Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search


Last post 12-04-2007, 5:05 PM by Resurrected. 128 replies.
Page 9 of 9 (129 items)   « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  09-06-2007, 1:59 PM 28206 in reply to 28181


    Well said Monkmonk.  I think it is equally problematic to let "terror" propaganda  go unanswered when  it  is used  to justify a never-ending war (on terror).  As painful as it may be, I think more truth is better than more lies.  And I think at a certain point, if you are open and inquisitive, it no longer matters what ultimate conclusion you come to.  Having asked yourself the painful questions and venturing outside of your comfort zone is enough to open up a new perspective.  For me this is as much about confronting our individual illusions as our collective ones.  I suspect that a great many supporters of the neo-con agenda are indeed patriotic, thoughtful citizens who have their reasons for supporting the administration's current foreign policy.  In this light, the war on terror is a sham and a cover story.  This is not saying that there is not a real danger from terrorism.  I would like to hear the reasoned and nuanced discussion that I'm sure happens behind the doors of power.   Even if the official story  is  100%  true, the war on terror as waged thus far is morally bankrupt.

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  09-10-2007, 10:28 AM 28334 in reply to 28206


    Good collection of mainstream press report links:

    Just a small sampling of the many questions asked and unanswered by the fourth estate.
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  09-11-2007, 10:24 PM 28397 in reply to 28334


    A lot of people went on strike today, September 11, 2007. No work, no school, no shopping. We either stayed home or took to the streets in Washington, New York, L.A. and other cities. I have no way of knowing how many, the mainstream media won't report credible info, of course.

    Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, the "Nation's Mayor", stands among New York firefighters and victims families, hangs his head and makes a speech.

    This clip shows Giuliani telling ABC news that he was told the towers would collapse prior to the actual collapse. Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC,  also lets it slip that he was warned before WTC 7 "was going to be pulled."

    Rudy talks to Peter Jennings

    Another video version... listen to Giuliani's own words

    According to the official conspiracy theory, no one had any idea that the towers would fall. The firefighters ran straight into the buildings. Who told Giuliani that the towers were slated for demolition that day? Why didn't he warn firefighters?

    WeAreChange confronts Giuliani about his own statement.

    Watch that smile. This may be our next President. Hear him deny his earlier statement to Peter Jennings of ABC, then run away saying: "Nobody had any idea that the towers were going to implode."  
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-29-2007, 3:06 PM 30889 in reply to 28397


    NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

    For those who do not have a grasp of science maybe it will take the NIST statements to get you to see that those towers come down like that only in a demolition.  But in a  post-modern  forum who would really be interested in stuff like this. Maybe only after  martial law has been enacted will you get interested. And that will be too late. I love the posts on this forum. Very intelligent people. But very very naive about the power structures on the planet (integral and all, still very naive). Wake the fuck up. Will you accept RFID chips in your licenses. Yes? What will you do when this happens next spring. How's about WW III. Which can really get going any day now.  Or just wait for the collapse of the U.S economy.  The assumptions we have about our society (
    and trusts that go with it)are getting very far away from the current reality.

    Quote from garbageman, "
    And yes, in the formless eternal moment of consciousness, everything is OK.  But in this relative moment, are we really using skillful means when we remain on our meditation cushions while our house is on fire and our crops wither on the vine? "

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-30-2007, 2:17 PM 30945 in reply to 30889



    Even though I should know better by now... I'm gonna weigh in on this.  I can't help myself.  It's an issue that I hate to be interested in, but like many of you I find it too compelling to ignore.

    History is full of examples of people hoodwinking the public in order to further some secret agenda.  The two I'm most familiar with are Nazi Germany's Reichstag fire and King Leopold's imperialist forays into the Congo.  And now, we have 9/11, what many see as our own modern day Reichstag fire. 

    I have half a dozen friends that are absolutely convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, connected to the Bush financial empire, to the New World Order stuff, Bilderbergs, Rupert Murdoch, and on and on and on.  I've listened to Michael Moore, Alex Jones, David Icke, and lots of others whose names I can't remember.  I've read the articles, the opinions, the first-hand accounts, the explication of the money trails, pondered the implications of all the apparent connections between all the possibilities and on and on and fucking ON.  And it seems inescapable: it was an inside job.

    But it isn't inescapable.

    There is another side to the story.  For every accusation of cover-up, there is an explanation.  Just one example: the pentagon and the apparent lack of wreckage.  It is claimed that it couldn't have been a commercial airliner that hit the pentagon because the plane left no wreckage, and supposedly all the private surveillance tapes from businesses in the surrounding area were confiscated immediately after.  The first part is a gross misunderstanding, and the second is impossible to corroborate conclusively.  As for the missing wreckage, the plane penetrated into the 5th ring of the pentagon; it is a plane that runs on JET FUEL, meaning much or most of the wreckage probably burned up, and what didn't would not be visible from the outside because it would have been INSIDE the pentagon.  There is nothing unreasonable about that explanation--nothing. 

    My point is just this: either side of this argument is believable.  It reminds me of the whole Bush/Gore debate over the election in 2000.  The conspiracy theorists cry "electioneering" and claim that Bush stole the Presidency.  But, if you look closely enough at Florida's election laws (and several other states' election laws, for that matter), and each judge's decision along the way, up to and including the Supreme Court justices, it's plain to see that the election could have been legally and reasonably called for either candidate.  The problem is that the laws simply were not designed to handle the situation.  Both Bush and Gore abused ambiguities in the law during that election and its ensuing court cases.

    What I find truly irritating, not to mention arrogant, is the response I hear more often than not when I say that I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy theory: "You're a dupe," or "You better wake up, man," or my favorite, "Anyone who doesn't see this is just stupid.  It's obvious."  The truth is, I don't buy the conspiracy OR the official story.  I don't know what really happened, and, whether you recognize it or not, neither do you.  But I do lean more towards the official story than the conspiracy for the simple reason that it explains the most with the least complication.  Occam's razor, ya know. 

    In the larger picture, this is an issue that doesn't really matter.  If it isn't this issue, if it isn't this war, it's another, not because war is inevitable, but because people in general on this planet are of a mindset that creates conflict.  If by some chance we were to get Bush out of office tomorrow, and elect Ron Paul, and get everything out in the open, above board, and honest... it would just be a matter of time before someone else finds a way to pull off some shady shit and plunge us all right back into the same old game.  Remember the US Constitution?  A fine document, a great example of what can be achieved by enlightened minds with a will to succeed.  But it only takes a few generations for corruption to set in simply because the people most likely to abuse power are also the ones most likely to seek it.

    Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm crazy... hell, maybe the crazy people are right, I don't know.  But it seems to me that conspiracies are born more from our need to explain things, from our need to know and to be on the inside rather than the outside, than from objective observation.

    Sorry if I come across this time as an asshole.




    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  11-03-2007, 11:02 AM 31176 in reply to 30945

    • coolmel is not online. Last active: 05-16-2008, 4:37 PM coolmel
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-15-2006
    • The Emerald City
    • Posts 2
    • Points 240


    in case you haven't seen this yet, there's a good discussion about this topic on Julian Walker's blog at Zaadz.


    i agree with Julian's arguments. and Noam Chomsky's opinion makes perfect sense too.


    ~C4Chaos | ~C4無秩序 (coz coolmel sucks)
    Zaadz, Inc. | Changing the world one (hyper)link at a time...
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  11-16-2007, 8:02 PM 32004 in reply to 31176

    • wilberbuds is not online. Last active: 12-09-2007, 12:56 PM wilberbuds
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-11-2007
    • Posts 7
    • Points 95


    I don't understand how people can say that if 9/11 was an inside job it doesn't matter anyways. It matters enormously! It changes things from ordinary corruption to overt Orwellian corruption. False flag terror is a very serious issue and is on a higher order of importance compared to the usual corruption.

    As to why Chomsky denies the inside job theory, he's what's known as a 'gatekeeper of the left'. He speaks the truth about the small and medium importance issues, but denies the high importance ones. This makes him look to be anti-establishment and gains him credibility with activists, but he keeps them from learning the full truth and neuters their potential for bringing change.

    "Short of intentional war, inflation is the most immoral act political leaders can commit."
    -Ron Paul
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  12-04-2007, 1:35 PM 33055 in reply to 30945


    If it isn't this issue, if it isn't this war, it's another, not because war is inevitable, but because people in general on this planet are of a mindset that creates conflict. 

    Problem - Reaction - Solution

    So this is what really makes the world go 'round.

    Did you ever read Howard Bloom's book, "The Lucifer Principle"?

    He redefines the meaning of the mythic name, making a case for an evolutionary basis from which all life is either compelled to act or under which it is forced to surrender.  If such a claim is true, then maybe this planet really is cosmically situated in a place that will remain at the effect of such a principle until we evolve out of it, perhaps into something that transcends and includes this aggressively destructive condition.  

    Looking back over the history of our planet, there are times when we have made marked transitions into what, from a human perspective, can only be considered progressive.  It only seems that as the world becomes more complex, the opportunities to create or manipulate unnecessary problems by certain powerful forces become the very same forces that come on the scene to play the hero by offering "solutions" to the same problems that they created in the first place. 

    Whether of not 9/11 was an "inside job" perhaps will forever become one of those questions that remain the stuff from which directors like Oliver Stone will use as they attempt to create revisionary works of political art - works that will leave us forever wondering what the truth really is. 



    The yoga of light and sound is really only one event. It's the frequency of their vibrations that is different.

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  12-04-2007, 5:05 PM 33067 in reply to 32004


    Against my better judgment, I'm going to respond.

    I already explained how *I* can say it doesn't matter anyway; I can't comment on why "people" say it.  To reiterate: I think it's of little importance because a) if the Orwellian conspiracy theories are correct, we're all utterly FUCKED anyway, and the only thing I'll accomplish by preaching about it is to flag myself as a problem and to render myself completely unbelievable in the mainstream, and, more importantly, b) the truth or falsity of it has no bearing on my own personal goals in this life: in other words, if Bush and Co., under whatever name--Illuminati, Bilderbergs, CFR, whatever--want to run the world, suck up all the oil and get rich, sacrifice massive segments of the population to make us all more manageable, sell us to the aliens as food or fuel in exchange for their own lives, sells us all into some kind of interplanetary slavery, or simply dominate us all utterly (the most mundane of conspiracies), I'll continue to meditate, to seek greater refinement spiritually and as a human being, and to speak my mind until the day "They" send some grunt to put a bullet in my head.  Put another way, even if what I experience every day as reality is nothing more than a smoke screen covering up a conspiracy, nothing changes.  My experience of it is the same (except, perhaps, a little less paranoia).

    This whole argument (and conspiracy theories in general) reminds me of the "Brains in vats" debate I had to endure in metaphysics class: it's something that cannot be proved conclusively, and for every piece of evidence given on either side, an answer can be found to explain it away for the other side.  So, Chomsky is a 'gatekeeper of the left.'  Do you have any evidence to support that?  It could just be that you happen to agree with him on what you call the "small and medium importance isses," but disagree on the "high importance ones."  But it's much easier to say he's a fraud than it is to accept the possibility that he's genuine, that he's just a flesh-and-bones person like you operating within a limited human perspective and arriving at the best conclusions he can, and that you and he simply disagree.

    Grrrrgle, grumble, pfft....


    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
Page 9 of 9 (129 items)   « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help