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

#21
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?
I personally think its cowardice of the worst kind, getting sombody else to do your dirty work,take an overdose, jump off a building or just
stop eating (how hard is that and it gives you time to consider things) but dont put your death onto somebody ealses conscious.
My wife was an oncology nurse and the doctors regularly killed patients by giving too much morphine, the terrible thing is the nurses are told to administer the meds. My wife was regularly in trouble for refusing to do this.
 
#22
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.

Hello Eric,

The scenario as you paint it is not an example of incompetence. For the CIA to develop al Hazmi and al Mihdhar as assets required deliberately withholding information regarding them entering the USA from the FBI. Already we have malfeasance, to use Richard Clarke's word.

Regarding the question of motivation, I tried to be very precise in my language here and did not attribute a motive to the relevant CIA officers actions. Rather I said that certain key figures wanting the attacks to proceed offers a better explanation than the so called Flip Theory. I'm not pulling that out of nowhere, specifically I'm drawing on Kevin Fenton's book Disconnecting the Dots (which is surely the most comprehensive account of these shenanigans) and the work of Tom Secker and Rory O'Connor as examples.

Secker's analysis, for example, focuses on the actions of Tom Wilshire, Deputy Director of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit. He demonstrates that in the summer of 2001 Wilshire was reporting to his superiors that Khalid al Mihdhar posed an imminent threat, whilst continuing to shield him from the FBI; concluding that these actions are not congruent with the flip theory. Again, this isn't to say Wilshire wanted the attacks to go ahead, but that such a scenario offers a better explanation of his actions.

I have no way to address statements like 'There is no way a conspiracy of this magnitude and with such massive consequences would be allowed to form'. I simply lack sufficient insight into organisations like the CIA to know what the upper limits of plausible conspiracy are. Turning to whistle-blowers, FBI Agent Mark Rossini, who had a front row seat in this whole affair, thinks the idea that anyone allowed the attacks to go ahead is preposterous. Thomas Drake, who had a similar seat at the NSA, says that whilst that agency had all the information it needed to stop the attack, the failure to do so arose from structural reasons, not personal volition. On the other hand, FBI translator and CIA asset Susan Lindauer both concluded the elements within the US Gov allowed the attacks to proceed.

I'm familiar with the bombing incident you're referring to, the culprits name was Abu Mulal al Balawi. One of those killed was Jennifer Matthews, who was active in the Bin Laden Unit during 9/11. In spite of being warned that he was double crossing them, the agents in Afghanistan were ordered not to search him in case he'd be offended. This essentially got them killed. The anomalies around it are not substantively comparable to the ones we've been discussing and I've no reason to suspect a deeper story, but again we see clear gross negligence (a CIA internal report pointed directly at the individual responsible) and no one held accountable.

To conclude on a broader point, I think it's a mistake to get hung up on proving things one way or the other regarding people's intentions and whether '9/11 was an inside job' or not. Anyone can have an opinion, they're easy to acquire and most aren't worth very much. What's more meaningful is to become well informed on the issues. I personally don't know why these two hijackers were protected (or why a million other 9/11 related oddities occurred), I could suggest many reasons and am not in a position to start removing any from the table.
 
#23
I personally think its cowardice of the worst kind, getting sombody else to do your dirty work,take an overdose, jump off a building or just
stop eating (how hard is that and it gives you time to consider things) but dont put your death onto somebody ealses conscious.
My wife was an oncology nurse and the doctors regularly killed patients by giving too much morphine, the terrible thing is the nurses are told to administer the meds. My wife was regularly in trouble for refusing to do this.
I don't think jumping of buildings is a particularly efficient way to address the issue. It's Likely to be messy and traumatic for all involved.

I don't know where you live but Britain has operated a non-consensual euthanasia program for years, labelled under various euphemisms. Running along exactly the lines you say of giving too much morphine and withholding water, I've seen it happen. This is why I believe it needs to be brought into the light, as it''s obviously completely wrong to pressure unwilling people to carry this out. There are however plenty of people who would view it as noble to work in assisted dying, and who is anyone else to deny someone's right to enter into a contract with them. For me a libertarian ethic underpins this.

I do think it's a huge problem that people feel unable to talk about suicidal ideation, seeing it as a sign something is seriously wrong, rather than a normal part of life (the ideation, not the act). I do wonder if full legalisation of suicide would actually cause a drop in the rate, as it would no longer be something hidden in the shadows. Rather than an impulse people have to keep hidden and an act carried out in secret, if people had a process they could go through to openly end their own life, I suspect far fewer would actually end up doing it.

We in Britain look aghast at some of our progressive European neighbours who allow young and physically healthy people to undergo assisted dying; but really it's no different from what goes on here, we just have a law banning it so we can feel better about ourselves.
 
#24
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!David
\

David,
It's a really big family and most of them are not terrorists. They are close business allies with big American families,like the Bushes. The Bin Ladens disowned Osama for his ideology and actions. I'm sure those connections were considered to be bad optics and it was best to get them on their way. For that matter, they may have been asked to assist with certain aspects of the investigation and could be more effective in that regard back in KSA.
 
#25
Hello Eric,

The scenario as you paint it is not an example of incompetence. For the CIA to develop al Hazmi and al Mihdhar as assets required deliberately withholding information regarding them entering the USA from the FBI. Already we have malfeasance, to use Richard Clarke's word..
"Secret" and "need to know" have real meaning and includes excluding the FBI. Deliberately withholding information and intelligence silos are exactly what the DHS was supposed to rectify. You have to look at this operation in context. If it was SOP to share intel and let the FBI know about this kind of op, then you might have a point. However, it was not SOP before 911. Just another day in a disconnected, turf minded, dysfunctional IC.

Regarding the question of motivation, I tried to be very precise in my language here and did not attribute a motive to the relevant CIA officers actions. Rather I said that certain key figures wanting the attacks to proceed offers a better explanation than the so called Flip Theory. I'm not pulling that out of nowhere, specifically I'm drawing on Kevin Fenton's book Disconnecting the Dots (which is surely the most comprehensive account of these shenanigans) and the work of Tom Secker and Rory O'Connor as examples.

Secker's analysis, for example, focuses on the actions of Tom Wilshire, Deputy Director of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit. He demonstrates that in the summer of 2001 Wilshire was reporting to his superiors that Khalid al Mihdhar posed an imminent threat, whilst continuing to shield him from the FBI; concluding that these actions are not congruent with the flip theory. Again, this isn't to say Wilshire wanted the attacks to go ahead, but that such a scenario offers a better explanation of his actions...
And Wishire's concerns, assuming the report that he had them is accurate, were probably shared with some people that performed a risk/benefit analysis and decided that the threat posed by Mihdar was less than Wishire assessed and/or worth the risk/could be managed.

I have no way to address statements like 'There is no way a conspiracy of this magnitude and with such massive consequences would be allowed to form'. I simply lack sufficient insight into organisations like the CIA to know what the upper limits of plausible conspiracy are. Turning to whistle-blowers, FBI Agent Mark Rossini, who had a front row seat in this whole affair, thinks the idea that anyone allowed the attacks to go ahead is preposterous. Thomas Drake, who had a similar seat at the NSA, says that whilst that agency had all the information it needed to stop the attack, the failure to do so arose from structural reasons, not personal volition. On the other hand, FBI translator and CIA asset Susan Lindauer both concluded the elements within the US Gov allowed the attacks to proceed..
Fair enough. I appreciate that you recognize there are people saying what I am saying. You have obviously done your homework and are looking at many, if not all, side. Commendable!

EDIT: btw - the NSA is not a direct action agency. They merely collect signal intelligence. If they collected something that concerned them, then they'd have to coordinate with the right people in other agencies and those right people would have to make an assessment that concurred with the NSA's concerns. Again, silos and turf are the issue.

I'm familiar with the bombing incident you're referring to, the culprits name was Abu Mulal al Balawi. One of those killed was Jennifer Matthews, who was active in the Bin Laden Unit during 9/11. In spite of being warned that he was double crossing them, the agents in Afghanistan were ordered not to search him in case he'd be offended. This essentially got them killed. The anomalies around it are not substantively comparable to the ones we've been discussing and I've no reason to suspect a deeper story, but again we see clear gross negligence (a CIA internal report pointed directly at the individual responsible) and no one held accountable..
Yes. That is the incident to which I was referring. You are focused on "anomalies". You need a baseline first before you can understand what is, or isn't, an anomaly. I was trying to use this incident as a baseline example - even after the screw-ups of 911 the CIA got burned again by believing they could control and use a jihadist. My point being that mistaken belief in the ability to turn jihadists was cultural in the CIA. Thus, IMO, it does shed light on the mindset of the operatives involved with the 911 hijackers. It is relevant to the question of screw-up v conspiracy.

To conclude on a broader point, I think it's a mistake to get hung up on proving things one way or the other regarding people's intentions and whether '9/11 was an inside job' or not. Anyone can have an opinion, they're easy to acquire and most aren't worth very much. What's more meaningful is to become well informed on the issues. I personally don't know why these two hijackers were protected (or why a million other 9/11 related oddities occurred), I could suggest many reasons and am not in a position to start removing any from the table.
Amen, brother.
 
Last edited:
#26
Richard - can you provide any links corresponding to the various assertions you have made.

David
Yes I can., I can source everything I've said. I'll try and do it in a way that's helpful rather than overwhelming, so let me know what you would/wouldn't like. I'll also try and get my co-host Adam Fitzgerald in here, he's the real 9/11 expert.

Kevin Fenton's Disconnecting the Dots is perhaps the most detailed write up on Alec Station (the CIA's Bin Laden Unit) and the Yemen Hub, but you'd have to be dedicated to read it. (Interview)

The Watchdogs Didn't Bark, by John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski is equally good and I think an easier read. (Interview of Nowosielski by Jon Gold, his channel is a trove of information).

Tom Secker's article/podcast on “The 9/11 Intelligence 'Failure'”. It's part of an excellent wider series on the history of Al Qaeda and it's US connections.

FBI Agent Mark Rossini talking about the CIA withholding information from the CIA (We've just interviewed Mark ourselves).
 

Alex

Administrator
#27
To conclude on a broader point, I think it's a mistake to get hung up on proving things one way or the other regarding people's intentions and whether '9/11 was an inside job' or not. Anyone can have an opinion, they're easy to acquire and most aren't worth very much. What's more meaningful is to become well informed on the issues. I personally don't know why these two hijackers were protected (or why a million other 9/11 related oddities occurred), I could suggest many reasons and am not in a position to start removing any from the table.
sure, everyone's entitled to an opinion, some are worth more than others. and beyond opinion I think we're all trying to figure out what this means on a much deeper level. for me, the best working hypothesis is that 9/11 was an inside job. I think the evidence is quite overwhelming so I put a high degree of confidence in my conclusion... but that's just me.

Some deeper questions:
1. how much tyranny are we comfortable tolerating? where are we on the freedom versus security scale.
2. one way of looking at 9/11 is that it's nothing new... false flags are what governments do. so to what extent are we complicit?
3. if there is such a thing is a moral imperative... good versus evil... where does 9/11 fit? what do you think Dick Cheney's life review will be like?
 
#28
I don't think jumping of buildings is a particularly efficient way to address the issue. It's Likely to be messy and traumatic for all involved.

I don't know where you live but Britain has operated a non-consensual euthanasia program for years, labelled under various euphemisms. Running along exactly the lines you say of giving too much morphine and withholding water, I've seen it happen. This is why I believe it needs to be brought into the light, as it''s obviously completely wrong to pressure unwilling people to carry this out. There are however plenty of people who would view it as noble to work in assisted dying, and who is anyone else to deny someone's right to enter into a contract with them. For me a libertarian ethic underpins this.

I do think it's a huge problem that people feel unable to talk about suicidal ideation, seeing it as a sign something is seriously wrong, rather than a normal part of life (the ideation, not the act). I do wonder if full legalisation of suicide would actually cause a drop in the rate, as it would no longer be something hidden in the shadows. Rather than an impulse people have to keep hidden and an act carried out in secret, if people had a process they could go through to openly end their own life, I suspect far fewer would actually end up doing it.

We in Britain look aghast at some of our progressive European neighbours who allow young and physically healthy people to undergo assisted dying; but really it's no different from what goes on here, we just have a law banning it so we can feel better about ourselves.
I guess I can see your point of view in some ways but making laws about such things just makes the hairs on my back rise.
Im from South Africa where laws are just advisory notes and are generally observed as objects to be circumvented.
Just remember you arnt Britian or its laws and have no need to make apologies for either.

I would be very suspicious of anyone's motivation in assisting a death but I agree there would be many who would line up for the job.
Dying is a very personal thing near the end and I feel its like the last heroes journey and should be treated as such. Getting somebody else to
do the deed just cheapens the life lived somehow in my opinion.
Funny that you have brought the subject up as I have just recently come out of intensive care and gave the subject a bit of thought there as
one does when faced with your own mortality.
 
#29
what do you think Dick Cheney's life review will be like?
I think it would be difficult for anyone who believes in a life review to hold high office. Any decision you make is going to influence many people who won't like it. Personally, I think I would have a hard time doing anything. Politics aside, maybe that is why the "system" is designed to have people who believe different things. Sometimes you need the "wrong" beliefs to do the right thing.
 
#30
I guess I can see your point of view in some ways but making laws about such things just makes the hairs on my back rise.
Im from South Africa where laws are just advisory notes and are generally observed as objects to be circumvented.
Just remember you arnt Britian or its laws and have no need to make apologies for either.

I would be very suspicious of anyone's motivation in assisting a death but I agree there would be many who would line up for the job.
Dying is a very personal thing near the end and I feel its like the last heroes journey and should be treated as such. Getting somebody else to
do the deed just cheapens the life lived somehow in my opinion.
Funny that you have brought the subject up as I have just recently come out of intensive care and gave the subject a bit of thought there as
one does when faced with your own mortality.
I have a close relative who died of Alzheimer's disease. And I know other people suffer greatly from other terminal illnesses. I have mixed feelings about euthanasia. All the spiritual sources including the ones I trust are against it, but as a physical person it seems to me the immoral thing is that governments make it illegal for those who want it.

One spiritual argument, which won't mean anything to materialists, but makes some sense to me is that you learn something from suffering. In the book "The Science of Enlightenment" by Shinzen Young, Shinzen tells of a meditation student of his whom he helped through the dying process, and how the student found observing his own suffering helped him understand and get over or feel atonement for difernt aspects of his life:

... he started to identify each of the different flavors of sensation with the purification of the psychological and spiritual blockages acquired from his previously badass lifestyle. He felt that the various intense sensations were cleaning out specific negative things he had done and the bad ways he had treated other people.

For example, when I was talking to him on the phone once, he excused himself saying he'd be right back. In the distance, I could hear him vomiting into the toilet. Then he came back and described how, during the vomiting jag,, he just worked through a big piece of karma relating to his son.
Logically I can think it is better to get your karma balanced while you are still living, but I could never force that that view on other people, and I don't know if I could go through with it myself if I had the choice. Maybe there is a hidden spiritual reason for our laws against euthanasia?
 
Last edited:
#31
Great show. This is EXACTLY why i love Skeptiko! This is where i want to see the 9/11 story go. I've so badly wanted a "level 3" 9/11 discussion and i finally see it going in that direction.
The question of 911's effect on mass consciousness is so interesting. As far as i am concerned the spiritual or other wordly component of the event is undeniable. I consider the pre-cognitive trickle of world trade center attacks or the date and numbers 9/11 into popular culture and mass media preceeding the event (the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen
and Back 2 the Future
being seminal examples) as strong evidance to suggest there is something much larger and perhaps spookier at play with the events of Sept. 11th.
9/11 (and just about everything else) can be seen through the eyes of several types of people. Level one, the general population, probably view it much the same as they do ET and UFOs; not even on their radar. The general population dosnt consider them to be significant. Level two believes there is something there. Building 7, free fall speed, nano thermite etc are much like the nuts and bolts obsessed ufo community. Then there is a much smaller third group that sees them (9/11 ET UFO )for what they are; significant events and componets of our reality interacting with and effected by other worldly forces which manifest themselves in our reality in profound ways.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#32
Great show. This is EXACTLY why i love Skeptiko! This is where i want to see the 9/11 story go. I've so badly wanted a "level 3" 9/11 discussion and i finally see it going in that direction.
The question of 911's effect on mass consciousness is so interesting. As far as i am concerned the spiritual or other wordly component of the event is undeniable. I consider the pre-cognitive trickle of world trade center attacks or the date and numbers 9/11 into popular culture and mass media preceeding the event (the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen
and Back 2 the Future
being seminal examples) as strong evidance to suggest there is something much larger and perhaps spookier at play with the events of Sept. 11th.
9/11 (and just about everything else) can be seen through the eyes of several types of people. Level one, the general population, probably view it much the same as they do ET and UFOs; not even on their radar. The general population dosnt consider them to be significant. Level two believes there is something there. Building 7, free fall speed, nano thermite etc are much like the nuts and bolts obsessed ufo community. Then there is a much smaller third group that sees them (9/11 ET UFO )for what they are; significant events and componets of our reality interacting with and effected by other worldly forces which manifest themselves in our reality in profound ways.
totally agree. seems like 9/11 quickly gets us the deeper questions you're asking.
-
 
#33
I have a close relative who died of Alzheimer's disease. And I know other people suffer greatly from other terminal illnesses. I have mixed feelings about euthanasia. All the spiritual sources including the ones I trust are against it, but as a physical person it seems to me the immoral thing is that governments make it illegal for those who want it.

One spiritual argument, which won't mean anything to materialists, but makes some sense to me is that you learn something from suffering. In the book "The Science of Enlightenment" by Shinzen Young, Shinzen tells of a meditation student of his whom he helped through the dying process, and how the student found observing his own suffering helped him understand and get over or feel atonement for difernt aspects of his life:



Logically I can think it is better to get your karma balanced while you are still living, but I could never force that that view on other people, and I don't know if I could go through with it myself if I had the choice. Maybe there is a hidden spiritual reason for our laws against euthanasia?
My gut feeling is that dying is very personal and no government should be allowed into the space at all, especially with laws.How you do that
in a structured society I have no idea, my method would be to just ignore them and get on with my own shit, thats perhaps why I think it should be a solo effort.
 
#34
Thomas Drake, who had a similar seat at the NSA, says that whilst that agency had all the information it needed to stop the attack, the failure to do so arose from structural reasons, not personal volition. On the other hand, FBI translator and CIA asset Susan Lindauer both concluded the elements within the US Gov allowed the attacks to proceed.
This is interesting. In 'Dawn of the Code War' by John Carlin the FBI's compartmentalism meant they were slow to see IP theft via internet intrusion as the same as a security issue, even when that IP theft was happening in defence contractors. IP theft as a crime was not equated with espionage even when defence secrets were being stolen from military contractors - because they were businesses.

So the argument that there were structural reasons that prevented effective oversight. But at the same time the strategic willingness to allow some kind of attack on US soil to allow the triggering of a tactical response is feasible. We can't assume knowledge of a possible attack would have meant the twin towers - or can we?
 
#35
I listened to this episode three times there is so much in it that wanted to get my head around. I appreciate Richards openness, and his willingness to go into areas that aren’t usually discussed.

I am not sure how to equate samadhi with the near death experience, but experiencers who have had a life review believe that every encounter has consequences for good or bad, how can a guru who can transmit samadhi not be concerned about karma when he abuses his followers. I can’t take on board the celebrity argument, perhaps part of the answer lies in the discussion about the unseen world. Wilson van Dusen in his book The Natural Depth in Man is one of the few people in the psychiatric profession willing to discuss the effect of spirits on people with schizophrenia and presumably on all of us, it’s just that they are more sensitive and aware of them, and George Ritchie talks about spirits who hang around this world for reasons of addiction or strong emotions in Return from Tomorrow. Just maybe spiritual leaders are targeted, who knows it really doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s worth reading Ephesians 6 v12.

New Living Translation says
For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

9/11 is too complex for me but I do think it’s important to expose anything that needs to be brought into the open. We are having problems with the integrity of politicians and others in the UK at the moment, Caroline Lucus the Green Party politician is the only person I really trust but then she isn't beholden to anyone else being the only Green Party politician in parliament.
 
#36
I listened to this episode three times there is so much in it that wanted to get my head around. I appreciate Richards openness, and his willingness to go into areas that aren’t usually discussed.

I am not sure how to equate samadhi with the near death experience, but experiencers who have had a life review believe that every encounter has consequences for good or bad, how can a guru who can transmit samadhi not be concerned about karma when he abuses his followers. I can’t take on board the celebrity argument, perhaps part of the answer lies in the discussion about the unseen world. Wilson van Dusen in his book The Natural Depth in Man is one of the few people in the psychiatric profession willing to discuss the effect of spirits on people with schizophrenia and presumably on all of us, it’s just that they are more sensitive and aware of them, and George Ritchie talks about spirits who hang around this world for reasons of addiction or strong emotions in Return from Tomorrow. Just maybe spiritual leaders are targeted, who knows it really doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s worth reading Ephesians 6 v12.

New Living Translation says
For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

9/11 is too complex for me but I do think it’s important to expose anything that needs to be brought into the open. We are having problems with the integrity of politicians and others in the UK at the moment, Caroline Lucus the Green Party politician is the only person I really trust but then she isn't beholden to anyone else being the only Green Party politician in parliament.
Maggie,
I think you are making the common mistake of assuming that samadhi (or any other of the revered states of mind) is some ultimate truth or goal that indicates spiritual attainment. IMO, it's just another potential way to perceive or experience; no better or worse than any other.

Also, IMO, it is a common mistake to think that people who can perform tricks like conferring samadhi or using psi are somehow more spiritually advanced (whatever "spiritually advanced" means, exactly"). Lots of people have an usual skill set. We tend to look up to them, but why is not clear. It's like the popular worship of rock stars or Hollywood screen personalities or billionaires.

Once you stop seeing what a guru type can do as evidence of spiritual superiority, then you can understand how they sexually abuse followers and that sort of thing.
 
#38
sure, everyone's entitled to an opinion, some are worth more than others. and beyond opinion I think we're all trying to figure out what this means on a much deeper level. for me, the best working hypothesis is that 9/11 was an inside job. I think the evidence is quite overwhelming so I put a high degree of confidence in my conclusion... but that's just me.

Some deeper questions:
1. how much tyranny are we comfortable tolerating? where are we on the freedom versus security scale.
2. one way of looking at 9/11 is that it's nothing new... false flags are what governments do. so to what extent are we complicit?
3. if there is such a thing is a moral imperative... good versus evil... where does 9/11 fit? what do you think Dick Cheney's life review will be like?
Alex,
If you had told me, 20 years ago, that there is a deep state in the US that control everything and everyone, I would have told you, in response, that you have been watching too many Hollywood spy movies and were greatly exaggerating the reality. Now? Even I have to admit that a true deep state has developed in the US. It controls just about everyone/everything in DC and is extending its tentacles into state level govt. It most definitely controls all foreign policy. The Euros and English speaking nations are all on board. Anyone resisting is a 'racist", a "hater", etc. propaganda is produced and disseminated 24/7/365.

It goes deeper than government. Meanwhile, social media is programming an entire generation or two. Future generations will be programmed totally from day 1 - and that same programming is being applied to children in the public school system and get laid on even thicker in the universities. The Borg speaks as one.

Social media is also gathering huge amounts of information that is increasingly used to identify and silence opposition to the Borg. They know who you are, what you think, where you are and who you associated with at all times.

Even I can know all of your healthcare claims, ever, if paid for via any insurance company (that's your diagnoses, procedures you had performed on you, drugs you take/have taken). I can know the magazines you subscribe to (on line and hard copy) and can derive an expanded profile from that. I can know what you purchase with your credit card (who uses cash anymore?). I can know your habits. I can build a very accurate profile of who you are. We purchase all of that info from various information vendors. It's all made possible because of social media and digital tech. If don't you think the government is purchasing from the same vendors, you're delusional.

It should be obvious now that the deep state will decide whether or not who you elect to represent you is acceptable. So the Constitutional Republic is just about dead.

Your means of fighting back (the 2nd Amendment) is about to be repealed.

If you resist, you are unpersonned, lose your job, become a social pariah, etc.

I suggest everyone read the Gulag Archipelago. That's just about where we are headed.

Unfortunately, too many people are perfectly ok with this arrangement. As long as they get free stuff in some cases and out of fear, laziness, dullness in others. Some useful idiots think this is all good and will make for more just secure world.

The deep state and their global corporate friends are behind this - and "no" they aren't doing it for social justice or to save the planet form warming or any of that.

The globohomo socialist Borg eschews spirituality (except to the extent that they enjoy the feeling of aligning with dark forces). They won't hunt down the new agers at first because new agers are, well, goofy and flexible. First it's Christianity, then they'll get on the Muslims and others once they've served their purpose in replacing Christianity. They also use sexual perversions, drugs, media and other tools to normalize the unnatural and twisted in their effort to crush out higher level spirituality. But make no doubt, in the end there will be one belief and that will be whatever the Borg says it will be. That will change from time to time. Your job will be to stay tuned in and seamlessly repeat the new message. Forcing you to accept and repeat contradictory messages is an old brainwashing tool. It works. It's what they're doing (e.g. Conservative Christians bad, but Muslims good. Racism bad, but assigning to whites, categorically, bad names and attitudes is correct and should be done publicly without repercussions. Science rules! but a man in a dress really is woman and can have a menstrual cycle and maybe even babies - anyone who says otherwise is hater bigot that should be banished and die).

This is a satanic power grab. It pains me to watch it happen and it pains me that some people on a forum like this are some of the useful idiots that enable the satanic Borg. Smarts and courage have always been in short supply, which was they're counting on.

All of that said, I still do not, nor will I ever, believe that 911 was a conspiracy ;-)
 
Last edited:
#39
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......?
That's a question that I'm very happy to explore Michael, as it's the one from the interview that prompted the most thought from me.

I suppose I don't think of my podcast as being spiritual. If I were to sum it up, I would say it's about perception. We individually and collectively make superficial perceptions, then live in the prisons created by them. Inwardly we misperceive our own identity, taking ourselves to be a stream of thoughts, as opposed to the consciousness in which those thoughts are arising. Remedying this through a process of inner looking could be labelled spirituality, as we are contacting our spirit or very essence.

Outwardly we are equally imprisoned by superficial perceptions of environmentalism, economics and terrorism etc. We buy into artificial narratives that bring about disastrous consequences. For me, the same kind of deep unflinching looking is required to go beyond the artificial and into the real. I could further suggest this is spiritual, as if the outer world is a reflection of the pure inner consciousness, to come into the truth of it is to perceive a reflection of the Mind of God.

If we were to think about this in Gnostic terms, then we could posit that dark spiritual forces (the Archons) seek to cast the illusions that imprison us. Taking us away from our inner essence and creating a picture of a scary world where we need the the almighty State to protect us. I personally think we can conceive of Archons as actual volitional entities, or as abstract principals, the results are the same.

It's probably worth mentioning that the first spirituality book I ever read was also my first conspiracy book. It was David Icke's The Biggest Secret and I read it just after leaving school and just prior to September 11th, 2001. Problems with Icke aside, he presents a world view where the Archons (Reptilians, as he has them) seek to conceal the true nature of both inner and outer reality from us. So for me these were always two halves of the same coin. I think a lot of people around my age went through a similar process, giving rise to the term 'con-spirituality'.
 
#40
That's a question that I'm very happy to explore Michael, as it's the one from the interview that prompted the most thought from me.

I suppose I don't think of my podcast as being spiritual. If I were to sum it up, I would say it's about perception. We individually and collectively make superficial perceptions, then live in the prisons created by them. Inwardly we misperceive our own identity, taking ourselves to be a stream of thoughts, as opposed to the consciousness in which those thoughts are arising. Remedying this through a process of inner looking could be labelled spirituality, as we are contacting our spirit or very essence.

Outwardly we are equally imprisoned by superficial perceptions of environmentalism, economics and terrorism etc. We buy into artificial narratives that bring about disastrous consequences. For me, the same kind of deep unflinching looking is required to go beyond the artificial and into the real. I could further suggest this is spiritual, as if the outer world is a reflection of the pure inner consciousness, to come into the truth of it is to perceive a reflection of the Mind of God.

If we were to think about this in Gnostic terms, then we could posit that dark spiritual forces (the Archons) seek to cast the illusions that imprison us. Taking us away from our inner essence and creating a picture of a scary world where we need the the almighty State to protect us. I personally think we can conceive of Archons as actual volitional entities, or as abstract principals, the results are the same.

It's probably worth mentioning that the first spirituality book I ever read was also my first conspiracy book. It was David Icke's The Biggest Secret and I read it just after leaving school and just prior to September 11th, 2001. Problems with Icke aside, he presents a world view where the Archons (Reptilians, as he has them) seek to conceal the true nature of both inner and outer reality from us. So for me these were always two halves of the same coin. I think a lot of people around my age went through a similar process, giving rise to the term 'con-spirituality'.
I think a lot of the conspiracy theories are metaphors or ways of talking about what you say. There obviously are not lizard aliens posing as people. It is metaphor. 911 conspiracy shouldn't be taken literally. It's a folk way of saying that the government is out of control, can't be trusted and could do something like that and maybe will someday. A way of expressing a sense of powerlessness for some; a sense of being deceived by or in conflict with dark forces in our society by others. It may even be a way beginning the discussion of what to do about it all. Conspiracy theory as code.
 
Top