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

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 strongly disagree. Politics is and should be an important part of our life, and turning the screen around so we don’t see what might be happening in that important area is exactly the sort of thing those in power like to see.
 
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.

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.


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.
Im quite clear, in that, i dont hold any position regarding the physics of how the towers fell. To do so would be disingenuous.
 
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.
it seems to me that most people on the skeptiko forum extremely skeptical view of "politics." I mean, it seems to me that it's primarily a social engineering control mechanism.
 
Im quite clear, in that, i dont hold any position regarding the physics of how the towers fell. To do so would be disingenuous.
I'm not quite sure I understand how you maintain this firewall. as richard and I talked about in this interview it seems to me (and many others) that building 7 is the smoking gun that shifts the burden of proof. hard to believe we could ever get nearly as close by examining geopolitical machinations.
 
I'm not quite sure I understand how you maintain this firewall. as richard and I talked about in this interview it seems to me (and many others) that building 7 is the smoking gun that shifts the burden of proof. hard to believe we could ever get nearly as close by examining geopolitical machinations.

And like i stated earlier, i hold zero position regarding how the towers fell. I dont need them to fall at all to know there was some level of an "inside job" by certain U.S and Foreign agencies.
 
I can absolutely understand how people can be ever so confused as to how i dont need the collapse of the towers to show there was obvious and willful deception (inside job) in allowing these attacks to transpire. Thats because most of the people involved in studying 9/11 have become completely "numb" to the geo-politics of the events of September 11th 2001 due to the absolute lack of rational discourse involved. In fact, the only discourse involving the geo-politics have come from outright frauds who gave the masses the speculative adds and bold imagination as a form of evidence. Richard Cox and myself are trying to change that level of discourse, if we can.
 
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.
I am in vigorous agreement. Any examination of history will reveal the deep complexity of 'nations' and the problem of using a single national tag to characterise the people who fall within its boundaries. Ditto any large collective label - racial or religious or gender and so on. Actually, to history, add politics, sociology, economics and psychology - indeed the whole of the 'human sciences'.
 
Adam has just launched his podcast, The Darkened Hour, on which I'll be assisting. I'll post relevant episodes I'm involved with to my own channel. Here is the opening episode -


https://adamfitzgerald.podbean.com/e/welcome-to-the-darkened-hour/

I'm sure there'll be a lot of interest in the David Chandler (physicist) interview, that should be out next week.
Super, Richard! I got about half way through your other interviews with Adam before I got completely lost -- his knowledge seems encyclopedic -- and a lot of the named dramatis personae are US and other noteables that a British person may not know too much about. I'm hoping that you will take time to flesh out what for some may be inside baseball; for me, certainly, that would help a great deal.

So hopefully in The Darkened Hour things will be taken at a pace I can follow and learn something from. One question I have is, is this your podcast, or Adam's? You seem to indicate towards the end of the audio you've posted that it's yours, yet you say at the beginning of this post that Adam is the one who has launched it. Not that it matters that much, I suppose, except that if you're the one directing the dialogue, I suspect I'll stand more of a chance of grasping it since you freely admit you don't know that much, and I can assure you I know even less...;)
 
Super, Richard! I got about half way through your other interviews with Adam before I got completely lost -- his knowledge seems encyclopedic -- and a lot of the named dramatis personae are US and other noteables that a British person may not know too much about. I'm hoping that you will take time to flesh out what for some may be inside baseball; for me, certainly, that would help a great deal.

So hopefully in The Darkened Hour things will be taken at a pace I can follow and learn something from. One question I have is, is this your podcast, or Adam's? You seem to indicate towards the end of the audio you've posted that it's yours, yet you say at the beginning of this post that Adam is the one who has launched it. Not that it matters that much, I suppose, except that if you're the one directing the dialogue, I suspect I'll stand more of a chance of grasping it since you freely admit you don't know that much, and I can assure you I know even less...;)
This podcast will be a dual account, even thou Richard is quite modest, i can assure you here and now that he is truly the backbone of the podcast and series. He has been a fantastic partner in both. I must apologize if the series was a bit "confusing" at times, with the podcast i will be doing some simpler talks and try to reach people with some context about what we are delving into. We will discuss the many areas involving 9/11 and geo-politics in general past and present.
 
This podcast will be a dual account, even thou Richard is quite modest, i can assure you here and now that he is truly the backbone of the podcast and series. He has been a fantastic partner in both. I must apologize if the series was a bit "confusing" at times, with the podcast i will be doing some simpler talks and try to reach people with some context about what we are delving into. We will discuss the many areas involving 9/11 and geo-politics in general past and present.
No need to apologise, Adam. Maybe at some point (thanks to The Darkened Hour) I'll be able to revisit the series and understand more of it.
 
I'm sure there'll be a lot of interest in the David Chandler (physicist) interview, that should be out next week.
I’m very much looking forward to these interviews Richard, thank you and Adam for prioritising this topic, as it is one which imo should be of interest to all of us. I feel it is (for the majority of us) a subconscious source of pain for so many of us, though we may not realise it.

I listened to the intro episode of The Darkened Hour with interest. Are you aware that there is another podcast with the same name?

I am equally frustrated by the clutter that we have to wade through to reach a place where we feel is of value when it comes to 9/11. However I think the danger comes not from the more extreme beliefs held by some people, it may be annoying, but we surely must be able to discard these views without much trouble, but from those who assume to know what should or should not be discussed. We maybe should be grateful for anyone that is willing to have an opinion on this subject, even if that opinion is not shared by many others?

We should be most grateful for the valuable data that these people in 9/11 Truth and other groups surely hold together in computers all over the world. Without these people, whose posts can range from bizarre to intriguing, 9/11 would maybe have been successfully locked away from us by now. We should worry about those that are really in the know, or think they’re in the know, and want to suppress data.

It is a huge psychological area too, one that many just don’t wish to look into. I bet only really in the future will people begin to see how long the ripples from that event lasted. As Adam said, it changed everything.
 
I'm not quite sure I understand how you maintain this firewall. as richard and I talked about in this interview it seems to me (and many others) that building 7 is the smoking gun that shifts the burden of proof. hard to believe we could ever get nearly as close by examining geopolitical machinations.
But we can't lift Building 7 out of the geopolitical context - because, sure a hell, it is deeply rooted in it. I am absolutely with those who see Building 7 as a massive problem, on the basis of what we can know about it. But motive must lie within the geopolitical domain - but at a narrowly defined level. The post 9/11 events show us that elements within the US were playing a game that goes back to the 1980s [at least]. I don't think you can excise the B7 issue from that - because those who had cause to know what was about to happen were not isolated from those who might have benefited from selective inaction.

Close examination of the geopolitical machinations, given the indicators wider than B7, could narrow the focus of curiosity into an appropriate range of actors. It may be, as yet, simply too soon.

There is a simple question to answer - was a terrorist attack on US territory a useful thing in terms of being a 'permission giver' for precipitous action by US interests? The invasion of Iraq shows that the answer is yes. What happened with B7 suggests that there was precise fore-knowledge of the target. But why B7? Was that greedy opportunism?. An over-reach of self-interest that was outside whatever actual post/plan existed.

The how of B7's collapse is intriguing enough. The why is a far bigger affair.
 
Hello everyone, Our interview with physicist David Chandler is now available. I attempted to collect all the critical positions I could find of his work and put them to him.
I listened to this interview as soon as you posted this yesterday. I must confess to feeling a bit disappointed after hearing it. It wasn’t all disappointing though, in parts I felt that it reached parts that may be an answer to a lot of what goes on, but sadly, gets us no closer to justice. In my opinion justice will likely never be found in this case. It’s too big.

Having David explain the physics of the collapse didn’t do much to change my opinion. I found myself switching off after a bit, what drew me back in was when he started to discuss the ‘Newton trumps Jung’ thing. I feel very strongly that in this event, Jung trumps Newton every day of the week, however difficult that may be for us to accept. Facts that seem to stare us in the face may be impossible to accept. In other words, if this was an evil deed, carried out largely by people we trusted, it would have to involve a deep knowledge of (dark) psychology to have succeeded.

I get your frustration at your not being sufficiently expert and finding yourself hearing one ‘expert’ say ‘this’ only to find that the next one says ‘that’, the two opinions contradicting each other. However, I think experts are not always the answer. I was a professional pilot for thirty fears, for some of that period I flew the exact types that were involved in 9/11. For my last few years I was a training captain, a Type Rating Examiner (TRE) working mainly in the simulator, flying the aeroplane one week in four. My career was ended by a stroke some years ago, at age fifty.

Like David, I have my opinion on things related to my area of expertise, such as it is, but within that area there are large swaths of ‘agnosticism’. For example, I sometimes foolishly dip my toe into discussions on forums and social media, where I can give what I know to be facts.

One question I often see is : ‘Are the speeds of the planes involved in 9/11, that were reported to have been reached even possible.’
Only in the past few days, for the first time in years, I was reading one guys post on some 9/11 site where he was talking rubbish, so I decided to respond and add some informed opinion.

He had at some stage phoned The Boeing Company in an attempt to go to the top of the expertise pyramid - not an unreasonable thing to do. So he replied thus:

“It's not a matter of faith or conviction, Stephen.
We're talking facts and fysics here...

Listen to what people at Boeing have to say on the issue...”

This video just wound me up, so I responded:

Joachim With respect, I listened to your video in the post above. Firstly, that Boeing lady you spoke to had no idea, like no idea. I’ve flown the Boeing 767-200 (and -300) and the barber pole Vmo is around 350 knots, as it is on other Boeing’s I’ve flown. This can easily be achieved flying level at sea level, you would have to ease off considerably on the thrust levers to stop it making a loud warning noise which we call clackers by exceeding the ‘limit’. 350knots @sea level is already slightly more than 400mph.
250kts limit is often imposed on aeroplanes flying below 10000ft in busy airspace. This has nothing to do with the planes themself, but it’s a limit to make things safer and easier to handle for the controllers.”


He hasn’t replied, he probably thinks I’m talking nonsense. The point is that when even doing something sensible like phoning Boeing doesn’t work then I’m left floundering as to what people are to do!

When I’m asked: “What is your opinion on the barely trained seemingly low ability hijacker flying a descending turn (from 7000 ft) into the pentagon”
I reply that I’d have to fly this manoeuvre in a simulator myself or see a colleague fly it to give a valid opinion. That I have many thousands of hours flying these or similar types doesn’t mean I would be able to give an opinion straight away. I always flew gently where possible, never aggressively as might be necessary to achieve the desired impact point. It isn’t that easy imo.

So while I’m an experienced pilot and supposed ‘expert’, I have definite opinions about some things but not on others that I might be expected to have.

So were left not knowing who or what to believe. In my opinion this may be deliberate. As too many unusual things happen with videos and articles and discussions where 9/11 is concerned. Why has it become so socially unacceptable to discuss 9/11? This is a serious question that must be answered.

Thanks to all of you for seeking truth in the face of apparent insanity.
 
I listened to this interview as soon as you posted this yesterday. I must confess to feeling a bit disappointed after hearing it. It wasn’t all disappointing though, in parts I felt that it reached parts that may be an answer to a lot of what goes on, but sadly, gets us no closer to justice. In my opinion justice will likely never be found in this case. It’s too big.

Having David explain the physics of the collapse didn’t do much to change my opinion. I found myself switching off after a bit, what drew me back in was when he started to discuss the ‘Newton trumps Jung’ thing. I feel very strongly that in this event, Jung trumps Newton every day of the week, however difficult that may be for us to accept. Facts that seem to stare us in the face may be impossible to accept. In other words, if this was an evil deed, carried out largely by people we trusted, it would have to involve a deep knowledge of (dark) psychology to have succeeded.

I get your frustration at your not being sufficiently expert and finding yourself hearing one ‘expert’ say ‘this’ only to find that the next one says ‘that’, the two opinions contradicting each other. However, I think experts are not always the answer. I was a professional pilot for thirty fears, for some of that period I flew the exact types that were involved in 9/11. For my last few years I was a training captain, a Type Rating Examiner (TRE) working mainly in the simulator, flying the aeroplane one week in four. My career was ended by a stroke some years ago, at age fifty.

Like David, I have my opinion on things related to my area of expertise, such as it is, but within that area there are large swaths of ‘agnosticism’. For example, I sometimes foolishly dip my toe into discussions on forums and social media, where I can give what I know to be facts.

One question I often see is : ‘Are the speeds of the planes involved in 9/11, that were reported to have been reached even possible.’
Only in the past few days, for the first time in years, I was reading one guys post on some 9/11 site where he was talking rubbish, so I decided to respond and add some informed opinion.

He had at some stage phoned The Boeing Company in an attempt to go to the top of the expertise pyramid - not an unreasonable thing to do. So he replied thus:

“It's not a matter of faith or conviction, Stephen.
We're talking facts and fysics here...


Listen to what people at Boeing have to say on the issue...”

This video just wound me up, so I responded:

Joachim With respect, I listened to your video in the post above. Firstly, that Boeing lady you spoke to had no idea, like no idea. I’ve flown the Boeing 767-200 (and -300) and the barber pole Vmo is around 350 knots, as it is on other Boeing’s I’ve flown. This can easily be achieved flying level at sea level, you would have to ease off considerably on the thrust levers to stop it making a loud warning noise which we call clackers by exceeding the ‘limit’. 350knots @sea level is already slightly more than 400mph.
250kts limit is often imposed on aeroplanes flying below 10000ft in busy airspace. This has nothing to do with the planes themself, but it’s a limit to make things safer and easier to handle for the controllers.”


He hasn’t replied, he probably thinks I’m talking nonsense. The point is that when even doing something sensible like phoning Boeing doesn’t work then I’m left floundering as to what people are to do!

When I’m asked: “What is your opinion on the barely trained seemingly low ability hijacker flying a descending turn (from 7000 ft) into the pentagon”
I reply that I’d have to fly this manoeuvre in a simulator myself or see a colleague fly it to give a valid opinion. That I have many thousands of hours flying these or similar types doesn’t mean I would be able to give an opinion straight away. I always flew gently where possible, never aggressively as might be necessary to achieve the desired impact point. It isn’t that easy imo.

So while I’m an experienced pilot and supposed ‘expert’, I have definite opinions about some things but not on others that I might be expected to have.

So were left not knowing who or what to believe. In my opinion this may be deliberate. As too many unusual things happen with videos and articles and discussions where 9/11 is concerned. Why has it become so socially unacceptable to discuss 9/11? This is a serious question that must be answered.

Thanks to all of you for seeking truth in the face of apparent insanity.
This quote here i will address because it is quite apparent that from my experience visiting forums all around the 9/11 spectrum that i too have seen this type of "circus" atmosphere. I primarily blame it on the people who have "hijacked" the 9/11 Truth Movement and those who parrot the official narrative. This is exactly the reason why Richard Cox and myself wished to do the "Roads to 9/11 Series" and our "Darkened Hour" podcast. Rational roundtable discussion is obviously missing, and im quite taken aback at how many have fallen for these "fantastical" tales of CGI/Hologram along with "mini-nukes" and "no hijackers" scenario. I wish 9/11 was as infantile described as most of these people have been led to believe, but it isnt. I have always stated some of the answers you wish to seek Steve won't lie in the physics (how the towers collapsed), they lie in the geo-political arena. But do not be dismayed by Chandler's description of what he felt happened, he is only going by his analysis of just one thin area......the area of the politics and the intelligence apparatuses are much more expansive and will require one's patience.
 
But do not be dismayed by Chandler's description of what he felt happened, he is only going by his analysis of just one thin area....
Thanks for commenting Adam.

Oh I’m not too dismayed by David, or by anything much, it’s all relative. :)

I do really appreciate anyone who devotes large chunks of their lives to interesting topics which so many refuse to touch, for various reasons.
 
This quote here i will address because it is quite apparent that from my experience visiting forums all around the 9/11 spectrum that i too have seen this type of "circus" atmosphere. I primarily blame it on the people who have "hijacked" the 9/11 Truth Movement and those who parrot the official narrative. This is exactly the reason why Richard Cox and myself wished to do the "Roads to 9/11 Series" and our "Darkened Hour" podcast. Rational roundtable discussion is obviously missing, and im quite taken aback at how many have fallen for these "fantastical" tales of CGI/Hologram along with "mini-nukes" and "no hijackers" scenario. I wish 9/11 was as infantile described as most of these people have been led to believe, but it isnt. I have always stated some of the answers you wish to seek Steve won't lie in the physics (how the towers collapsed), they lie in the geo-political arena. But do not be dismayed by Chandler's description of what he felt happened, he is only going by his analysis of just one thin area......the area of the politics and the intelligence apparatuses are much more expansive and will require one's patience.
These techniques in counter-intelligence, are called variously

Poison Pill Theory,​
Lob & Slam Ploy,​
Straw Man Hoax,​
Backfitted Hoax,​
Straight Hoax,​
Fake-Hoax, or​
Embargo Hypotheses.​

In order to conceal a feared idea or event - one creates and diseminates numerous, extreme and fantastical theories regarding its theme, or other irrational or easily debunked versions of it.

For example, a straw man hoax will contain the 'key' to its own debunking inside its own material - an item which is purposefully tucked or included inside the material itself - which the average person can find as its fatal flaw. This makes that (exploited) person then feel smart, and invulnerable to deception (thereafter, they are a 'skeptic' ;) )

These techniques are taught in US graduate intelligence schools (mostly so that their exercise can be detected, as opposed to employed).
 
Last edited:
I was glad to see at least some "deeper" "spiritual" discussion of 9/11 archetypal resonances here, but was hoping for even more. I appreciate the discourse between those with "conspiracy theorist" leanings and our resident IC connected folk, but that road is well worn at this point IMHO. Since I agree with the sentiment that "everything is spiritual" maybe a better question is "Is 9/11 connected with the archetypal world, the spirit world, unseen worlds, and occultism, in deep and unexpected ways?"

The resonances with Crowleyana are peculiar:

As is the Zohar prophecy:
 
Top