Robert Forte, The Softer Side of CIA Psychedelic Mind Control |407|

Incidentally, the video you posted isn't the same; one can see that the sides of the building are intact for a time as the centre falls. In the 9/11 buildings, the whole of them collapses into dust at a uniform rate.
Yeah? Well it isn't exactly the same because it isn't exactly the same building under exactly the same circumstances, is it? It pretty much falls straight down. Now go watch controlled demo of buildings. They don't always go straight down either. Sometimes they do just like the Iranian building. Lots of variables involved.
 
Yes. Something inimical happened that day. It's called Islamic terrorism. Happens all of the time. But yeah, again, knock yourself out investigating alternative theories. Just don't expect me to buy into them unless you have some solid evidence, which no one does 18 years lat
Well one thing is a fact, Bush(II) imeditately responded by grounding all planes except those carrying members of the Bin Laden family out of the country!

David
 
And that's your tell, Eric. It may be not so much that you are convinced by the evidence on your side (which imo is pretty flimsy), as that a possible alternative explanation is so awful to contemplate. For a Brit, it's not so strange that in a country with a proven record of such deceit and depravity at the top levels as the USA, there should be people prepared to sacrifice thousands of their own countrymen in furtherance of their aims, whatever those might be.

My opinion of most ordinary military personnel is that they're most probably decent people; however, as the phrase has it, they're lions led by donkeys. Many of those at the top in all countries bray rather than genuinely lead with integrity. Let's just wait and see how this all turns out. Maybe one day, however reluctantly, you'll have to eat your words.

And just for the record, I can find no other example of a building that has fallen in this way other than through controlled demolition: indeed, NIST made a point of maintaining it was a newly-discovered phenomenon. If you can provide links to such evidence, please supply them.
It's not a "tell" - it's not too awful to contemplate. It's stupid to contemplate too deeply when there is no evidence for it. It's an extraordinary claim with no evidence.

The USA is awful? That's your tell. Well fine. We should have let Hitler destroy you people. You've turned into a bunch of worthless socialist effetes overrun by Muslims. Next time we'll leave you to your sorry fate.

P.S. Part of becoming an officer in the US military involves much training on following or not following orders. An officer is responsible for both situations - and he is admonished that it is his responsibility to NOT follow an unlawful order (which killing thousands of American citizens would be, of course). An officer is duty bound to disobey and report an unlawful order. Of course you probably think military people are mindless zombie killers that just do whatever they are told, especially if it involves violence.
 
Last edited:
Well one thing is a fact, Bush(II) imeditately responded by grounding all planes except those carrying members of the Bin Laden family out of the country!

David
Politics. Bush and Bin Ladens are friends/partners. It's a big family. They are not all terrorists. The family had disowned Osama some time before.
I am out of this discussion. It's starting to piss me off and is going nowhere.
 
Yeah? Well it isn't exactly the same because it isn't exactly the same building under exactly the same circumstances, is it? It pretty much falls straight down. Now go watch controlled demo of buildings. They don't always go straight down either. Sometimes they do just like the Iranian building. Lots of variables involved.
Watch this:


It appears the suggestion is that the Plasco building didn't fall through fire (which reputedly was put out earlier), but after explosions. So if anything, in retrospect, its fall supports the 9/11 building collapses.
 
The USA is awful? That's your tell. Well fine. We should have let Hitler destroy you people. You've turned into a bunch of worthless socialist effetes overrun by Muslims. Next time we'll leave you to your sorry fate.
Who said the USA is awful? That's your hysterical misreading of what I said, which is, in effect, that it is a group of lions led by donkeys. Get rid of the donkeys, and the USA would imo be much better for it. And thanks for saving our sorry asses in WW2. That was a time when the USA was still a pretty decent country -- with around three times the population (in 1945) of Britain and a commensurately larger GDP.

If it had not helped in the war effort, the USA could have found itself on the losing side against the Axis countries; Japan, after all, attacked it before the USA joined us in the European theatre. It could be argued that what it did was in its own best interests quite as much as Britain's.

And please, don't try to portray me as a socialist. Anyone who has been around here long enough knows I'm a libertarian who thinks that there's far too much government influence in our lives. I voted for Brexit; in the USA, I'm not sure whether I'd have voted for Trump, but I sure as heck wouldn't have voted for Hillary, or any liberal candidate for that matter. In your own words, I see the liberal elites as a bunch of "worthless socialist effetes" obsessed with things like political correctness, CAGW, and intersectionality whilst at the same time being power-hungry, war-mongering hypocrites.
 
Who said the USA is awful? That's your hysterical misreading of what I said, which is, in effect, that it is a group of lions led by donkeys. Get rid of the donkeys, and the USA would imo be much better for it. And thanks for saving our sorry asses in WW2. That was a time when the USA was still a pretty decent country -- with around three times the population (in 1945) of Britain and a commensurately larger GDP.

If it had not helped in the war effort, the USA could have found itself on the losing side against the Axis countries; Japan, after all, attacked it before the USA joined us in the European theatre. It could be argued that what it did was in its own best interests quite as much as Britain's.

And please, don't try to portray me as a socialist. Anyone who has been around here long enough knows I'm a libertarian who thinks that there's far too much government influence in our lives. I voted for Brexit; in the USA, I'm not sure whether I'd have voted for Trump, but I sure as heck wouldn't have voted for Hillary, or any liberal candidate for that matter. In your own words, I see the liberal elites as a bunch of "worthless socialist effetes" obsessed with things like political correctness, CAGW, and intersectionality whilst at the same time being power-hungry, war-mongering hypocrites.
My apologies, Michael, re-reading what you wrote, I see that you said our leadership is depraved etc. I don't really agree with that fully, but I did misrepresent what you said.
 
My apologies, Michael, re-reading what you wrote, I see that you said our leadership is depraved etc. I don't really agree with that fully, but I did misrepresent what you said.
My apologies, Michael, re-reading what you wrote, I see that you said our leadership is depraved etc. I don't really agree with that fully, but I did misrepresent what you said.
No problem. Good to see you can admit it when you're wrong.
 
Politics. Bush and Bin Ladens are friends/partners. It's a big family. They are not all terrorists. The family had disowned Osama some time before.
I am out of this discussion. It's starting to piss me off and is going nowhere.
Don't worry - after all politics is not what this site is primarily about anyway.

Also the past is the past, and we both seem to agree about the value of President Trump right here in the present.

I like the US, and we have spent many happy holidays exploring your wild natural scenery out West. Almost everyone we met was friendly.

Every country has grim periods in its past - Britain used to rule an empire by force - sometimes quite brutal force.

David
 
I honestly don't know what the purpose of life is.

David
I think it’s quite likely that it is too learn by experience. The example that OBE/Astral praciticioner and Monroe Institute teacher William Buhlman always uses is (paraphrasing), “you can read 200 books on what it’s like to be a woman in the 20th century in America, but that knowledge would pale in comparison to becoming a woman and actually living in the 20th century.”

With experience comes an immense wealth of knowledge.

I think there may be other group goals as well (all of humanity) where we are striving for progress which may affect all of creation and general consciousness everywhere.

You’re right about the reincarnation data. It shows that people GENERALLY reincarnate into the same general area/culture. Generally. It also shows that a gender preference is usually formed, but not always completely adhered to.

Personally, I hope I’m not coming back. As much as I love our planet and many things about it, I find our universe brutal and unfair.

It seems like from what I gather from NDErs, people with claimed pre-birth memories, channeled information etc, that our current universe is one of the most dense, least thought responsive, and “low vibrational dimension” in existence. I feel that this existence is a “soul boot camp.” Jurgen Ziewe states that he has talked to individuals in different realms who generally find the idea of incarnating here to be repulsive.
 
Last edited:
It’s a pity that things overheated, but no real surprise given the participants and the topic.
It’s truly amazing how our bias’s affect our ideas. At present I’m trying to find the balance between free speech and censorship. It’s really tricky. It would be so much better if we could take the extreme emotions out of conversations like the one I was enjoying very much.
9/11 is the one ‘conspiracy theory’ that is deeply interesting to me, on a number of levels. It’s being slowly but surely rubbed out of acceptable conversation. Who by? And why? They’re just some of the fascinating questions available. It only makes me more suspicious! Does it not others?
 
Don't worry - after all politics is not what this site is primarily about anyway.

Also the past is the past, and we both seem to agree about the value of President Trump right here in the present.

I like the US, and we have spent many happy holidays exploring your wild natural scenery out West. Almost everyone we met was friendly.

Every country has grim periods in its past - Britain used to rule an empire by force - sometimes quite brutal force.

David
If a discussion around psychedelics develops, I may join back in. I'll wait...maybe check back in a few days.

I did have a final thought about these conspiracy theories - so the CIA or whomever in the US govt develops this elaborate scheme that involves working with terrorists, killing thousands of its own citizens, destroying high dollar buildings, airplanes and the Pentagon of all things (Not to mention that the plane that went down in the field was most likely going to hit the Capitol building or the White House)...it's willing to go to those horrendous yet massively great lengths for what reason? The answer is usually "To get us into a war in the MENA"......yet it couldn't muster the resources to plant WMD in Iraq? I mean a few barrels of poison gas, a tactical nuclear warhead, some deadly bio-weapon and that would have been enough right there to justify war against Iraq and/or Afghanistan (after all, Bib Laden had already blown up two embassies, a US troops barracks, and put a hole in the USS Cole with loss of life among the crew). Planting some kind of scary weapon would have probably been sufficient cause to send in the troops. ...actually, we don't need to speculate about the effectiveness of that method. We already went to war with Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. There was no need to involve an attack on the US in nefarious scheme...not only that, but once troops were sent into Iraq, you'd think that such conspiratorial people like the CIA and the Bush admin would have made things look good for themselves by planting something.....but nothing. Goose egg...zip, zero, nada......kind of lousy conspirators....just like the CIA giving the 60s gen LSD and turning them against the govt. Amazing fails by these masters of the universe!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
If a discussion around psychedelics develops, I may join back in. I'll wait...maybe check back in a few days.

I did have a final thought about these conspiracy theories - so the CIA or whomever in the US govt develops this elaborate scheme that involves working with terrorists, killing thousands of its own citizens, destroying high dollar buildings, airplanes and the Pentagon of all things (Not to mention that the plane that went down in the field was most likely going to hit the Capitol building or the White House)...it's willing to go to those horrendous yet massively great lengths for what reason? The answer is usually "To get us into a war in the MENA"......yet it couldn't muster the resources to plant WMD in Iraq? I mean a few barrels of poison gas, a tactical nuclear warhead, some deadly bio-weapon and that would have been enough right there to justify war against Iraq and/or Afghanistan (after all, Bib Laden had already blown up two embassies, a US troops barracks, and put a hole in the USS Cole with loss of life among the crew). Planting some kind of scary weapon would have probably been sufficient cause to send in the troops. ...actually, we don't need to speculate about the effectiveness of that method. We already went to war with Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. There was no need to involve an attack on the US in nefarious scheme...not only that, but once troops were sent into Iraq, you'd think that such conspiratorial people like the CIA and the Bush admin would have made things look good for themselves by planting something.....but nothing. Goose egg...zip, zero, nada......kind of lousy conspirators....just like the CIA giving the 60s gen LSD and turning them against the govt. Amazing fails by these masters of the universe!!!!!!!
I do agree with that, except that I wonder just how unified the CIA is. I mean if there are things going on that even the POTUS is not supposed to know about, that already implies some fragmentation of control.

Yes - I also expected them to 'find' something in Iraq.

Since we are all here because of our interest in ψ-subjexts, I do wonder if that is relevant to some of these questions. Remember that we both accept that the Syrian gas attacks were frame-ups!

David
 
I do agree with that, except that I wonder just how unified the CIA is. I mean if there are things going on that even the POTUS is not supposed to know about, that already implies some fragmentation of control.

Yes - I also expected them to 'find' something in Iraq.

Since we are all here because of our interest in ψ-subjexts, I do wonder if that is relevant to some of these questions. Remember that we both accept that the Syrian gas attacks were frame-ups!

David
Oh what the heck....I mean we're discussing marriage....so I guess it's ok...

Here's the problem with what you say for the conspiracy nuts -Either the "CIA" is unified or it isn't.

The conspiracy nuts want it both ways. They shift back and forth as needed to keep their crazy theories going and cognitive dissonance at bay.

If it's unified, then, of course they would have "found" evidence of WMD in Iraq (or, IMO, they would have planted it there instead of killing thousands of American citizens in America, etc). Anyone who could pull off 9/11 without a word leaking out or any responsibility for almost 18 years most certainly could get away with planting WMDs in Iraq, right?

If they aren't unified and some "rogue element" of stone cold psychopaths managed to pull off an elaborate plan that involved working with terrorists to destroy airplanes and iconic American structures and kill thousands of innocent civilians just so they could start a war (or whatever), then the NON-Rogue elements would have found and exposed the evidence. There'd be no cover-up possible as conspiracy theorists say there is. The non-rogues would be horrified beyond what they ever imagined their capacity for horror could be and they would get the rogues.

As an American, I can assure that we were all mad as Hell on 9/11 and for years afterward. Every member of the Armed Forces wanted to kick some ass. Young men were signing some up for the military so they could go kill the people that did 9/11. Every member of the IC wanted in on getting the perpetrators. If they discovered evidence that rogue elements of their own were involved, they would beaten those involved to death in public and then shot them repeatedly before hanging them. Period. Full stop.

The BS (= conspiracy theory) doesn't add up.

Just like it doesn't add up that CIA wanted to dose the country on LSD to turn them into zombies when everyone who has worked with LSD knows it doesn't make zombies and, in fact, didn't make govt controlled zombies out of the 60s generation.

The Syrian gas thing makes no sense on its face for equally obvious reasons. Why would Assad do the one thing that would cause the US to make trouble at the very point that the tide was turning and he had begun winning against the jihadists? Why would the Russians, who had a lot to lose if things got hot between the USA and Syria/Russia, allow Assad to do the one thing that the US and the world would condemn just when the tide is turning favorably?

Assad wouldn't. He's a smart guy. And he is in charge.

I also have sources. But they are not required to understand the situation.

I don't think psi has anything to do with it (but you never know). I think it has to do with understanding how the world works and having a high degree of ability to objectively and intelligently look at things, but not be so open minded that your brain falls out.

On top of that we had assholes like McCain (lots of veterans don't like him BTW) saying things that were obviously over the top and, thus, obviously a tell; like "Assad has killed 100,000 of his own people" (the number that had died at that time in the fighting) - his forces killed everyone who died? The "rebels" didn't kill anyone? I actually asked McCain about that (written correspondence). His reply was that is was Assad's fault because Assad should have stepped down. Well, we all saw videos of the "rebels" killing innocent Christians and Shia is disturblingly barbaric ways. Assad should let such people take over his country? McCain repeats his "message".

The problem with the ironically named 911 "truthers" is that not only do they not have any real evidence that stands up to multiple expert scrutiny, but their entire concept makes no sense from a motive standpoint. It assumes irrational chaotic psychopathic madness on the part of the conspirators. The motive doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Motive is always important when analyzing. You have to explain why someone or some group would do the thing. As I have said, if the motive was to start wars in the MENA, then, even from a psychopath's perspective, there were much simpler, less costly, more feasible, less risky means of doing that.

And I don't have to wildly speculate that what I offer as alternative means for starting the war could be. We already had a war with Iraq based on the invasion of Kuwait. After that, Iraq wasn't allowed to have WMD. WMD and some exposed plot to attack Israel or Saudi Arabia would have been sufficient. Since lots of people here think the VN started over the Gulf of Tonkin incident, then we could have added on an Iraqi torpedo boat attack on a US ship, etc, etc. How hard is that? Hell of a lot cleaner and easier than 9/11.

Bin Laden had already done plenty to justify going after him. Heck, photo shop him and Saddam having an evil doer lover fest. So much that could be done and it's all effective and all far short of 9/11.
 
Last edited:
The Syrian gas thing makes no sense on its face for equally obvious reasons. Why would Assad do the one thing that would cause the US to make trouble at the very point that the tide was turning and he had begun winning against the jihadists? Why would the Russians, who had a lot to lose if things got hot between the USA and Syria/Russia, allow Assad to do the one thing that the US and the world would condemn just when the tide is turning favorably?

Assad wouldn't. He's a smart guy. And he is in charge.
I certainly agree about that - and I wish the 'Left' would realise that simple fact.

David
 
I certainly agree about that - and I wish the 'Left' would realise that simple fact.

David
What is also ironic, for a site like this, is that the conspiracy theorists here are using exactly the same tactics as the materialist skeptics that try to destroy all proof of psi, etc.

"Well it could have been this or that" is not a valid argument. Just because you can imagine some alternative explanation doesn't make it a valid alternative hypothesis. Just because James Randi can do a magic trick that more or less ends up with similar results as a psi or other paranormal phenomenon doesn't mean the original paranormal phenomenon was a magic trick or hoax.

The Stargate program had some amazing results proving remote viewing and psi. One of the stellar experiments was criticized by pseudo skeptics because they found that there was a small hole a few inches above the floor, under a table, in the wall separating the subject from the experimenters. The hole was there because a cable had run through the wall at one time. It's diameter was like that of a dime.

"The subject could have discovered the small hole, crawled on the floor and looked through the hole into the other room to physically observe the test targets that he said he remotely viewed. He wasn't under observation the whole time!"

That sounds exactly to me like what these conspiracy theorists are doing."Well there are unanswered questions! What about blah blah blah" but these are minutia. And some of it isn't even honest or factually correct - just like anyone looking through the hole in the wall in the Stargate lab (assuming they even discovered it and looked through it) wouldn't be able to see the target cards. It's a red herring. Everything the conspiracy theorists bring up, as "concerns about the official narrative" that isn't flat out factually incorrect, are also red herrings of the same nature.

This is indicative of someone who has made up their mind based on some fundamental world view and psychological predisposition and who is trying to fit "evidence" to support that outlook, no matter how flimsy, trivial it may be - or even if they have to lie to preserve what they have decided is the truth.

Yes. Sometimes criminal conspiracies do happen in govt. Usually, they get caught. Which is probably why they don't happen nearly as often as conspiracy theorists think they do. They are self-regulating because there are too many people involved and people start talking, they slip up on some aspect of the op, etc. There are so many less risky means available of accomplishing the same objectives. In govt/politics there are so many people seeking power that want you out, that your enemies/competitors will keep you in check even if you're evil minded because they would use your bad acts against you.

You don't need to kill Kennedy to get him out of the way if you're an insider. Reveal some embarrassing things about him next year in the election. Set him up for failure or worse. You don't need to pull off a 9/11 to start wars. ...feh...that's all crazy talk.
 
Last edited:
Screw it, I'm going full chaotic conspiritard and sharing these for those that want to play along:
I doubt that my post and your one above will change anything and I very much doubt there will be more, I myself wouldn’t like to see this become another Zombie Tennis thread about 9/11. I hesitated posting because I think that a lot of people get turned off. I sort of understand why, but at the same time I am amazed that the American people allowed it to happen so peacefully. To me it’s the biggest evil con-job of all time, a psychological nightmare which is still ongoing. Derren Brown and Penn & Teller would be gob smacked at the audacity of it, if they only would allow themselves to see the truth. Maybe they do?

I’m not saying I know what happened that day, but we all have our pet theory, and for me, it has Israel’s fingerprints all over it. Somebody did it, of that there’s no denying!

I really admire Ron Unz and his site, (TheUnzReview)because he allows people to post controversial stuff that he himself sometimes disagrees with. He is one Jew that I’d like to buy a drink, toasting life in all its many joys as well as pains. We can’t alter people’s thinking because we don’t like hearing it, covering our ears and humming loudly will not work. The truth will not change because we don’t like it, the future I think can be altered, not the past.
 
Last edited:
What is also ironic, for a site like this, is that the conspiracy theorists here are using exactly the same tactics as the materialist skeptics that try to destroy all proof of psi, etc.

"Well it could have been this or that" is not a valid argument. Just because you can imagine some alternative explanation doesn't make it a valid alternative hypothesis. Just because James Randi can do a magic trick that more or less ends up with similar results as a psi or other paranormal phenomenon doesn't mean the original paranormal phenomenon was a magic trick or hoax.

The Stargate program had some amazing results proving remote viewing and psi. One of the stellar experiments was criticized by pseudo skeptics because they found that there was a small hole a few inches above the floor, under a table, in the wall separating the subject from the experimenters. The hole was there because a cable had run through the wall at one time. It's diameter was like that of a dime.

"The subject could have discovered the small hole, crawled on the floor and looked through the hole into the other room to physically observe the test targets that he said he remotely viewed. He wasn't under observation the whole time!"

That sounds exactly to me like what these conspiracy theorists are doing."Well there are unanswered questions! What about blah blah blah" but these are minutia. And some of it isn't even honest or factually correct - just like anyone looking through the hole in the wall in the Stargate lab (assuming they even discovered it and looked through it) wouldn't be able to see the target cards. It's a red herring. Everything the conspiracy theorists bring up, as "concerns about the official narrative" that isn't flat out factually incorrect, are also red herrings of the same nature.

This is indicative of someone who has made up their mind based on some fundamental world view and psychological predisposition and who is trying to fit "evidence" to support that outlook, no matter how flimsy, trivial it may be - or even if they have to lie to preserve what they have decided is the truth.

Yes. Sometimes criminal conspiracies do happen in govt. Usually, they get caught. Which is probably why they don't happen nearly as often as conspiracy theorists think they do. They are self-regulating because there are too many people involved and people start talking, they slip up on some aspect of the op, etc. There are so many less risky means available of accomplishing the same objectives. In govt/politics there are so many people seeking power that want you out, that your enemies/competitors will keep you in check even if you're evil minded because they would use your bad acts against you.

You don't need to kill Kennedy to get him out of the way if you're an insider. Reveal some embarrassing things about him next year in the election. Set him up for failure or worse. You don't need to pull off a 9/11 to start wars. ...feh...that's all crazy talk.
Again I pretty much agree with that, except that, as I was trying to point out before, that leaves the need for some other word (quasi-conspiracy?) to cover a related phenomenon.

A quasi-conspiracy is something where large numbers of people know the truth, but somehow act as if it were not true, and genuinely deceive many others:

1) The concept of CO2-induced climate change.

2) The fact that those gas attacks were not perpetrated by the Syrian state, and may not have been real at all.

3) Assorted other scientific supposed facts that people in the know realise are just for public consumption.

4) Even benign quasi-conspiracies, like Father Christmas!

David
 
Top