Nunc Fluens "moving present" - Discuss the events of our time that are shaping the world around usen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60217.2664)Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 05 Dec 2007 01:05:35 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:33067Resurrected0

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....


Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 04 Dec 2007 21:35:52 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:33055jondavi0

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. 



Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 17 Nov 2007 04:02:49 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:32004wilberbuds0 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.
Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 03 Nov 2007 18:02:24 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:31176coolmel0 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.

Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 30 Oct 2007 21:17:58 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:30945Resurrected0


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.




Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 29 Oct 2007 22:06:04 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:30889innerline0 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? "

Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 12 Sep 2007 05:24:03 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:28397Mascha0
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."  
Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 10 Sep 2007 17:28:26 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:28334garbageman0 collection of mainstream press report links:

Just a small sampling of the many questions asked and unanswered by the fourth estate.
Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 06 Sep 2007 20:59:02 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:28206garbageman0 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.

Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 06 Sep 2007 05:24:25 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:28181monkmonk0

I probably sold Garrison and Belitsos a touch short, so sorry about that.

We all have a helluva lot at stake in these worldviews, don't we? I don't think I realized what a serious business it was in the beginning of the thread. Why do I want to believe in the official story? There's a very, very strong motivation to because not to believe it would literally shake the foundations on which my self is built. And the same seems to be true of the people who don't believe in the official story. So it's really asking a lot for anyone to change that.

Really, so much would have to change for me if the official story weren't true, and I gather that's the same for people who don't believe in it. So there are certain views that should be respected. At the same time I'm not completely comfortable with letting the 9/11 truth movement go answered. There are people who are susceptible to believing in conspracies, prone to suspicion, etc., and I don't think it would be good for them to hear the conspiracy theories or at least to hear them unanswered or unopposed.


Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 06 Sep 2007 00:11:48 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:28162garbageman0,

I don't think there's much proof that the hijackers were fundamentalists at all.  They simply do not fit the profile of suicide bombers, and seemed to be a lot cozier with state "intelligence" agents then any radical imams, etc.   So perhaps they were having a  "last hurrah", but  you are willing to overlook  these  reports based on  your  assumption that  they were indeed radical muslims willing to commit suicide in an act of jihad.  Everything I've come across about the motivations of suicide bombers suggests that intense prayer, isolation, and obedience to a "handler" are the main activities in the days before an act. 

But you then go on to label someone "Green".  Why no "drift" in this case.  I don't pretend to know a great deal about his work, but based on a quick Google search, I don't know how you come to those conclusions about him.  I don't know too many libertarians arguing for world government, which appears to be the major theme of a great deal of his work.  And if a founding member of I-I is not at least Integrally informed, that really doesn't say much for the institution.  I see no evidence of his being anti- Amber and Orange.  He is talking about pathology, and it is unfair to suggest this indicates a bias against a value structure that can be both good and bad in different contexts. 

On another note, it also seems that many in the "9/11 Truth" movement question his motives because of his worldcentric views.  Many who believe conspiracy theories are very much at the blue and red value levels.  That does not mean that there are not many people at higher levels, and indeed at 2nd tier that want these questions answered.  I don't think he's arguing for a revolution, he's envisioning what may become an evolutionary imperative if or when the system collapses due to its untenability. 

You are right about the "gabbering away forever".  But same goes for all those debunkers out there, churning it out at a feverish pace.  I could offer literally hundreds of sites offering rebuttals of every assertion made by supporters of the official story as well (not that I endorse them).  How can we transcend and include the limited perspectives of both sides of the debate?  I for one want a new investigation.  This issue is not going away and is much much bigger than we know here in the states and according to our media. 

So I'm wondering where you're going from here?  Have you reached your conclusion and are now satisfied with the evidence for the official story?  Do you have unanswered questions?  What advice would you offer the millions of people out there who question?

And lastly, can you think of any reasons why you might want to believe in the "official" theories other than the evidence at hand?
Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 05 Sep 2007 08:29:08 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:28138monkmonk0

I think it's about time to wrap this up, gm. I haven't seen any openness on the part of conspiracy-theorist believers to inquire into their beliefs. I've pointed out some shortcomings on the part of the conspiracy theories, received a good bit of malice in return (not from you, gm). Okay, a few more points, but I think this will be about the last.

gm said: "We are told that the hijackers were red/blue fundamentalists who "hated our freedom".  From what I can tell, they couldn't get enough of our freedom. . . . lap dances . . . Pink Pony . . . strip club . . . hard alchohol . . . busty brunette . . . lap dance . . . porn shop . . . porn video."

First of all, everyone has a lot of "drift." If we say someone is Green, we are saying something like 60% of their responses are green, 10% Orange, 10% Teal, !0% Red, etc. It's all spread out. Third-tier gurus have been brought down to Red momentarily because of their sex or money drives. It's not even slightly incongruous that a bunch of 19 and 20 year old Red/Amber types would go out and live it up before their suicide.

I think there's a lot of truth in the Belitsos article--there's a lot of unfairness in the system today, but he and Garrison are anything but integral. It's a bunch of anti Orange, anti Amber stuff--some truth also, sure, but it's not integral. He sees Orange and Amber as the enemy, as so many do. They (Orange and Amber) should be knocked out of power, sure, but listen to Belitsos: "Little do they realize that the search for profit is an ever-increasing, ever-centralizing centrifugal force hurling together accretions of money and political power that can only be called diabolical."


Diabolical--really, only Green could say that of Orange. I agree, the system is rather horrid right now for a lot of reasons, but diabolical. And then there's this: "Activists take note: When the epic bubble bursts, there could come a time of chaos, or civil war. It is bad enough that our system is nonreformable through electoral politics; but soon, you and I as change agents may even have difficulty in actually locating something called a "government" that is subject to change."

 So is he an anarchist? A libertarian?  "The system is nonreformable through electoral politics"--so he's calling for an overthrow of the whole thing. We'll tear it all down and start from the beginning? Just how much of the system is nonreformable?

"Post-modern greed is an electronic Frankenstein that no one person can contain or control, perhaps save of the Federal Reserve Board in its private chambers. Far, far away lies the utopia of a democratic world government based on the realization that the local is the true basis of global sovereignty of the people."

Ah, "the local." I think that's a clue he's a libertarian.This isn't a step forward but ten steps back. Like it or not, we have the system we have; it has brought lots of wealth where there wasn't any; we need to do the hard and unglamorous work to reform it, not dream away about tearing the whole thing down. I agree with the Frankenstein greed part, but before this system was in place virtually noone had wealth, see? If capitalism made 50% of the people wealthy whereas only 3% were wealthy 200 years ago, that's a big step foreward. Now we just have to get the other 50% up, not tear down the whole thing so there's no wealth at all. And really, if we replace everyone in the diabolical system with integral or superintegral types, it's a completely different story, so it's not really the system that's entirely at fault.


That the neocons were looking for an excuse to attack Iraq doesn't mean they bombed the WTC. They were opportunists, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. Conspiracy theorists dwell on the buildings for one reason: they have nothing else. So they love the molten metal story because all the evidence has been taken away. They can gabber away about it forever. Like it or not, none of their "evidence" holds any water at all.

"The first time ever buildings fell down in this way"--that's not evidence that the neocons or anyone else planted bombs in them.

 "There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires." From this site.


That's it,


Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 04 Sep 2007 20:43:27 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:28117garbageman0

I personally don't see anything convincing about the almost exclusively one-quadrant conspiracy theories.

Good!  Be skeptical and don't stop seeking the truth.  I needn't point out again (but I will), that the "official" conspiracy theory is hardly convincing, as I presume you agree by your participation here.  I'm not sure what you're getting at by "exclusively one-quadrant" theories.  The very notion of "proof" falls apart if there is not an objective right-hand quadrant(s) explanation that fits the verifiable evidence.  And simply adding color swatches (he's an autumn, he looks great in earth tones)  does not make for "Integral" analysis.  I tend to want to focus on the building collapses because I think it is the quickest and most direct route to getting people interested in thinking for themselves and wanting to confront their beliefs, beliefs that are rooted in group-think, not on rational consideration.  But let's look at the official story from the UL perspective.  What sort of worldview would be capable and motivated to carry out the attacks.  We are told that the hijackers were red/blue fundamentalists who "hated our freedom".  From what I can tell, they couldn't get enough of our freedom:

On September 10, three hijacker associates spend $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks in the Pink Pony, a Daytona Beach, Florida strip club. While the hijackers had left Florida by this time, Mohamed Atta is reported to have visited the same strip club, and these men appear to have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta are seen entering the Hollywood, Florida, sports bar Shuckums already drunk. They proceed to drink even more hard alcohol there.

Atta and Alshehhi are seen at Sunrise 251, a bar in Palm Beach, Florida. They spend $1,000 in 45 minutes on Krug and Perrier-Jouet champagne. Atta is with a tall busty brunette in her late twenties; Alshehhi is with a shortish blonde. Both women are known locally as regular companions of high-rollers. [Daily Mail, 9/16/2001]

A stripper at the Olympic Garden Topless Cabaret in Las Vegas, Nevada, recalls Marwan Alshehhi being “cheap,” paying only $20 for a lap dance. [Cox News Service, 10/16/2001]

Several hijackers reportedly patronize the Nardone’s Go-Go Bar in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They are even seen there on the weekend before 9/11. [Boston Herald, 10/10/2001; Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2001]

Majed Moqed visits a porn shop on three occasions, and rents a porn video. The mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, says of the six hijackers who stayed there: “Nobody ever saw them at mosques, but they liked the go-go clubs.” [Newsday, 9/23/2001; Newsweek, 10/15/2001]

Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar often frequented Cheetah’s, a nude bar in San Diego. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002]

Hamza Alghamdi watched a porn video on September 10. [Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2001]”

Full article here:

On the other hand, given the aspirations of many neo-con insiders, as stated in their own words (i.e. PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, et al.), and given the results, I for one don't believe that it is far-fetched to entertain the idea that 9/11 was the product of a pathological Orange worldview.  Now, I'm not pretending to offer an AQAL "conspiracy theory".  I want to continue to point out, that any way you slice it, we still don't know what the heck happened, and I for one want to know. 

The article you cite about WTC 7 seems intentionally vague and unsubstantiated, including the terms used.  I posted the photo of the OKC building to show that structural damage does not equal global free-fall collapse even in extreme cases.  I have previously posted the same regarding uncontrolled, multi-story raging fires in high-rise steel buildings.  Put the two together, and there is still no historical evidence of another example of fire and structural damage producing this type of collapse.  Ever. 


Can you think of any reasons why you might want to believe in the conspiracy theories other than the evidence at hand?


1) Father too distant, wore tinfoil hat
2) Too much mercury in my dental work
3) History of alien abduction

No, seriously, my motives are to uncover truth, about the world and my place in it.  Once one questions the official story, how can it be otherwise?  Here is an article written by I-I's own Byron Belitsos, a Founding Associate of Institute of Integral Business that gets at what I'm feeling now:

These are times of epic change, when ordinary people become reluctant participants; when personal lives get overrun by the consequences of corruption, war, resource depletion, pollution, and economic depression. At the ripest point in this process, the divide between "the good guys" and "the evil enemy" dissolves, the projections are owned, and the shared nature of the human condition is itself nakedly revealed in all of its existential mystery. In this rare moment, deep politics is all at once deep psychology and deep spirituality. . .

This Big Lie in our time is, of course, the cover-up of the truth about 9/11—the mother issue of the current phase of deep politics. A prodigious amount of evidence demonstrates that the official story is an obvious farce, ... yet the official consensus about 9/11 still provides the spin and the cover story needed to launch two imperial wars, plus the rest of the now-familiar list of Bush administration maladies. . .

A surprisingly diverse set of groups reach wide agreement on the outlines of the crisis. The underlying moral and spiritual crisis becomes strikingly obvious to segments of society not usually found to be in agreement. A new coalition between left, center, and right becomes possible on constitutional, moral, and spiritual grounds. For example, over one hundred prominent Americans including presidential candidates from the left and the right—John Cobb (Green) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)—plus respected rabbis and imams, historians and theologians, military officials and diplomats, as well as celebrated leaders from the environmental, alternative economics and peace and justice communities, have called for an entirely new investigation of 9/11 based on severe doubts about the official story.9

Reaching the tipping point turns deep politics into a conundrum of deep spirituality. When the perceived evils of a debased society become personalized and highly focalized in certain leaders or leadership groups, the crisis takes on an explicit spiritual dimension. One cannot hold an abstraction accountable; a mere concept cannot motivate transformative politics. It must all come down to the domain of the nakedly personal: the Hitler, the Marcos, the Stalin, the Mao, the Dick Cheney—the one who personifies what must be faced by all.

For in the final analysis, justifiable finger-pointing at the "shadow" of other persons, especially if these are our highest leaders, eventually points us back to our own shadow projection. Our leaders are our ultimate mirror. This may vary with the depth of the crisis, but our finger of blame pointing outward to those we must hold accountable before the law, must sometime point all the more inwardly to us, and eventually to the tragedy of the untapped moral and spiritual potential of all the actors in the unfolding drama. And therein lies the foundation for the birth of a new "post-ironic" politics from the ravages of deep politics. The spiritual self innately demands justice and truth, yet possesses a deep capacity for forgiveness. Signs of the recovery of spiritual sincerity will mark the concluding phase of the era of deep politics. Those days will be happier, simpler times, when the surface and depth dimensions may once again become congruent.

Not sure what relationship, if any he maintains with I-I, but he and Jim Garrison spoke at a 9/11 Truth conference back in 2004.  I do not necessarily agree with all of his views, but found it interesting that he appears to be a fairly important player in both the 9/11 truth movement and Integral.  Hope you will check out the whole article:

Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 01 Sep 2007 21:54:07 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:27983monkmonk0

Hello, garbageman. I personally don't see anything convincing about the almost exclusively one-quadrant conspiracy theories. There are some things that are unexplained in the whole thing, but even in controlled experiments there are many unknowns, let alone a chaotic event like this one. Noam Chomsky, that great Green relativist, that great foe of Amber and Orange, talks about this quite eloquently in this video. He believes that the invasion of Afghanistan was just as much of a terrorist attack as 9/11, cannot draw any moral distinction between the two, so he's anything but a conspirator.

As for the question about WTC 7:

"One of the building’s major bridging supports was heated to exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of diesel fuel, pumped from the sub-basement by the back-up system and spraying through a torn pipe into the fire next to two of the three major structural trusses. The types of steel in the WTC (plain carbon and vanadium) lose half their strength when heated to about 570C , and even more as temperatures rise, as they did in WTC 1 and 2, to 1,100C. Physicist Manuel Garcia Jr calculates that the fuel spraying at 75 gallons a minute in Building 7 released energy equivalent to an explosion of 367 tons of TNT." From this article.

The federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed from the outside by the Red/Amber McVeigh; there was no fire from the inside as in WTC 7. That said, even NIST hasn't yet offered an explanation for WTC 7 (would they have taken so many years if all they wanted to do was cover-up?), so it's a difficult one to understand.

Can you think of any reasons why you might want to believe in the conspiracy theories other than the evidence at hand?


Re: 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 31 Aug 2007 18:33:02 GMTee28e699-b6ce-41f9-9b68-f4b3d2b14a5b:27922garbageman0
I want to add that I took all the conspiracy theories very seriously. There were a lot of interesting, compelling points that made me pause and second guess the official story. So I looked into it. I spent a lot of time looking into it, as carefully as I could. But in the end I chose to side with the other group of experts. I could explain more why I made that decision if you like. One of the good articles I read was this one that was published by the far-left, French Le Monde diplomatique, though it was written by a British man, Alex Cockburn, who quotes an engineer named Pierre Sprey. He also discusses the ideas of an engineer named Herman Soifer.

Hi Monkmonk,

I've been moving the last couple of weeks and haven't been visiting the forum lately, but glad to see this thread continues.  Seeing that you are willing to engage and question, I sincerely hope that you will not consider your personal investigation a closed case.  As I've said before, I've struggled with this for over two years now and have read and watched as much as I've been able to get my hands on.  This process has lead me to discard a great deal of peripheral argument from both sides of the debate.  I do not feel we have enough facts to make positive assertions about the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes, other than that there is strong evidence of deliberate cover-up (no NTSB investigation, confiscation and secrecy regarding physical evidence, ever-changing and revised timelines, conflicting sworn testimony, etc.)  However, in the case of WTC 1, 2, and 7, I still find very little that convinces me of the official story.  The article cited above is typical of the kind of debunking that passes for "expert" analysis.  This article is sophmoric at best, or intentionally misleading at worst, in its attempts to describe the collapse.  It completely omits the 47 core columns and describes the towers as "tubes". 

If the floor trusses described in the article were so weak or damaged that they could not support the weight above, how then are they strong enough to pull down 47 steel colums with a thick grid of interlocking cross-supports?  If this progressive pancake collapse had actually happened, why no vertical columns remaining?  How did it happen at near free-fall speed?  The only additional mass added to the towers were a plane full of passengers, fuel and cargo.  The towers were designed to withstand multiple jet impacts.  As the collapses begin, all of thick debris clouds contained more and more mass being shed.  Where did the energy come from to make the core columns disappear? 

As for the WTC7 collapse, you've posted previously collapse theories that show a failure in the southwest corner of the building which started a chain reaction, leading to a simultaneous global collapse.  We are lead to believe that the structural steel columns were no more stable than a house of cards.  How do you explain the free-fall, straight down collapse in this way without suspending common sense?  Just one example is the the OK City FBI building:

Why no global, free-fall, straight-down collapse?