it is different. Clarke i dont think is as "questionable" when it comes to the actual conspiracies involving 9/11 than say Robert Mueller who did indeed gives instances of "cover-up" . For example, the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, where FBI agents from Minnesota (Colleen Rowley) who wanted a warrant to investigate Moussaoui's laptop....from which her supervisor of the Minneapolis HQ (Robert Bowman) denied, and whom got that order from someone high....Mueller. The warrant was given after the events of September 11th. that is just one instance of Muellers questionable activities in the aftermath of 9/11. There are more....Phoenix Memo, the extra prevented hijackings that were not properly investigated, United Airlines Flight 23 etc.

wow, I think I may have guilt been guilty of assuming some things about your worldview as well as your stance on 9/11:
https://911skepticsvstruth.wordpress.com/2018/07/14/the-9-11-problem/
It is because of you Alex Jones, James Fetzer, Loose Change, Dave Von Kleist, James Perloff, Judy Wood, John Lear, Morgan Reynolds, Ace Baker, Craig McKee, Christopher Bollyn, Rebekah Roth, Theirry Meyssean, CIT Team, Pilots For 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin and 9/11 Faces Of Truth whom have convoluted and openly lied to the masses which have led to the Truth Movement into a stagnant, fractional mess of totalitarian ideals and ignorant speculation which often at times borderlines on complete idiocy.

would you say you're a skeptic, what does this mean to you? these questions may seem a bit off topic but in my experience they're are key to understanding one's worldview.
- LHO lone nut?
- sirhan sirhan manchurian candidate?
- MKultra?
- remote viewing/stargate?
- UFO disclosure 12/2017 new york times?
- you believe in climategate? global warming?
- how about pizzagate?
- what is your position in building 7? (I did a quick google search and didn't find much)
- do you think consciousness is a product of brain?
- do you believe there's any evidence that suggests consciousness survives death?
- are we biological robots in a meaningless universe? (apologies if this sounds too philosophical but I think it relates back)

 

[Eric Newhill]

Well i dont think they mind it at all since most conspiracies are false, and there is enough bad information out there regarding this event that neither individual gives much thought....maybe when they are alone in their own thoughts, it is different. Clarke i dont think is as "questionable" when it comes to the actual conspiracies involving 9/11 than say Robert Mueller who did indeed gives instances of "cover-up" . For example, the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, where FBI agents from Minnesota (Colleen Rowley) who wanted a warrant to investigate Moussaoui's laptop....from which her supervisor of the Minneapolis HQ (Robert Bowman) denied, and whom got that order from someone high....Mueller. The warrant was given after the events of September 11th. that is just one instance of Muellers questionable activities in the aftermath of 9/11. There are more....Phoenix Memo, the extra prevented hijackings that were not properly investigated, United Airlines Flight 23 etc.

Rowley, in her own words, describes the failure to look more deeply into Moussaoui as typical red tape screw up; as I said much earlier in the thread is usually the right explanation in place of conspiracy.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249500,00.html

These are the same kind of bureaucrats that lower military training standards so that more women can qualify because some politicians decided that's where things need to go. They aren't deliberately conspiring to weaken the military, although they have that effect. They are merely career conscious political animals first and foremost. If there was a war and the impact of women in combat arms became a factor in a disaster, they would CYA their decisions. You'd have to see these people in action to believe just how much their politics and career mindedness takes over their dedication to the more important mission. In fairness, they know if they don't comply with the politicians, they're out and replaced by someone who will. The most foolish rise to the top in this manner. It starts with the politicians though. Our politicians are true sleaze balls 90% of the time.

 

[Adam Fitzgerald]

wow, I think I may have guilt been guilty of assuming some things about your worldview as well as your stance on 9/11:
https://911skepticsvstruth.wordpress.com/2018/07/14/the-9-11-problem/
It is because of you Alex Jones, James Fetzer, Loose Change, Dave Von Kleist, James Perloff, Judy Wood, John Lear, Morgan Reynolds, Ace Baker, Craig McKee, Christopher Bollyn, Rebekah Roth, Theirry Meyssean, CIT Team, Pilots For 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin and 9/11 Faces Of Truth whom have convoluted and openly lied to the masses which have led to the Truth Movement into a stagnant, fractional mess of totalitarian ideals and ignorant speculation which often at times borderlines on complete idiocy.

would you say you're a skeptic, what does this mean to you? these questions may seem a bit off topic but in my experience they're are key to understanding one's worldview.
- LHO lone nut?
- sirhan sirhan manchurian candidate?
- MKultra?
- remote viewing/stargate?
- UFO disclosure 12/2017 new york times?
- you believe in climategate? global warming?
- how about pizzagate?
- what is your position in building 7? (I did a quick google search and didn't find much)
- do you think consciousness is a product of brain?
- do you believe there's any evidence that suggests consciousness survives death?
- are we biological robots in a meaningless universe? (apologies if this sounds too philosophical but I think it relates back)

Yes i am a "skeptic" of the events of 9/11. I do often times find myself being as someone who defends the official narrative but this is obviously not the case for the more "invested" researchers who know me from my previous writings and from the video series i have done with Richard. I jst dont partake into two areas in research...one is speculation, the second is pro-porting the "fantastical". Many people who we see today that are within the 9/11 Truth Movement, names mentioned above in my quote from Skeptics Blog, have hijacked said movement to promote wild, and inaccurate conspiracies. Now this can lead to two predictable conclusions from those looking at their works. One is they believe these are "manufactured" proposals from people looking to persuade an audience into looking at "dead ends" so to speak. Now this is mere speculation but i believe this percentage is quite small so we wont ever know who is doing this on purpose. Secondly, many will simply believe these people are genuine due to the fact most people are led by their divisive worldviews,. Wether those worldviews are from the Political spectrum, racial areas or religiously motivated worldviews. But far too many are persuaded to look at information which are complimentary to their human constructs so they are manipulated into believing 9/11 is simply an "Israeli plot" or an "islamic plot" etc. But neither si entirely correct, so you only get a short percentage of actual information while the rest is speculation or complete nonsense.

 

[Vortex]

Every time the pro-mainstream-narrative side in a debate about a (potential) elite conspiracy turns to ambiguous psychosocial dismissals of conspiracy analysts, in attempt to move the discussion away from solid, substantial evidence, you may tell that they have lost the debate yet would rather die in pain than accept it.

Since, as David Chandler summarised neatly and correctly, THE PHYSICS (e.g. the substantial evidence) TRUMPS IT ALL. The Towers, let alone WTC 7, simply couldn't fall the way described by the official theory - the publicly known empirical evidence just doesn't correspond with the theoretical model formulated and endorsed officially . No amount of "psychologising" and/ or "sociologising" will change it.

 

[Adam Fitzgerald]

To answer each one correctly:


- LHO lone nut? -- Obviously more than one shooter was involved.
- sirhan sirhan manchurian candidate? - Obviously more than one shooter was involved,
- MKultra? - This operation is still in ptractice today biut with major modifications.
- UFO disclosure 12/2017 new york times? - I dont deal with the paranoraml or UFO's, just dont have the time at my disposal.
- you believe in climategate? global warming? - Global warming? Not so much....
- how about pizzagate? - I think there are indeed major sex rings worldwide
- what is your position in building 7? (I did a quick google search and didn't find much) - Physics i dont have any side to choose
- do you think consciousness is a product of brain? - This very well could be debated as an entity which is "infinite" and "separate" from the body
- do you believe there's any evidence that suggests consciousness survives death? - This is an answer that will always have speculative notions
- are we biological robots in a meaningless universe? (apologies if this sounds too philosophical but I think it relates back - Very well could be, again speculation.

 

[Adam Fitzgerald]

Every time the pro-mainstream-narrative side in a debate about a (potential) elite conspiracy turns to ambiguous psychosocial dismissals of conspiracy analysts, in attempt to move the discussion away from solid, substantial evidence, you may tell that they have lost the debate yet would rather die in pain than accept it.

Since, as David Chandler summarised neatly and correctly, THE PHYSICS (e.g. the substantial evidence) TRUMPS IT ALL. The Towers, let alone WTC 7, simply couldn't fall the way described by the official theory - the publicly known empirical evidence just doesn't correspond with the theoretical model formulated and endorsed officially . No amount of "psychologising" and/ or "sociologising" will change it.

Just to add, although i dont hold any position towards how the towers collapsed...i myself didnt need them to fall at all in order to prove there was a "conspiracy" involving the events of September 11th. I already can show this by just presenting the perjured comments from George Tenet (CIA Director) made during his questioning at the Joint Inquiry of 2002.

 

[Eric Newhill]

Just to add, although i dont hold any position towards how the towers collapsed...i myself didnt need them to fall at all in order to prove there was a "conspiracy" involving the events of September 11th. I already can show this by just presenting the perjured comments from George Tenet (CIA Director) made during his questioning at the Joint Inquiry of 2002.

Being embarrassed about meeting with Bandar when his wife allegedly had been providing funding to some of the terrorists (allegedly had been) and then doing a CYA on that is not the same as being in on a conspiracy to kill Americans. The CYA proves nothing other than Tenet is a human and is career focussed. You have to prove that Bandar was involved and you can't. There is no proof that his wife was involved either. Where do the allegations come from? Independent researches and hearsay. This is weak stuff.

Washington (AKA "the swamp") is a pit of vipers and oozes innuendo, hearsay, rumors and general BS. I am most unimpressed with the generators of said BS that I have met.

 

[Richard Cox]

I haven't felt tempted to join in the discussion on whether the United States is being unfairly maligned or not. I suspect it carries over from other threads and I've found much of it bizarre to be honest.

I could offer a way of thinking of this which might be helpful. It seems to me to be of limited meaning to talk about nation states as good or bad. Nations are artificial and coerced collectives of people who are as different from each other as chalk and cheese. Nations are also composed of entirely different and contradictory ideologies, working against each other. It therefore makes little sense to label a nation as good or bad, as to do so is to apply one of those labels to all ideologies that nation contains.

I would contend that there are two relevant ideologies, or principals, in conflict with each other. The first is that of respect for individual rights, life liberty and property. The second is disregard for the individual, coercion, imperialism and dominance. The United States, like all societies, has always been composed of the two in conflict. I would contend that the prosperity and freedom US citizens enjoy arises as a result of the former tradition being relatively strong, as compared to other countries. The death and destruction the US State has wrought is a result of the latter tradition also being strong. Pointing to the former and saying that 'The US is good' is little consolation to the victims of the latter.

In summary I'm simply suggesting that it's better to define principles and think of them as being good or bad, rather than nation states. As I write this it seems painfully obvious, yet also necessary.

 

[Laird]

I suspect it carries over from other threads

Yes. Very much so. And I think the forum would be better off without it. It's not topical. But when objectionable political opinions are expressed assertively, some of us feel it is necessary and just to present an assertive countervailing view. And so it goes...

Personally, I wish Alex would put a stop to it once and for all, and declare the forum to be a politics-free zone.

 

[Creativemind]

Yes. Very much so. And I think the forum would be better off without it. It's not topical. But when objectionable political opinions are expressed assertively, some of us feel it is necessary and just to present an assertive countervailing view. And so it goes...

Personally, I wish Alex would put a stop to it once and for all, and declare the forum to be a politics-free zone.

I second this notion. Nowhere on the mission statement page of this site does it mention politics. The vitriol goes ballistic both ways quickly. Please keep this forum on topic. Not politics.

 

[Sam Hunter]

The conversation between Richard and Alex, for me, was a "ten" (or higher) where my rating of ten has been raised over the years of listening to excellent conversations Alex has shared. Alex posed several questions that Richard took on in ways where his responses were clearly "cutting edge thinking" and Alex sometimes expanding on it, asking further questions or just stating the response was excellent. How are we not commenting, discussing, exploring these exchanges?

The conversation presented well over a dozen of these types of responses where a thread on each could be created. I found it a bit sad that more of these thoughts and ideas were not "jumped on" by more of us listeners who are members of this forum. Having said this, I fed the monster with my own "off topic" comment and, thus, must point the finger my direction for being part of the problem. Sadly too, I see this happening on all sorts of other forums and in all sorts of other comment boards.

 

[Alex]

Thanks for such a complete answer. I really appreciate that you didn't do the silo thing as I believe many of these topics are interrelated.

- UFO disclosure 12/2017 new york times? - I dont deal with the paranoraml or UFO's, just dont have the time at my disposal.

in the spirit of my above comment I would suggest that UFOs must be on the table since the december 2017 disclosure was openly driven by the DOD. they released the video saying these UFOs appeared near our ships in san diego.

- what is your position in building 7? (I did a quick google search and didn't find much) - Physics i dont have any side to choose

just to clarify, do you mean that 47 story steel structure buildings, that weren't hit by any planes and just had a fire in one corner building, don't collapse at freefall speed into their own footprint.

 

[Alex]

Nations are artificial and coerced collectives of people

beautifully concise

I would contend that there are two relevant ideologies, or principals, in conflict with each other. The first is that of respect for individual rights, life liberty and property. The second is disregard for the individual, coercion, imperialism and dominance.

seems to me that it's all about respect for rights and liberty. I was watching the documentary the other day about the berlin wall. a wall to keep citizens inside a nation they didn't want to be a part of. doesn't that say it all?

 

[Alex]

The conversation between Richard and Alex, for me, was a "ten" (or higher) where my rating of ten has been raised over the years of listening to excellent conversations Alex has shared. Alex posed several questions that Richard took on in ways where his responses were clearly "cutting edge thinking" and Alex sometimes expanding on it, asking further questions or just stating the response was excellent. How are we not commenting, discussing, exploring these exchanges?

The conversation presented well over a dozen of these types of responses where a thread on each could be created. I found it a bit sad that more of these thoughts and ideas were not "jumped on" by more of us listeners who are members of this forum. Having said this, I fed the monster with my own "off topic" comment and, thus, must point the finger my direction for being part of the problem. Sadly too, I see this happening on all sorts of other forums and in all sorts of other comment boards.

that's super nice of you to say I think richard is doing absolutely fantastic work and I've learned so much from his recent batch of shows.

I know what you mean about feeling a need to connect with others about this stuff... heck, that's why I started skeptiko in the first place

you can always add a post to an old show thread so don't feel like the party's over just because the conversation certain direction... at the very least you'll have a conversation with me and a handful of other folks that read almost every post.