Here on this board we talk a lot about good and evil, and consequences (or choices?) in the Afterlife.

What are everyone's thoughts on what has become of Bin Ladin's spirit/consciousness?

Would anyone try to retrieve him if he needed retrieval?

It could be partly a matter of whether or not he wants to be retrieved. If he doesn't want to become honest about how he lived his life and move on towards a love-based way of being, a retrievel attempt might not work.

Did you read about when Robert Monroe tried to retrieve a guy from a sex pile, and the guy just didn't want to leave it?

You can't help someone if he or she doesn't want to be helped. This includes people in this world.

If he's being serviced by 72 virgins, I doubt he'd want to be retrieved.

R

Rondelle:

I figure you're joking, but I doubt that people who expect to be rewarded with 72 virgins experience as they believe. Rather, their dark state of being will probably cause them to be attracted to a realm with a similar vibration.

If Bin Laden was a megalomaniac who expected to be treated in a special way, he would probably end up in a realm that is quite contrary to love. This would be so even if he imagined himself to be surrounded by people who treat him as if he is special (in a narcisistic sense). Love and wanting to be put on a pedestal don't go together. Love = equality.


rondele wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:14pm:

If he's being serviced by 72 virgins, I doubt he'd want to be retrieved. R

I don't think the point of 'retrievals' is to judge the beings who are ascending to a higher or different level. If they can make it to a level where they are happier I suppose it is their own business. I would assist any being who appeared before me. At least, I like to believe I would, because it doesn't really matter to me, personally, where they come from in an 'official' sense. There is a huge afterlife 'out there' or wherever it appears to be. Room for everyone, my take on it.

B2:

If you're suggesting I was being judgmental that wasn't my intent. I simply stated how things might work out. Such possibilities don't cease to exist because of the intent of non-judgmental retrievers. I'd be willing to help anyone, but if someone doesn't want to be helped, what can you? If you get too pushy, somebody might claim that you aren't respecting the free will of others.



wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:14pm:

I don't think the point of 'retrievals' is to judge the beings who are ascending to a higher or different level. If they can make it to a level where they are happier I suppose it is their own business. I would assist any being who appeared before me. At least, I like to believe I would, because it doesn't really matter to me, personally, where they come from in an 'official' sense. There is a huge afterlife 'out there' or wherever it appears to be. Room for everyone, my take on it.

I agree with Recoverer . In Bruce Moen's fourth book we find that a hard case who was cocooned with Love energy by the Fire of hells(Angels) refused to stay in that state due to his attraction towards the hell energetics  and went back to some focus 25 hell by breaking the cocoon of Love  and that  made those Helpers extremely disappointed. So It demonstrates again that free will choice is obviously the last thing.

But the way these loving and caring Light Beings /Angels/Helpers try to influence those hard cases , the extent they go because of Love and the way this whole art of retrieval is progressing and evolving with time , I believe we should not totally give up hope for anybody ( even he/she is the most difficult hard case). As mentioned in Bruce's fourth book , those Big Love Shots Helpers extend towards the hard cases inspired by the Graduates may cause some wonders. Who knows? again I feel this is another case of half glass full or empty.

But as I believe in PUL , I want to remain optimistic. I know very well that may be all the hard cases will not be retrieved. But I hope that may be the magic of Love will influence some of them and may be one day they will realize what Love is and start their journey towards a Love based life.

------- Khaled

No, not suggesting that you in particular might be judgemental. The question, to me, seemed to imply that this man could be, well, anywhere.

I don't believe that 'time' operates the same way after death. Just as one can believe one is in 'many places' while supposedly resting on solid ground here, I think it is even more so after death.


recoverer wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:28pm:

B2: If you're suggesting I was being judgmental that wasn't my intent. I simply stated how things might work out. Such possibilities don't cease to exist because of the intent of non-judgmental retrievers. I'd be willing to help anyone, but if someone doesn't want to be helped, what can you? If you get too pushy, somebody might claim that you aren't respecting the free will of others. wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 2:14pm: I don't think the point of 'retrievals' is to judge the beings who are ascending to a higher or different level. If they can make it to a level where they are happier I suppose it is their own business. I would assist any being who appeared before me. At least, I like to believe I would, because it doesn't really matter to me, personally, where they come from in an 'official' sense. There is a huge afterlife 'out there' or wherever it appears to be. Room for everyone, my take on it.

In one of Bruce's books, he talks about Max's Hell.

This was a place where Max, a thief while alive, could learn how pointless his life of crime was. 

The point is, there are many such places in the afterlife for this kind of purpose.

So.....why would we want to retrieve someone like UBL?  Wouldn't that thwart the higher purpose of what the afterlife has in store for those who need such lessons?

Another point- isn't the purpose of retrieving to offer ourselves up for this activity, and then letting Helpers guide us to those who need it the most?  Is it really up to us to decide who we should retrieve?

R

Exactly, do we really get a choice who to help, or just, possibly, to place ourselves in an agreeable position of helpfulness?

As regards the 'usefulness' of various kinds of 'hell', I don't really 'get it'. To me, it is just too parental, and I can just hear someone saying, "this hurts me just as much as it's gonna hurt you".

I think anyone who gets off this planet 'alive' in any way has done pretty good. I wouldn't say this planet is such a great place to 'learn' things. Most things just don't make a lot of sense to me...not this time around, I guess.



rondele wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 3:04pm:

In one of Bruce's books, he talks about Max's Hell. This was a place where Max, a thief while alive, could learn how pointless his life of crime was.  The point is, there are many such places in the afterlife for this kind of purpose. So.....why would we want to retrieve someone like UBL?  Wouldn't that thwart the higher purpose of what the afterlife has in store for those who need such lessons? Another point- isn't the purpose of retrieving to offer ourselves up for this activity, and then letting Helpers guide us to those who need it the most?  Is it really up to us to decide who we should retrieve? R

I don't believe it would be a matter of somebody like Max being in a hell for the sake of punishment. Rather, it is a matter of allowing Max to have the chance to learn what approaches lead to fullfillment and which don't. Until he becomes inwardly tired of a false approach he probably won't change.

Ron,

"If he's being serviced by 72 virgins, I doubt he'd want to be retrieved."

The world seems to evolve around the body so he could very well be drinking pinacoladens while falling in love with one of the sweet virgins. It's not the grandest of loves, and maybe his punishment is that he blows it by commenting on how her tiny feet fits perfectly next to the astral kitchen. Alas, a life lived in solitude contemplating what the ladle smack was all about, while bob marley echoes life eternal.

http://tiny.cc/5klyo

Love has a unique way of opening one's perception beyond all normal limits. Love does not act against anyone's free will . Love just tend to influence and never tries to impose or dictate . That's why I believe it is possible to send Love to anybody ( even he/she is the most difficult hard case ). The example in Bruce Moen's fourth book which states that hard cases can break the cocoon of Love energy put by Angels and get back to hells in a flash demonstrate that Love never imposes or never dictates or never acts against free will choice.

So even if retrieval is not possible , we can send Love as we do so in cases of suicides.

As Love is non- judgemental , Love can be sent to anyone .

I hope that I am ready to send Love to anyone but definitely I am not certain about the result or what will really happen. 

---------  Khaled    

Khaled:

I believe love is what all of us basically want, so if you can find a way to get a stuck soul to open to love it might help.

When it comes to the unfriendly beings I've interacted with, I've found that sending them love prevents them from troubling you. I received a message stating that some of the unfriendly beings I sent love to ended up changing their ways for the better.

Also, my energetic system has been developed so I can help cleanse stuck spirits. Once they are cleansed of some of their negative thought patterns, they are more able to open up to love.

Do you remember the part in Voyage to Curiosity's father where Bruce wrote about Sylvia being cleansed? When I read that part two flashes of gold light, one after the other, flased over the words. I believe these flashes affirmed the point the such cleansing can be provided. It relates to what Justin wrote on the "how much retrievel" thread.

When it comes to spirits who are so caught up in their negative way of thinking that they can't open up to love even when you try to send it to them, I've had experiences which showed that in some cases enough negative energy can be cleansed away so they can open up to love. I figure that when they open up to love they probably remember what they're really looking for. I am not able to say in how many cases this happens, but I've seen it happen numerous times. It would be more accurate to say that I experienced it, because I experience the cleansing energy that is used along with some of the negative thought patterns and energy that are cleansed.

72 virgins... That's hell already isn't it? At the very least awkward and most likely somewhat disappointing.(for everyone)
What concerns me is the apparent relishing of his demise. I find it a little sickening myself. When I see the pictures on CNN it looks like a scene from down town Tripoli or some place, not America.

Recoverer ,

Thanks a lot for your insights.

--------  Khaled

I agree Hawkeye. Regardless of what Bin Laden did, I believe it is sad that people want to celebrate. Even though he's gone down the wrong track recently, he is still a part of the oneness, and the welfare of his soul matters just as the welfare of any soul matters.




hawkeye wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 5:24pm:

72 virgins... That's hell already isn't it? At the very least awkward and most likely somewhat disappointing.(for everyone) What concerns me is the apparent relishing of his demise. I find it a little sickening myself. When I see the pictures on CNN it looks like a scene from down town Tripoli or some place, not America.

You're welcome.



khaled wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:02pm:

Recoverer , Thanks a lot for your insights. --------  Khaled

I agree with Recoverer and Hawkeye and it feels wrong to celebrate a death, let alone a murder.

I noted this today on the Huffington Post, titled

"Osama Bin Ladin:  May he Rest in Peace."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spritzer/osama-bin-laden-may-he-re_b_856728.html

That is the attitude I will work to have.

I am sure not saying I condone his actions. He supported the attacks on the WTC, along with the financial support of killing others not in agreement with his own personal spiritual beliefs. To me that's wrong. He sort of fits there right beside Hitler, and the bus seat they are sitting on is getting crowded. Now it has been announced that he was shot while unarmed. Trophy killing perhaps. If that's the case, I wonder if his killer will have a seat at that bus stop to their own personal hell also? 

Hi
Hawkeye said "I wonder if his killer will have a seat
at that bus stop to their own personal hell also?"

I'm thinking that those guys on that raid are of a mindset that emphasises what they do is for 'a greater good,' for their countrymen or even to make a better world. I've never shot anything or anyone so I don't know, but aren't they immune from any guilt or belief that ending bin Laden was wrong?

Bets

A sympathizing female blocks the soldier's view of UBL and lurches towards him.  There has been a long firefight. The soldier might naturally view this as UBL's human shield.  The soldier can't be expected to wait and find out if she or UBL has a grenade hidden in their hand.  The situation called for instantaneous reaction.  UBL did not raise his hands in surrender.  So the shooting was courageous and justified, if regrettable, and deserves the acclaim it has received. 

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/227707_222251974457493_100000180763377_1004352_6829712_s.jpg ;D

I don't believe the shooting deserves acclaim.  It is hard for me to imagine a situation where one can feel proud about killing another.  If the Sailor who did the shooting feels proud about doing so, this just shows that his soul is in need of spiritual growth just as Bin Laden's soul is in need of spiritual growth.  Hopefully a day will come when Jesus' prodigal son story will apply to both.



Berserk2 wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 10:27pm:

A sympathizing female blocks the soldier's view of UBL and lurches towards him.  There has been a long firefight. The soldier might naturally view this as UBL's human shield.  The soldier can't be expected to wait and find out if she or UBL has a grenade hidden in their hand.  The situation called for instantaneous reaction.  UBL did not raise his hands in surrender.  So the shooting was courageous and justified, if regrettable, and deserves the acclaim it has received.

The soldiers did the job they were trained to do. They did a very good job. Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths at the World Trade Center tragedy. He also continued to threaten the United States of America. God bless those soldiers and God bless America!!!!!

yes, but.....

to whose disc does he belong? Bob Monroe commented that he had many lives here, maybe he comes from Bob Monroe's disc. or mine. or yours.

Skyrider wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 11:53pm:

Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths at the World Trade Center tragedy.

Many things point in the direction that the WTC attack was planned & orchestrated by the White House.

I also wonder why so few mentions that the soldiers gunned down and killed bin Ladens innocent children?

PauliEffectt wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 2:58am:

Skyrider wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 11:53pm: Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths at the World Trade Center tragedy. Many things point in the direction that the WTC attack was planned & orchestrated by the White House. I also wonder why so few mentions that the soldiers gunned down and killed bin Ladens innocent children?

PE,
Your statements are not accurate. When commenting on an emotionally charged topic like this, I think we should stick to facts. With all due respect.

I don't know who's responsible for the towers collapsing. Since the fires took place "only" at the upper levels, I don't see how they could've ruined the framework at the "many" lower levels.

It is hard to imagine that the weight from the upper levels caused the lower levels to collapse so quickly, when the weight from the upper levels didn't cause the lower levels to collapse before.  It isn't as if the upper levels suddenly got significantly heavier, even if they had the added weight of an airplane.

Even if the fire on the upper levels caused some of the supportive framework to be bent in a way so there was no longer sufficient support, were the buildings constructed in a way where upper framework damage caused lower framework integrity to be loss?

There is also the question of what caused the third building to collapse since no airplane crashed into it.

Regardless of whether or not Bin Laden is responsible for the towers, I believe he is responsible for some negative acts. Nevertheless,  I see him as a brother who has gone astray, and if one truly loves all of ones brothers and sisters, how could one ever give up on any of them? It is sad when they go astray and are killed, it isn't a time for celebrating. Is it heroic to judge another to an extent where you think it is okay to kill he or she?

Bardo,
"Your statements are not accurate. When commenting on an emotionally charged topic like this, I think we should stick to facts. With all due respect."

With all due respect, as I'm part of the we addressed, what you think we should do is irrelevant, facts or fantasy aside.


For the topic,
Monroe described the predatory earth life system pretty well. Modus operandi of ELS is to present same old as change, and facts only if it serves the system to sustain itself and the continuity of it. The famous terrorist leader has served as a scarecrow for the crows of liberty, not only in amerika.

Amerika as a country has much blood on her hands due to her wish for freedom - to impose her will on her own citizens and other countries. Native.. americans.. knew and know about amerikan freedom. The end of slavery took a very long time, and wasn't the reason, but rather the thrust was to subvert the american constitution by not allowing the southern states to exit the union. Last resort, free the slaves. The confederate flag - so what if the klan uses it, they also use bibles.

Freedom of religion is a major amerikan illusion. Christian dominace with limited tolerance for jews and next to nothing for others. Wiccans, buddhists or others opening sessions of congress? Free to believe in what you like - try anything other than what the christians like and the lack of freedom is apparent.

9/11 - despite warnings handed over to the amerikan government, terrorists were allowed to carry out their plan. The chin was turned as the face of government was looking the other way, whistling the old tune of some years before. It turned out to be a global event of fear being used as a tool to instill fear, and make citizens of countries around the world readily want to give up rights in order to feel safe. 'Terrorist' can be a button pushed to invoke fear about something, even though real terrorists of course exist.

Amerika is formed on the basis terrorism. Boston tea party sounds like a nice party though. Tea is good. And these acts are now taught as good. When the american government organized, the same terrorist tactics previously used were made illegal.

Freedom of speech in amerika is a whopper. (I think) we should, we must, we cannot, we shouldn't. The list of what you can't say is growing in the land of the free, yet the illusion of that freedom seems to be cherished. Having an illusion about something means same old carry on. Maintain the illusion and same old saves the day.

The amerikan illusion of homeownership is a cute one. If you really owned your home you wouldn't pay property taxes nor have it randomly condemned. If you owned your home you'd be presented with a list of prices for services like fire & trash, IF you wanted to be a part of that. Own a house, but rent the property.

By the victor, the history is written with their political slant and bias. Why wail for the civilians amerika has killed in the hunger for revenge? Amerikan statue of liberty responds: do as I say, not as I do.

The amerikan dream is a dream allright, and the illusions makes the snoring nights so comfortable that the clock can ring and ring and ring. Why bother when there's sleep.

<<Many things point in the direction that the WTC attack was planned & orchestrated by the White House.>>

PE- In addition to the WTC attack, one plane crashed into the Pentagon and another crashed into a field in Pa. on 9/11.

Are you suggesting that these also were orchestrated by the White House?

R

I wonder why the airforce wasn't around to intercept any of these planes. One would think that after the first tower was hit they'd want to stop the other hijaked planes.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html



rondele wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 2:23pm:

<<Many things point in the direction that the WTC attack was planned & orchestrated by the White House.>> PE- In addition to the WTC attack, one plane crashed into the Pentagon and another crashed into a field in Pa. on 9/11. Are you suggesting that these also were orchestrated by the White House? R

At the time there were several accounts of retrievals from the Towers.

But none from the Pennsylvania plane crash was ever reported retrieved, and I don't know if any of the Pentagon victims was retrieved either.

I'm just guessing here, but it was the WTC attack that got 99% of the publicity on that day and so it stands to reason that retrieval attempts would be focused on the 3,000+ victims in those 2 buildings.

But even so, I don't get the connection between no reported retrieval attempts regarding the other planes.  Are you suggesting that those other planes didn't actually crash?

R

rondele wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:

But even so, I don't get the connection between no reported retrieval attempts regarding the other planes.  Are you suggesting that those other planes didn't actually crash?

Assume that all those people were killed by the CIA on order from the White House.

Killed on totally different locations and on different times of the day, and later stuffed into the building.

Or assume that those victims were non-existent. What would there be to retrieve then?

<<Killed on totally different locations and on different times of the day, and later stuffed into the building.>>

I'm assuming by building you mean the Pentagon?

R

rondele wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

<<Killed on totally different locations and on different times of the day, and later stuffed into the building.>> I'm assuming by building you mean the Pentagon?

Yes, or not put into the building at all, instead just moved from a CIA cool storage and directly to the morgue. So when retrievers turned their focus to the building, very few discarnates would be there.

We live in northern VA, outside of DC.  On the morning of 9/11 we were traveling on R110 which goes by the Pentagon.

We saw the plane crash into the Pentagon.  It was one of the most horrific scenes I've ever witnessed.  One of our neighbors, Barbara Olson, was on that plane.  Her husband had just returned home after taking her to Reagan when news of the crash was on the air.

Barbara is dead.  No CIA spook shot her as she entered the airport and "stuffed" her into the Pentagon or placed her in cold storage.  Likewise with the other passengers that morning. They all died in the plane crash.

You assume because you read no retrieval accounts from the Pentagon crash that, therefore, there were no dead bodies.  Are you aware that there are retrieval groups (sometimes called rescue circles) that are active worldwide?

Do you have access to all of those retrieval groups, or are you basing your comments on what you read or didn't read on the AK board?

Come to think of it, I haven't seen any retrieval reports on the tornadoes that killed over 400 people in the south recently.........

You are assuming that Bush, who was in office a mere 7&1/2 months before 9/11, was able to put together a massive operation of immense complexity, involving thousands of people, involving CIA murders of hundreds of passengers booked for 2 flights, including a massive cover-up lasting almost 10 years, without so much as a credible leak.

Let me assure you that if there was even a shred of evidence supporting what you say, certain media outlets who would love to destroy Bush would have had a field day long before now.  The NY Times and MSNBC would be hyperventilating beyond belief. 

Government is made up of fallible human beings, not comic book characters with invincible powers.

R

Rondelle:

Perhaps some governmental people figured that an inside job would be considered so far fetched that they could get away with it.

People like Richard Clarke said that George W. Bush wanted to know how to get Iraq right from the start (before 911). Iraq and Afghanistan have lots of oil. Plus Afghanistan has lots of lithium.

George W. Bush was hardly independent. In ways he was basically a puppet for the agenda that supported him. Therefore the agenda he was a part of could've come up with plans before he became president. Fixing the Florida vote insured their puppet was in place.

Since whistleblowers such as Richard Clarke aren't taken seriously by the masses,  negative agendas can get away with quite a bit. For example, torturing people.

One shouldn't make the mistake of underestimating the extent to which people who represent a negative agenda have infiltrated the various institutions that would make an inside 911 job possible.

Perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that there are researchers who believe 911 might be an inside job, that aren't mindless wackos. Perhaps they understand that there are people in positions of power who are really unethical and will try to get away with just about anything. Recently George W. Bush said that he has no regrets about what he did while president because he stuck to his principles. One would think that if his conscience was alive and ticking he would feel differently.

911 sure provided a means for the Bush adminstration and people with a similar agenda to control the masses with fear.

The mainstream media seems to be reluctant to speak about an inside job being responsible because 1) a lot of people won't be open minded enough to consider what they say 2) ratings, and 3) in some cases, the people who determine what is aired have an agenda. For example, there is no way Fox news would present the inside job possibility in an unbiased way.  Perhaps it is a mistake to underestimate how much free speech is intefered with in the United States.



 

rondele wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 3:04pm:

In one of Bruce's books, he talks about Max's Hell. This was a place where Max, a thief while alive, could learn how pointless his life of crime was.  The point is, there are many such places in the afterlife for this kind of purpose. So.....why would we want to retrieve someone like UBL?  Wouldn't that thwart the higher purpose of what the afterlife has in store for those who need such lessons? R

  I'm pretty sure "Max" as related by Bruce, was not a thief, but actually an "emotional sadist" type who had been a psychologist/therapist type and who had used his position of "authority" and "service" to manipulate, undermine, and emotionally hurt others because he got off on it.  Reminds me of the semi old SNL skit with "Sean Connery" on Jeopardy, "Alex, i'll take "The Rapist" for 200."  In a mock exasperated voice Alex replies, "Mr Connery, it's Therapist, not "the rapist".  Something about Alex's mother is then probably mentioned..   

  Sometimes i think the Hell for people like this is much more lacking in Light than the Hell that people like Bin Laden may end up, because at least in the latter's eyes they are fighting for a cause and consider it war wherein civilian causalities will happen.  While i'm not defending this, as i believe in and try to practice non violence, i do believe this is inherently less lacking in Light than what someone like Max does.

  Re: 9-11, from what i've reserached and what my intuition tells me, it was a mix of an inside job and just letting things happen that they already were aware of the probability before hand and WANTED to happen for their own lacking in light agenda. 

   This makes it more complex and harder to unravel for those not in the know, when it's mixed like this.  It certainly was all quite "convenient" to their agenda of invading Iraq not long after.  Or, do you not believe the former brave, venerated CIA agent and her former Ambassador husband on the lying and manipulation that went on with that hoax?

    But since i suspect you're a fan of Fox News, Glenn Beck, and the like, i doubt you would really consider any of the above as the shockwaves to your belief system structure might unravel most of your inner Galaxy.  (I do believe you are rubbing off on me Mr. Volu, or i just "channeled" you temporarily)  ;) ;D


Quote:

Another point- isn't the purpose of retrieving to offer ourselves up for this activity, and then letting Helpers guide us to those who need it the most?  Is it really up to us to decide who we should retrieve?

  Very good point and very well said.  I completely agree.  "Not my will be done, but the Will of the Creative Forces be done" is one of the most expanded teachings there is besides that of PUL.

if memory serves me correct bin Laden took credit for the  attack on the twin towers.

With all that went down that day I highly doubt a government conspiracy of that magnitude.

Have a wonderful night.

rondele wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 7:37pm:

We saw the plane crash into the Pentagon.

Ok.

Could you please tell me _exactly_ how the plane moved through the air the last one minute before the crash?

Skyrider wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:17am:

if memory serves me correct bin Laden took credit for the  attack on the twin towers.

Hundreds of people have taken the credit for shooting Kennedy.

Does that give you the right to kill those people, their children and their friends, without a fair trial?

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

This site sums up the 9/11 conspiracy theories pretty well I think. This is exactly what I think about them, although I do believe that it's possible that the government knew something was going to happen beforehand but didn't find out in time to prevent it. Who can honestly say that before 9/11 you would expect what happened to happen, I for one didn't, it was unbelievable even now I still can't believe what happened that day. Also I think it's possible that flight 93 was shot down, they wouldn't openly admit to it would they?

Other than what I mentioned the rest of the official facts are correct, I'm no architect but I'm pretty certain buildings hold themselves together, if I knocked a supporting wall out of my house I doubt it would stay standing for long so a building the size and weight of the WTC would not take long at all, I'm surprised it stood as long as it did. The south tower was hit a lot lower than the north tower so there was a lot more weight above it, hence why it collapsed first and also once the top parts gained momentum, only mother earth was going to stop it, not the remaining lower parts of the towers.

As for WTC 7, again it would have been structurally damaged by the collapse of both towers and fires would have started, it doesn't take a genius to know that fire spreads does it?  ;). The same again nature takes it's course and it collapsed, every building in the world is constantly fighting gravity so the higher they are the more punishment they take, significant damage will bring any building down eventually.

The Government did use it as an excuse to invade Iraq but tbh Saddam Hussein got what he deserved. I also think that it had a lot to do with G.W Bush finishing what his father started in the first Gulf war.

Afghanistan I'm undecided about, although it makes sense as there was/is Al Qaeda training camps there and the Taliban which needless to say had to be dealt with.

Now Osama Bin Laden He's been killed now and rightly so, I think they have done an excellent job in doing this and how they have disposed of him afterwards, there is no need to release the pictures of his body as they have nothing to prove.

I can honestly say that I feel nothing for him other than I'm pleased that he no longer uses our oxygen supply, I'm waiting for Ghadaffi now as I'm certain he had involvement in the Lockerbie bombing amongst other things.

Here's an article about the third tower. Perhaps the below is a key point.

FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [Stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html

Why did the below take place?

At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording that day describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said today.

The taping began before noon on Sept. 11 at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, on Long Island, but it was later destroyed by an F.A.A. quality-assurance manager, who crushed the cassette in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building, according to a report made public today by the inspector general of the Transportation Department. [New York Times 5/6/04]

From this article, which I provided before.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html

Andy B wrote: "Other than what I mentioned the rest of the official facts are correct, I'm no architect but I'm pretty certain buildings hold themselves together, if I knocked a supporting wall out of my house I doubt it would stay standing for long so a building the size and weight of the WTC would not take long at all, I'm surprised it stood as long as it did. The south tower was hit a lot lower than the north tower so there was a lot more weight above it, hence why it collapsed first and also once the top parts gained momentum, only mother earth was going to stop it, not the remaining lower parts of the towers."

Recoverer responds:

Numerous buildings caught on fire during World War II, but they didn't collapse as if a controlled explosion took place. For 911, "all three buildings" that collapsed, did so as if a controlled explosion took place. One would think that at least one of them would do something such as tip to one side.

recoverer wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 2:01pm:

Numerous buildings caught on fire during World War II, but they didn't collapse as if a controlled explosion took place. For 911, "all three buildings" that collapsed, did so as if a controlled explosion took place. One would think that at least one of them would do something such as tip to one side.

Here's some demolition videos

This includes the WTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=player_detailpage

And these two are randoms that I found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDagV2ELjQ&feature=player_detailpage

One obvious difference is the lack of explosions from all three of the wtc buildings and from the size of them it's not like you wouldn't have heard it where they are filmed from. You could say that they have been edited out but people would have heard this for miles, and in NY I'm willing to bet that's a lot of people, there's no way they could all be sworn to secrecy.

I have also heard two controlled demolitions, one was a cooling tower at a power plant and one was a large building which was for the elevator for a mineshaft. The cooling tower was roughly eight miles from my house and believe me you couldn't miss it from that distance, the elevator building was not too far away, about a mile or so but this interrupted the lesson I was in at school as it was loud. Both of these structures were tiny compared to the wtc buildings.

The other point is the controlled demolitions look nothing like the wtc buildings collapsing, they don't fall "naturally" as the towers and wtc7 did that day. As for your point about WW2 buildings, were they as big as the wtc buildings? Wtc7 wasn't exactly a small building itself.

"FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [Stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18"

This doesn't say a lot to me if I'm honest, although it could have been more reason for Bin Laden to target it as it has connections to G.W Bush, not to mention the damage to the economy and it been an icon throughout the world.

If you believe that it is an inside job then that's your opinion, I'm not trying to disrespect that I'm just pointing out why I don't believe that it was and lets face it neither the American government or the English government are exactly honest are they?

Also the south tower of the wtc in the video I posted did start to topple over but as the lower floors gave way it didn't go far. If the plane had hit lower than it did then it would have more than likely toppled and possibly left most of it standing. As bad as I feel to say this, it was a well thought out attack and they pulled it off "perfectly" I use that word loosely by the way. As history has shown the evil men of this world certainly had brains, it's just a shame that they chose to use them for evil doing instead of something more constructive.

Andy:

I can't say for certain what took place because I haven't researched the matter enough.  Nevertheless, there are things that seem curious to me. It seems as if a more thorough investigation is needed than has been conducted. This might be difficult since much of the evidence has been dispensed with in some way, or isn't available.

When it comes to controlled demolitions, I've seen films where the buildings didn't collapse the same as the towers (they collapsed at the bottom first, rather than top to bottom). On the other hand I've seen films where they collapsed the same as the towers. I figure there is more than one way to make a building collapse. You can have the explosions start either at the top or the  bottom. People are likely to present videos according to what side of the issue they represent.

I believe a key to being open to the possibility that 911 is an inside job is whether or not you believe there are people who are unethical enough to take part in such a scheme. History seems to show that such people exist. Either they've lost contact with their conscience, or they are able to rationalize, justify and deny to an extent where they consider inexcusable actions to be okay, such as torturing people.

If somebody like Dick Cheney can excuse torture in the heartless, arrogant and flipant manner in which he has done so, then he could probably excuse just about anything. I use Cheney as an example because I watched a film where he did so in front of a room of apparently like-minded people, and there indifferent attitude about torture was really sad.

I strongly suspect that if Al Gore had won in 2,000, we wouldn't be talking about any of this even if the attacks took place.

I think the hatred of Bush/Cheney (yes, even among those who proclaim their pure, unconditional love) is so strong that it propelled all sorts of conspiracies.  Even the one that supposedly shows a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon. Obviously fake but who cares as long as it fits an agenda.

We all know the planning for 9/11 was going on long before Bush was elected, so I guess we need to assume that Bush simply took advantage of the planning and gave the green light.

After all, the first WTC bombing was in 1993.

Maybe someone should retrieve Mohamed Atta or bin Laden and find out the extent of Bush's involvement.  Should be relatively easy to do.

Another thing....we talk about the meanness of Cheney, but we don't seem to be bothered by the atrocities carried out by radical Islam.  Look up Nick Berg or Danny Pearl. Where is the outrage?

R

I assure you the videos I posted came from me searching for controlled demolitions in youtube they were the only three that I looked at. But you're right there probably are some similar to the wtc collapse. But the important thing is the explosions or lack of that is. The official evidence makes sense to me hence why I believe it.


recoverer wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:17pm:

If somebody like Dick Cheney can excuse torture in the heartless, arrogant and flipant manner in which he has done so, then he could probably excuse just about anything. I use Cheney as an example because I watched a film where he did so in front of a room of apparently like-minded people, and there indifferent attitude about torture was really sad.

I don't trust our Government here in England for various reasons and I'm in no doubt that there's a lot that goes on that we don't know about.

I can't really comment about the U.S government for obvious reasons but I'm pretty sure they're no angels. But in all honesty, I don't think they're that smart to pull something of this scale off so I'm more open to that they probably knew what was going to happen and just let it happen as it gave them an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. That I can believe and it fits in with what you said about Cheney.

Rondelle:

I for one don't hate Bush, Cheney and Bin Laden.  It is just that I don't agree with what they have done. If they've done a lot to harm others, why should I consider such actions unacceptable? Certainly people should be free to speak of such objectionable actions without being labled as people who are haters and PUL lacking, and therefore not worth listening to. Perhaps because they are inspired by PUL, they choose to speak up about people who have caused many people to be harmed.

I also don't agree with President O'bama's silence on this matter. He is in a position where he might be able to do something, but instead, by keeping silent, he is an enabler. As long people such as Bush and Cheney believe they can get away with things such as torture and whatever, they will continue to try to do so.

Andy B wrote: But in all honesty, I don't think they're that smart to pull something of this scale off so I'm more open to that they probably knew what was going to happen and just let it happen as it gave them an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. That I can believe and it fits in with what you said about Cheney.


Recoverer responds: One possibility is that there were terrorists who had it in mind to do 911, and instead of stopping them, the Bush administration took advantage of the situation and made things worse.  The very fact of how Bush's brother and cousin were in charge of the company that provided security for the towers, shows that they probably had a means to take advantage of the situation, by applying explosives. "If" they took advantage of the situation (rather than being responsible for everything), the scale of what they had to do wasn't as ominous. They certainly seemed to take advantage of the situation by using it as an excuse to go to Afghanistan and Iraq.

rondele wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:40pm:

I think the hatred of Bush/Cheney (yes, even among those who proclaim their pure, unconditional love) is so strong that it propelled all sorts of conspiracies.  Even the one that supposedly shows a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon.

The theory is more that it is a drone. One of those things Americans use to kill Pakistani school children. Of 514 persons killed by drones, only 22 were taliban soldiers. The rest was mostly kids and women.

Some even specify it to be Global Hawk that hit the Pentagon, by images of the burnt out engine -> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/24/p28958

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/media/ghawk5g.jpg

<<I also don't agree with President O'bama's silence on this matter. He is in a position where he might be able to do something, but instead, by keeping silent, he is an enabler>>

Recoverer- I'm not sure I follow.  Are you saying Obama is keeping silent on 9/11?

R

Rondelle:

Actually, I don't know if he's keeping silent because I don't know what he knows.  I do wish he'd look into it more. It just seems really questionable to me that the three buidings could fall as they did.



rondele wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 4:51pm:

<<I also don't agree with President O'bama's silence on this matter. He is in a position where he might be able to do something, but instead, by keeping silent, he is an enabler>> Recoverer- I'm not sure I follow.  Are you saying Obama is keeping silent on 9/11? R

  If the United States gov. was a person, we could say that this person is a pathological liar.  And lately, it doesn't seem to matter who is or isn't President, because Pres. Obama is shaping up to be just a prettier package of deceit, manipulation, and corruption than was Bush.   . 

  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24625

  Besides the info given in the above article, there are plenty of researchers who say there is good circumstantial evidence that Osama actually died quite awhile ago. 

  It seems that this story was fabricated to try to boost Obama support for the coming up pre-election cycle.   So far, it seems to have worked like planned. 

  We Americans must be some of the most gullible, head in the sand (or up our arses), imperceptive people on the Planet to buy into this constantly fed crap full of Lies Pie. 

  I can't wait till this system completely collapses.  Maybe then we can re-build an honest, ethical, and aware society from the ashes of the old.   

Andy B wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

Here's some demolition videos This includes the WTC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=player_detailpage If you believe that it is an inside job then that's your opinion, I'm not trying to disrespect that I'm just pointing out why I don't believe that it was and lets face it neither the American government or the English government are exactly honest are they?

The Towers collapse as if nothing is in the way, nothing stops or supports the building, as all inner walls that carries weight have been blown to pieces.

Haven't it struck you that the Towers fall with free-fall speed. If there was anything supporting the collapsing Towers, the falling speed would have slowed down as some of the height energy had to be transferred into deformation energy.

But you see no such slow-down!

Fall with free fall speed.

Look at it.

we should all be able to remote view and figure out the "real" answers ourselves, shouldn't we? though the overlay of the interpretor is always a dilemma.

Lucy wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 6:13am:

we should all be able to remote view and figure out the "real" answers ourselves, shouldn't we? though the overlay of the interpretor is always a dilemma.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not. :)

If remote viewing would work, I would have expected someone to find Kennedy's murder or at least figure out how Oswald could fire with a malfunctioning rifle and get bulls-eye hits at a moving target over an impossible distance.

Or perhaps the astral hides and shields some information?

Which I think is the most likely, so the astral doesn't interfere too much with the physical. After all, we are here to experience the physical, and taking short routes through the Akashic or RVing are probably stopped.

Many OBE:ers have witnessed that they have seen and been allowed to reveal amazing things, just to hear their guides say that they will not be allowed to remember anything when going back to the physical.

recoverer wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 4:14pm:

Recoverer responds: One possibility is that there were terrorists who had it in mind to do 911, and instead of stopping them, the Bush administration took advantage of the situation and made things worse.  The very fact of how Bush's brother and cousin were in charge of the company that provided security for the towers, shows that they probably had a means to take advantage of the situation, by applying explosives. "If" they took advantage of the situation (rather than being responsible for everything), the scale of what they had to do wasn't as ominous. They certainly seemed to take advantage of the situation by using it as an excuse to go to Afghanistan and Iraq.

That does make sense, you see after reading up on all of the conspiracy theories I couldn't make sense of any of them, this has been over a few years. After a few posts on this board You've given me a theory that does make a lot of sense and could be the truth, a lot of people say that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job due to damaging the economy. With your theory it would be the Bushes making financial gain and they wouldn't care about the economy.

Am I right in thinking this?

Paulieffect wrote:"The Towers collapse as if nothing is in the way, nothing stops or supports the building, as all inner walls that carries weight have been blown to pieces.

Haven't it struck you that the Towers fall with free-fall speed. If there was anything supporting the collapsing Towers, the falling speed would have slowed down as some of the height energy had to be transferred into deformation energy.

But you see no such slow-down!

Fall with free fall speed.

Look at it."

Andy B responds: The problem I have is I haven't seen any other buildings that have been hit by airliners which have then collapsed afterwards, so other than the WTC there is nothing to compare to, other than controlled demolitions which from the ones that I've seen are accompanied by extremely loud explosions. The WTC was missing this which I think is very important, they wouldn't be drowned out by the collapse either it would be the other way around.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Yes, the WTC collapsed from the impact of the two planes.  Period.

R

rondele wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 9:52am:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842 Yes, the WTC collapsed from the impact of the two planes.  Period.

Maybe you don't understand me?

Andy B wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

The problem I have is I haven't seen any other buildings that have been hit by airliners which have then collapsed afterwards, so other than the WTC there is nothing to compare to, other than controlled demolitions which from the ones that I've seen are accompanied by extremely loud explosions. The WTC was missing this the other way around.

Explosion _before_ the first plane hit WTC (start at 00:40):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-jzNfxKSio&feature=related

There are lots of clips of the explosions inside the building long after the planes had crashed into WTC + witness accounts, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgL6fqS-s3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6VifBhXIds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoJohI0S4og

Rumsfeld slip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s&feature=related

Hi Justin,

"We Americans must be some of the most gullible, head in the sand (or up our arses), imperceptive people on the Planet to buy into this constantly fed crap full of Lies Pie."

It seems to be common traits of citizens all over the globe, but it's very visible with amerika due to the dominant position as a country, but I've said enough about that. I've also been fortunate to communicate with lots of excellent Americans, and a reasonable guess is that there are a lot of you guys.

PauliEffectt wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:07am:

Andy B wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 9:27am: The problem I have is I haven't seen any other buildings that have been hit by airliners which have then collapsed afterwards, so other than the WTC there is nothing to compare to, other than controlled demolitions which from the ones that I've seen are accompanied by extremely loud explosions. The WTC was missing this the other way around. Explosion _before_ the first plane hit WTC (start at 00:40): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-jzNfxKSio&feature=related There are lots of clips of the explosions inside the building long after the planes had crashed into WTC + witness accounts, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgL6fqS-s3o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6VifBhXIds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoJohI0S4og Rumsfeld slip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s&feature=related

The first clip isn't an explosion, it's the plane going into the building, the quality of the clip is terrible when it zooms in but you can make out the nose of the plane going in at the same time as the "explosion".

The other two clips don't really prove a point as there probably were random explosions due to the fires not to mention there were probably gas pipes all the way through the WTC. The firefighter clip is just them saying it's like a demolition sound not it is and that sound is from air being expelled from the individual floors, like when you clap your hands but a lot louder. But none of these come close to the sound of controlled demolition explosions, as I said in a few posts back, they are loud and there would be thousands more witnesses saying they heard them from all over manhattan and beyond.

I do think that flight 93 being shot down is a possibility but I don't see how that ties in with the other conspiracy theories as it would just mean that they sent a plane out to stop it being flown into another target.

I respect your opinions on this but I need more evidence than is available to make me think otherwise, as I have looked into this for a long time and I see nothing new being brought to the table which is convincing.

When it comes to the article Justin provided, the below stands out.  Regarding why they would shoot a guy that has a lot of information, perhaps he has information that is unfavorable to some of the insiders.

"The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video."

<<I respect your opinions on this but I need more evidence than is available to make me think otherwise, as I have looked into this for a long time and I see nothing new being brought to the table which is convincing>>

Good point Andy.  And yet some folks seem perfectly comfortable blaming Bush/Cheney etc with planning and carrying out of the mass murder of over 3,000 innocent civilians.

And they do so based on tinfoil hat "evidence" from conspiratorial websites including those that are obviously fake.

It's really all about their hatred of Bush. It's just that the conspiracies fit into that agenda.  I'll say it again...if Gore had been elected, none of this conversation would be going on, the attacks notwithstanding.

Why don't you guys just come out and say that Bush/Cheney are guilty of mass murder?  

R

Regarding the economy, maybe they think the oil and lithium in Iraq might help "some" out financially. When the economy is bad, I doubt the big shots get hurt. I once watched a 60 minutes episode about companies that use supercomputers to invest in the market. They basically control when specific stock prices go up and down. Despite all of the market problems during the past few years, they've never had a week or a year where their investments went down. Small time investors tend to incur losses, not the big shots.

If George W. Bush actually is an Evangelical Christian, and believes in the rapture, the attached article shows another reason he might've been interested in Iraq. It might be a matter of trying to get Biblical prophecy to become true (Or anyway, a particular interpretation of Prophecy. A lot of scholars don't believe that the book of revelations is futuristic.). Some people are very attached to the idea of the rapture happening. The question is, what era are the attached verses of the Bible speaking of. Below is one relevant verse.

"The Bible warns the prophecies against Iraq (Babylon) will be fulfilled in 3 Phases . . .


PHASE 1:  Iraq (Babylon) would be invaded and conquered by a coalition of many nations led by a nation and leader from "a far country"... "the end of heaven" (the opposite side of the Earth)  ... This Bible prophecy does not describe the Persian (and Medes) invasion of Babylon when Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 539 BC (the Persians diverted the Euphrates river and entered Babylon through the river bed gates on the night of October 12 without damaging the city ... many of the citizens did not even know they had been conquered for several days) ...

But, this Bible prophecy does (very accurately and remarkably) describe the Gulf War I + Gulf War II invasions of Iraq (Babylon) ... and remember, Saddam Hussein even described himself as the new Nebuchadnezzar (the famous ruler of ancient Babylon) ..."

http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Nations%20Iraq.html




Andy B wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 9:19am:

recoverer wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 4:14pm: Recoverer responds: One possibility is that there were terrorists who had it in mind to do 911, and instead of stopping them, the Bush administration took advantage of the situation and made things worse.  The very fact of how Bush's brother and cousin were in charge of the company that provided security for the towers, shows that they probably had a means to take advantage of the situation, by applying explosives. "If" they took advantage of the situation (rather than being responsible for everything), the scale of what they had to do wasn't as ominous. They certainly seemed to take advantage of the situation by using it as an excuse to go to Afghanistan and Iraq. That does make sense, you see after reading up on all of the conspiracy theories I couldn't make sense of any of them, this has been over a few years. After a few posts on this board You've given me a theory that does make a lot of sense and could be the truth, a lot of people say that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job due to damaging the economy. With your theory it would be the Bushes making financial gain and they wouldn't care about the economy. Am I right in thinking this?

Rondelle:

I really believe it is simplistic and unfair for you to say that some people accuse Bush and Cheney for 911 simply because of their hate. Perhaps there are some people who realize how deceptive the U.S. Government has been over the years, perhaps they've seen that Bush and Cheney aren't people who make love-based decisions, and perhaps they believe that the citizens of the United States and the rest of the world have the right to know the truth.

Your suggestion that people can't question without being a hater is the same kind of repressive tactics that Fox News uses. As soon as a person questions, they are labled as anti-American, or a Bush and Cheney hater.

While at Starbucks one day my ex-girlfriend met one of the key men who have researched the "possible" 911 deception (she recognized him). He wasn't a Bush/Cheney hater, he was a man who wants to know the truth. In order to do so he has sacrificed a lot including his personal income and marriage.

If there is in fact deceptive beings who influence people in negative ways, who are they going to influece? Perhaps people in power who allow themselves to be influenced in a negative way. Perhaps when you defend what Bush and Cheney have done, you defend more than them. If they are in fact influenced by negative beings, shouldn't their very destructive agenda be stopped? Or should people be shut up by erroneously being called Bush/Cheney haters?





rondele wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

<<I respect your opinions on this but I need more evidence than is available to make me think otherwise, as I have looked into this for a long time and I see nothing new being brought to the table which is convincing>> Good point Andy.  And yet some folks seem perfectly comfortable blaming Bush/Cheney etc with planning and carrying out of the mass murder of over 3,000 innocent civilians. And they do so based on tinfoil hat "evidence" from conspiratorial websites including those that are obviously fake. It's really all about their hatred of Bush. It's just that the conspiracies fit into that agenda.  I'll say it again...if Gore had been elected, none of this conversation would be going on, the attacks notwithstanding. Why don't you guys just come out and say that Bush/Cheney are guilty of mass murder?   R

<<Perhaps when you defend what Bush and Cheney have done>>

What exactly are you saying I'm defending?  Please clarify.

R

Rondelle:

It seems as if you are defending Bush/Cheney in a general way when you refer to people who believe they might be responsible for an inside job as "haters."

Other wise, I wrote the below more with the thought of what I said on my last post overall, rather than having the intent of making the below statement. I guess I could've come up with some sort of qualifier, but I got too involved with the rest of what I wrote to think to do so. Sometimes communication through writing is difficult because thought happens on more than one level while written words are just one sentence at a time.


rondele wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

<<Perhaps when you defend what Bush and Cheney have done>> What exactly are you saying I'm defending?  Please clarify. R

I'm defending their basic right to be innocent until proven guilty.

I'm certainly not defending what they are being charged with on this thread....i.e. murdering thousands of people.

R

Rondele,

You are the voice of reason in an appalling demonstration of the antithesis of Pure Unconditional Love.  I am now Democratic in my political leanings, largely because I see the desperate plight of so many homeless families who need remedial programs that churches can only provide to a limited extent.  But despite my disagreements with George W. Bush, I consider him a man of the highest integrity and agree with you that his haters display their dirty linen by their obvious refusal to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Such guttersniping conspiracy theories are precisely what I would expect from the New Age Ghetto and are constantly displayed on George Noory's the New Age radio program "Coast to Coast"  (e. g. all the Illuminati paranoia).  GW is a United Methodist, not a Fundamentalist, and United Methodists realize that the Babylon image in biblical apocalyptic is a symbol of Rome, and not of the ancient empire centered in what is now Iraq.  To blame GW for the Iraq invasion on the basis of such ignorant apocalyptic nonsense is mean-spirited. This nonsense reveals the mindset of key denizens of this site and is just one reason why I no longer trust recoverer's judgment or interpretations of his experiences of the afterlife. 

Don:

It is fine that you don't trust my judgment on afterlife experiences.

But how about Howard Storm's? If you go by what he wrote, God hates war, and it is never acceptable to go to war, there is always another choice. Yet, Bush and Cheney were overly quick to do so. They allowed torture to happen during their presidency, and still express no regret about doing so. How is this an example of integrity? How is this an example of loving your neighbor as yourself?

If you can't see where Bush and Cheney are coming from, then it's no surprise that you can't see where I am coming from.

Regarding Bush's religion, thank you for clearing that up. I was uncertain about what denomination he follows.

Regarding 911 conspiracy theories, I don't get the feeling that either you or Rondelle have considered them enough to see if there is any validity to them. Instead you just sweep them under the carpet in a manner that is similar to the manner you accuse new agers of having.

Fact number 1: 911 happened during Bush's presidency.

Fact number 2: There are enough puzzling factors about the event to make it worth questioning.

Fact number 3: It is morally irresponsible (and perhaps foolish) to not try to determine what precisely happened.

But if a person isn't open to changing his world view, he probably won't do so.



Berserk2 wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 3:58pm:

Rondele, You are the voice of reason in an appalling demonstration of the antithesis of Pure Unconditional Love.  I am now Democratic in my political leanings, largely because I see the desperate plight of so many homeless families who need remedial programs that churches can only provide to a limited extent.  But despite my disagreements with George W. Bush, I consider him a man of the highest integrity and agree with you that his haters display their dirty linen by their obvious refusal to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Such guttersniping conspiracy theories are precisely what I would expect from the New Age Ghetto and are constantly displayed on George Noory's the New Age radio program "Coast to Coast"  (e. g. all the Illuminati paranoia).  GW is a United Methodist, not a Fundamentalist, and United Methodists realize that the Babylon image in biblical apocalyptic is a symbol of Rome, and not of the ancient empire centered in what is now Iraq.  To blame GW for the Iraq invasion on the basis of such ignorant apocalyptic nonsense is uneducated and mean-spirited nonsense. This nonsense reveals the mindset of key denizens of this site and is just one reason why I no longer trust recoverer's judgment or interpretations of his experiences of the afterlife.

Do you think man has really walked on the moon  ;D.

;D

I heard of those conspiracy theories. I haven't read up on them, so rather than raising my nose to them in an uneducated way, I won't comment.

However, even if those conspiracy theories are false, this doesn't mean that all conspiracy theories are false.

A while back Rondelle wrote about the Global Warming conspiracy.  To see if it is true,  one should be open minded. However, it might connect to the New World Order conspiracy theory, so watch out. ;D



Andy B wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 4:36pm:

Do you think man has really walked on the moon  ;D.

You want to know another conspiracy theory? Don probably believes I communicate with demons (he has suggested the same for Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe).

This is ironic, since I suggested that malicious beings might influence people in positions of power, such as Bush and Cheney. If such malicious beings exist, is it unreasonable to hypothesize that they might influence people who do negative things such as start unecessary wars, support torture, and lie to the people who sort of elected them?

I on the other hand am suggesting that we look out for the negative deeds that have happened, and that might've happened (e.g.; an inside 911 job). Would demons influence one to look out in such a perhaps responsible way?

Recoverer-

No one can witness an event, especially as tragic and horrific as watching a plane crash into the Pentagon, and remain indifferent when someone on the thread says that no passengers were on that plane, that they were shot by the CIA and put into some kind of cooler.

No one can have a close neighbor who was killed on board that plane who, by the way, called her husband in a terrified voice, describing to him the hijacking of the plane while it was in progress, and not feel outraged when someone else claims she was already dead in a cooler.

And that the building was hit by a missile instead of an airplane in spite of the fact that there were many eyewitnesses including myself and my wife that morning.

To me, that's obscene and there's no way I can remain silent when such utter garbage is strewn around.

Yes, there's a website that purportedly shows a missile but that's totally bogus.  Have any of you been at the Pentagon?  Are you unaware of the many hi rise residential buildings on both sides of the river?  Do you know there's a heavily traveled road that runs parallel to the Pentagon especially at the time of the morning of the crash?  Do you wonder why no one has ever reported seeing a missile that morning?

Do you know there are firefighters and first responders who carried out the burned victims from the building??

And yet, regardless of all of these things, some of you choose to believe all passengers were shot and killed before the plane even took off (including the one that crashed in Pa), on the basis that there were no reported retrievals at the scenes??

Holy God.

R

[Andy B] Do you think man has really walked on the moon  ;D.

[/quote]

No, it is well known in the New Age movement that the moon-landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar to give us a propaganda adventage over the Commies. And Satan planted countless fossils in the ground to invent the lie of evolution.  And G. W. faked his life-changing conversion to give himself political capital to run for President so he could engineer the mass murder of 3,000 New Yorkers and make a name for himself by overthrowing Sadam Hussein.

And recoverer, integrity is a function of personal beliefs, not of outcomes (e. g. no WMD).  I think you are misreading Howard Storm.  I have been in personal contact with him vail e-mail.  In my view, neither his NDE Jesus nor the historical Jesus would agree with your blanket statement.  Jesus taught the right of self-defense (Luke 22:36-38) and even recruited Simon the Zealot as one of the  twelve apostles.   The Zealots later evolved in the rebels who staged an unseccessful revolt against Rome. 

And why are you lying and claiming that your and Bruce's astral sources are disguised demons?  To point out that there are spirit impersonators that deceive or that unverified astral travel might in some cases be delusary is very different than attributing it to demons.  The spirit impersonators might, as Swedenborg contends, be discarnate humans.  I never made the claim you allege. 

Rondelle:

I didn't say I believe all of the things 911 conspiracy theorists say. I don't know why they brought up that Pentagon missle thing (not that I checked out their reason for doing so). Regarding the shot down planes that some speak of, I also don't know what that is about.

When you have people coming up with alternate theories you're bound to have a mixture. I don't want to make a mistake of dismissing theories that might be relevant because of possible faulty theories. Doing so would be similar to dismissing all afterlife accounts, because there are some questionable accounts.

The main thing that puzzles me is the manner in which the buidings fell.

Regarding Bush, Cheney etc. being capable of partaking in such an immoral action, too much of what I've seen of them allows me to believe that they might be capable of such actions.

When it comes to their being influenced by unfriendly beings, I don't know if this is true, but going by the spirit messages I received, some of the experiences I have had, and what seemingly credible sources have to say, such a possibility exists.

Therefore, I believe it is a mistake to not investigate this matter further. It isn't a matter of hating Bush and Cheney, it is a matter of wanting to make certain that unethical people (and perhaps malicious influences) don't get away with it.

Don:

It seems to me that Storm was quite clear at being told that war is unacceptable.

Regarding the right to defend ourselves, when did Iraq attack the United States? Is a supposed pre-emptive strike really a self defense?

Whatever the case, do you really believe that Jesus believes it was acceptable for the United States to attack Iraq?

Maybe you didn't say demon, but I have read posts where you stated that Robert Monroe was misled by a deceptive spirit. Deceptive spirit--demon, what's the difference?

Regarding your conspiracy theory about me, that was a joke more than anything. Perhaps you believe I am deluded and don't receive any information at all. If so, it's funny that the information and energetic work I received has helped me grow spiritually. It's funny that I received information about things I didn't know about before hand. It's funny that I opened myself up to divine inspiration and guidance with great sincerity, and I only experienced self-delusion.








Berserk2 wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 6:20pm:

[Andy B] Do you think man has really walked on the moon  ;D.

No, it is well known in the New Age movement that the moon-landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar to give us a propaganda adventage over the Commies. And Satan planted countless fossils in the ground to invent the lie of evolution.  And G. W. faked his life-changing conversion to give himself political capital to run for President so he could engineer the mass murder of 3,000 New Yorkers and make a name for himself by overthrowing Sadam Hussein.

And recoverer, integrity is a function of personal beliefs, not of outcomes (e. g. no WMD).  I think you are misreading Howard Storm.  I have been in personal contact with him vail e-mail.  In my view, neither his NDE Jesus nor the historical Jesus would agree with your blanket statement.  Jesus taught the right of self-defense (Luke 22:36-38) and even recruited Simon the Zealot as one of the  twelve apostles.   The Zealots later evolved in the rebels who staged an unseccessful revolt against Rome. 

And why are you lying and claiming that your and Bruce's astral sources are disguised demons?  To point out that there are spirit impersonators that deceive or that unverified astral travel might in some cases be delusary is very different than attributing it to demons.  The spirit impersonators might, as Swedenborg contends, be discarnate humans.  I never made the claim you allege.  [/quote]

Here's an article about the cruise missle theory. It's long, so hopefully I'll find the time to read it (not this weekend).

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html

GW's invasion of Iraq was predicated on Sadam's possession of WMDs and his willngness to use them against us and perhaps his own people.  Most experts mistakenly agreed that he had them.   GW made an error of judgment but this does ot impugn his personal integrity.  Is Iraq better off without Sadam?  Of course.  Would the oro-democracy uprisings throughout the Arab world have happened without the Iraqi precedent?  Perhaps not.  So might not the net effect be a lot more good than evil?  Probably.  Would Jesus have approved of the invasion?  Perhaps.  I don't know and neither do you.  But you are ducking the key issues: (1) slandering GW without sufficient evidence (= no PUL); (2) falsely accusing me of attributing Bruce's and your astral contacts to demons.  I am grateful for Bruce's site and his reports of his discoveries.  But I feel obligated to compare competing claims on the basis of who has the best verifications.  The possibility of confusing genuine astral contact with some form of consciousness akin to lucid dreamnig and the possibility of mischievous discarnate humans providing false information are well attested by Swedenborg and are in any case nowhere near the cleim  that Bruce and you experience demonic astral contacts.  That insinuation is an unkind lie which you cannot back up from any of my old threads.

I think everybody has their mind made up as to what happened at the World Trade Center's. So no sense in trying to change anybody's way of thinking. Not much is going to change the outcome of what has happened. It's a tragedy all around..

You all have a pleasant evening and a lovely tomorrow.

Over and out :P

rondele wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 7:37pm:

We saw the plane crash into the Pentagon.

The reason I ask this question is that a person from Europe on his way to a meeting saw the Pentagon attack "plane", and noticed that it made a sharp S-curve, impossible to do for a civil air plane. He also noticed that it was a small plane, not a Boeing. So he just assumed that it was a military plane at low height and that everything was fine.

He _didn't_ see the actually crash into Pentagon, be he was able to follow the small plane (which has been assumed to be a Global Hawk drone, by inspection of a later photo of its burnt out engine) until about 10-15 seconds before the crash.

He also saw the huge orange-yellow fire ball and noticed that it was expanding as it rose, which indicates that it may not have been usual air plane fuel, but U.S. military explosives which brought down part of the Pentagon building.

So...

Ok.

Could you please tell me _exactly_ how the plane moved through the air the last one minute before the crash?

I think Obama, our President good or bad, did the right thing by honoring the victims, and sending others out to honor them, as we all honestly know that only our good prayers and well wishes can make a difference now. None of us knows all the truth, so we may as well  do the best with what we have. The way things have been going around the world, we could all use our energies in many ways to make an improvement now in our social and cultural circles.

Don:

I remember very clearly that there are posts where you said that on some occasions Robert Monroe received information from lower level beings. Such accusations really stood out to me.  There are a lot of threads on this forum and it would be unrealistic to try to find the posts where you said this. I don't become a liar because your memory isn't serving you well.


I don't buy that business about Bush making a WMD mistake. The evidence was too flimsy. The Valerie Plame story needs to be considered. People such as Bush are able to mislead people because people allow themselves to be misled.

It isn't a matter of accusing without having a trial. It is a matter of wanting to have a trial. When people are so opposed to questioning as you are, a trial will never happen.

I got to tell you Don, you seem to be very naive about what has gone on with the American government.

I mentioned the moon landing as a joke lol.

Recoverer, you do make a good point about Bush but I still think that they knew something was going to happen but didn't know what or when so failed to act.

Just to point out, I said flight 93 could have possibly been shot down, I don't believe that, I thought it was a possibility but I have looked it up again and have found out that the black box was found which confirmed that the passengers fought the hijackers and took the plane back, which was said from day one.

Rondelle has said twice on this board that he and his wife saw the plane hit the pentagon and also that his neighbour died on that plane. I have never thought that it wasn't a plane and don't know how anyone could think differently as there are countless more witnesses who saw the plane not to mention that the planes wreckage was all over the lawn and inside the building.

As for Osama, he is dead and died when Obama said he did I have no reason to think otherwise. I see all these old reports saying he died before are coming out again, these were attempts to stop people looking for him and nothing more. What better way is there to stop people looking for you than to say you are dead?

On a lighter note, I was watching a comedy news program last night and it showed a newsreader who got mixed up and said President Obama is dead instead of Bin Laden  ;D.

Andy:

Regarding the article that was posted about when Bin Laden died, I don't believe it shows for certain that he didn't die in the raid.

If Rondelle and his wife saw an airplane fly into the Pentagon, then certainly this nullifies the Cruise Missle report.

Rondelle:

Did you see what happened with the wings? Some reports say they were missing?

Some of the people from this video (the quotes) saw differently than Rondelle. Look at the size of the hole when they show a close up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAwtmun_aj8

Listen to this short video closely. Does anybody know when the film of the first crash was first shown?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

Here's a site that talks about when the film for the first crash became available.

http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q04_BushBehavedStrangely.htm

Below is what it says.

How could Bush have seen the FIRST plane crash into the WTC?  Film of the first plane crash wasn’t available until much later in the day:
White House

President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting, December 4, 2001

“THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Jordan.  Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack.  I was in Florida.  And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works.  I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on.  And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot.  I said, it must have been a horrible accident.”

President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California, January 5, 2002

“Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building.  There was a TV set on.  And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake.  And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, ‘America is under attack."’”

[He nevertheless continued to read to the children for another half hour after Andy Card told him “America is under attack.”—Caro]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pentagon+plane+wreckage+images&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VsHFTfCWA426hAfrsZzvAw&ved=0CB0QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

There's plenty of images on the net of the wreckage which is obviously from an american airlines plane.

Recoverer, the hole that's mentioned in that clip is from the opposite side of the pentagon made by the landing gear, it went straight through the building. Alot of people say that the damage is too little for an airliner but they seem to forget that the Pentagon isn't made from chocolate lol, also don't they realise what damage a cruise missile is capable of?

Over here Bush was always made out to be a bit of a fool, so from this I would say that's why he said what he said about the first plane hitting the tower, I don't think it was a slip up as that wouldn't happen if he was capable of pulling off an inside job.

And I wasn't talking about the particular article which has been posted about Bin Ladens death, ever since 9/11 there has been at least five articles saying he might have died at various times, I didn't believe them at the time due to my earlier response and also the papers put lies in to sell more papers.

Andy B wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 6:14pm:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pentagon+plane+wreckage+images&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VsHFTfCWA426hAfrsZzvAw&ved=0CB0QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667 There's plenty of images on the net of the wreckage which is obviously from an american airlines plane.

Well, you're link shows a lots of pictures from sites that supports the Global Hawk drone theory. :)

One engine only.

And not the double 6 tons engines of a real Boeing. Compare the hole in the wall to the size of a Boeing:

http://www.ericfrancis.com/images/pentagon/pentagon_red_plane.jpg


At Pentagon, only a small military plane engine was found.

Actually a U.S. military drone engine:

http://www.911review.org/images/photorotor.jpg

So was Rondelles neighbour on the Global Hawk?  :)

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

This article explains the engine part picture quite well, not to mention the various AA 757 wreckage that there is pictures of.

Also see if you can spot where the Global Hawk rumour came from? I can.

You're free to believe what you want but you won't convince me to believe anything different as the evidence that has been presented points to it being an Al Qaeda attack and nothing more. 

Andy B wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

So was Rondelles neighbour on the Global Hawk?  :)

No, she was most likely on flight 77 somewhere over an uninhabited area of land controlled by the U.S. military as her flight was shot down by a U.S. military missile.

The CIA claimed in the early 1990ies that they could mimic any person's voice if they had a 10 minutes recording of it, by use of top secret technology. That's the "voices" people hear on very short mobile phone calls from the "crash" planes.

The dead bodies from the shot down flight 77 were then transported by trucks to the same morgue as the casualties from the Pentagon building.

wait a second...did I read Don right? Is he giving the killing of OBL two thumbs up? Whats next? Shows what some people really know or understand about the afterlife. Lets see...I wonder what better? A child molester, or a fundamentalist politician/terrorist who supports murder, or war mongers? Isn't supporting one or the others possibly wrong? Now the Bush's are a different story. They are no better that OBL. We can only hope that B Obama can get us the heck out of these countries that we have no need, or right, being in or at war with. On the conspiracies of 9/11...If any one was to be responsible, I would think it would have been big oil behind it. Oh ya, that's the Bush's again isn't it? (In the long run, and after we are all dead and gone..it isn't going to matter one little bit.) You see, when were done with one "enamey", we will just go out and find another. Who knows, perhaps next time it will be in Northern Africa instead of the Middle East. Oh yea, we are already. Im surprised that the USA hasn't tried to take over Canada. They have almost as much oil as the Middle East. But I suppose after 1812 they might have second thoughts.

  RE: 9/11. I'm not sure if these videos has been shown, but in any case, i found them very holistically logical.  MIT trained researcher Jeff King talks about how fishy the official story is from various different angles and perspectives.

  Why not keep an open mind?  Is it so hard to believe that people who are obsessed with power, influence, and wealth will do destructive things to others in order to either maintain levels of and/or gain more of the above?  Don't we see this in society somewhat often and on various levels of human interaction?  Overall, there isn't much collective PUL attunement yet. 

part 1, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCLHL5iToJ8

part 2, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jAS4Zk059w&NR=1

  Please Andy, Rondele, Don, etc. please refute all the points that Jeff King makes in the above video's.   Can you?   How can you continue to believe what you want to believe or want others to believe, when there are so many different aspects of the official story that have gaping holes in them?



 

Another excellent youtube video about this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us&feature=related

What's interesting about this whole subject is how many trained physicists, architects, and engineers have come forward and have said that the official explanation has big logical problems with explaining all the various evidence (actual video, dust-particulates, what we know about the physics of fire, the melting point of steel, etc, eyewitnesses who heard multiple explosions, etc). 

Thank God for brave and honest people like these, people willing to put their careers and reputations on the line, people who talk about the evidence and the facts, but who instead of being intelligently and impersonally debated on these, have their characters attacked as well as huge generalizations made up to distract from these truths. 

Watch the above happen in a below video on the Hannity show with a professor who disagrees with the official gov. explanation.  Notice the characterizations Hannity uses like, "pathetic", "bizarre conspiracies", etc  It just gets more generally extreme and distracting from the issues being brought up.   This is common tactic when one side of a debate deep down knows the other side is more on the side of truth than it is.  Its a form of belief system defense to slander the sources or those who believe in something, rather than logically and impersonally discuss the ideas and issues at hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbNszu6zbe4&feature=related

What should happen when a country's government is so fundamentally corrupt and rotten at it's core?   Particularly a country who so influences and imposes it's will on the rest of the world?

  It's interesting to me that a number of people who experienced NDE's like Howard Storm, Dannion Brinkley, Lou Famoso, etc. originally liked and supported the U.S. government but after their NDE's came back with a very different view of the U.S. and were told by very mature Beings very in touch with God that the U.S. has  been failing it's mission, has become very corrupt, and would probably be brought low unless this changed.  Seems like 9/11, the recent Bin Laden gov. hoax, the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, etc, etc show just how much and how deeply the above is the case, and that it's not changing for the better.  The next part is the brought low part.

  God bless America eh... 

  Re: some of Andy's points about the demolition etc., well some of the well trained researches have said that most controlled demolitions involve C4 or RDX explosives, but if you wanted to blame a buildings collapse on fire that one would use a much more sophisticated and expensive explosive called Thermite, of which all the evidence of the WTC collapses indicates that such a substance was used.

  There is less outer explosion with thermite than with the sheer amount of C4 and other more common explosives it would take to collapse such powerfully built buildings.  Thermite rather cuts through steel like a warm knife through warm butter.  This would explain the quick collapse of even the building which was not struck by a plane.   

  In other words, it's a much more subtle form of demolition in some respects than the more outwardly explosive and more common explosive materials. 

  Andy, to be frank, just from my brief, recent research, i've found much which contradicted your "years" of inquiry and research and beliefs based on same.  I would suggest researching more thoroughly.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3qZG0T6__4&feature=related

wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 2:29am:

...but if you wanted to blame a buildings collapse on fire that one would use a much more sophisticated and expensive explosive called Thermite, of which all the evidence of the WTC collapses indicates that such a substance was used.

There are even indications that it was something even more sophisticated than Thermite; namely a mix of Thermate (spelling!) and a special military compound which can produce explosions for covert military operations where the U.S. military requires low noise explosions to reduce the risk of being detected by enemies.

The U.S. military explosives can also be used to burn through 4 inch thick steel pillars in 40 seconds almost without causing any other effect than producing very small amounts of white smoke. Completely melting the steel.

Little is known exactly about Thermate, but it has a higher burning degree than Thermite, which only reaches 2500 degree Centigrades. You may compare these wiki pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Andy B wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html Also see if you can spot where the Global Hawk rumour came from? I can.

Also see if you can spot where the holes in the "Boeing 757" wheel rim count. I can.

And yes, Andy. The first picture is from your link in your quote above.



http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image062.jpg

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/5701409366_64320f6e08_z.jpg

so does all this mean that bin Laden was workign for the US gov't? I mean, the planes did fly into the buildings. and bin Laden took responsibility for that. Did they supposedly blow the buildings up after the planes hit?

Dan Rea is having the sister of the pilot who by the official story was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on his show Mon May 08 at 8 something PM eastern time. You can listen on the net (WBZ radio); maybe someone can call in and ask how her brother died.

Lucy wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 5:43am:

so does all this mean that bin Laden was workign for the US gov't? I mean, the planes did fly into the buildings. and bin Laden took responsibility for that.

No, he didn't.

Take a look at 6:10 - 8:00, it's only 2 minutes of video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aMbvxCr7JU

PauliEffectt wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 5:10am:

Andy B wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 12:47pm: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html Also see if you can spot where the Global Hawk rumour came from? I can. Also see if you can spot where the holes in the "Boeing 757" wheel rim count. I can. And yes, Andy. The first picture is from your link in your quote above. http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image062.jpg = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/5701409366_64320f6e08_z.jpg

I see the same wheel in both pics, so what's your point?

Andy B wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 9:00am:

I see the same wheel in both pics, so what's your point?

The wheel rim to the left has 8 holes.
The wheel rim to the right has 9 holes.

Take a good look at the spacing and the shapes of the holes.

  Thank you for the correction Paulieffect.  I was aware of the some of the research and theories saying that it was a special form of Thermite with sulfur etc. added (to burn hotter), but i wasn't aware that this form had it's own similar but different name. 

To be even more specific, it was probably a nano thermate form of thermite.  This is commonly called "super thermite".   

The nano forms are much more sophisticated than the other forms, and also have a faster reaction time and are easier to ignite than both regular forms of thermate and thermite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

I can't say that I see how the wheels are different than each other. What am I missing? For the damaged wheel, it seems as if a couple of parts such as the rim came off.


PauliEffectt wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 5:10am:

Andy B wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 12:47pm: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html Also see if you can spot where the Global Hawk rumour came from? I can. Also see if you can spot where the holes in the "Boeing 757" wheel rim count. I can. And yes, Andy. The first picture is from your link in your quote above. http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image062.jpg = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/5701409366_64320f6e08_z.jpg

Justin said: "Watch the above happen in a below video on the Hannity show with a professor who disagrees with the official gov. explanation.  Notice the characterizations Hannity uses like, "pathetic", "bizarre conspiracies", etc  It just gets more generally extreme and distracting from the issues being brought up.   This is common tactic when one side of a debate deep down knows the other side is more on the side of truth than it is.  Its a form of belief system defense to slander the sources or those who believe in something, rather than logically and impersonally discuss the ideas and issues at hand."


Recoverer responds: "Hannity forgot to say, "Bush hater" and "new ager."

How come no one has mentioned that Bush also ordered the levees in New Orleans to be blown up, in order that the damage from Katrina could be maximized?

You guys are slipping....

R

wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 2:29am:

Andy, to be frank, just from my brief, recent research, i've found much which contradicted your "years" of inquiry and research and beliefs based on same.  I would suggest researching more thoroughly.

Justin, I have seen the thermite argument many years ago and I don't believe it, as like all of the "evidence" I have seen it is edited to fit in with the conspiracy theory. At the end of the day looking at both sides of the fence the official explanation makes the most sense and has less holes.

My first few posts in this thread is what I believe, what makes you think I should believe otherwise? As I have said the conspiracy theories have far too many holes in their story.

rondele wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 3:09pm:

How come no one has mentioned that Bush also ordered the levees in New Orleans to be blown up, in order that the damage from Katrina could be maximized? You guys are slipping.... R

;D what about the Nazi's building a base on the moon lol.


No wait, that's nothing to do with Bush, or was it............  :o

Or how about the Greeks making Jesus out to be a Jew? (Some people will believe anything.)

Aren't we living in a fantastic BST!

PauliEffectt wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 4:44pm:

Aren't we living in a fantastic BST!

Hey! That should be MBST...Multi Belief System Territories!

Andy B wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 3:15pm:

wrote on May 9th, 2011 at 2:29am:   Andy, to be frank, just from my brief, recent research, i've found much which contradicted your "years" of inquiry and research and beliefs based on same.  I would suggest researching more thoroughly.    Justin, I have seen the thermite argument many years ago and I don't believe it, as like all of the "evidence" I have seen it is edited to fit in with the conspiracy theory. At the end of the day looking at both sides of the fence the official explanation makes the most sense and has less holes. My first few posts in this thread is what I believe, what makes you think I should believe otherwise? As I have said the conspiracy theories have far too many holes in their story.

  I brought up the thermite/thermate/nano thermite-thermate issue because it clearly answered the various issues that you had brought up earlier on this thread.  One of your main points earlier was that if it was a controlled demolition, it would have been more loud, dramatic, etc.  I replied, yeah, if one was using the typical demolition explosives that would be the case, but not if one was using super sophisticated thermite derivatives. 

  As regards the rest of your above reply, i've seen you say similar before. 

   What i'm interested in is clear refutation of people like Jeff King and other highly educated, well trained people with many years in the field and the various logical holes they point out in the official story.

So far, this has not been forthcoming on this thread, but sure has been a lot of distractions.  Rondele is using a lot of those tactics i've noticed. 

Another way that people tend to do the whole 'defend belief system structure' dance around truths known unconsciously deep down.  Or, if they happen to be in the business of deliberately trying to mislead.

  You telling me that you've heard about the thermite theory, and became aware of it long ago, but just don't buy it, well that doesn't help me one bit.  I want to see all the various reasons, backed by holistic, internally consistent logic, of why these alternative ideas supposedly don't fit the official story. 

  I think it's "that" important of an issue to be as clear and holistically logical as one can possibly be.  Particularly since i happen to live in the U.S. under this government.  Kind of changes things a bit for an individual in such a case.

  But this is not a political forum and this thread has become a huge side tracking to the purposes of this forum, so maybe it's best not to continue this here.  If it's tbc, i will at least do so, in the "off topic" threads speaking for self. 

wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 12:34am:

Andy B wrote on May 9th, 2011 at 3:15pm: wrote on May 9th, 2011 at 2:29am:   Andy, to be frank, just from my brief, recent research, i've found much which contradicted your "years" of inquiry and research and beliefs based on same.  I would suggest researching more thoroughly.    Justin, I have seen the thermite argument many years ago and I don't believe it, as like all of the "evidence" I have seen it is edited to fit in with the conspiracy theory. At the end of the day looking at both sides of the fence the official explanation makes the most sense and has less holes. My first few posts in this thread is what I believe, what makes you think I should believe otherwise? As I have said the conspiracy theories have far too many holes in their story.   I brought up the thermite/thermate/nano thermite-thermate issue because it clearly answered the various issues that you had brought up earlier on this thread.  One of your main points earlier was that if it was a controlled demolition, it would have been more loud, dramatic, etc.  I replied, yeah, if one was using the typical demolition explosives that would be the case, but not if one was using super sophisticated thermite derivatives.    As regards the rest of your above reply, i've seen you say similar before.     What i'm interested in is clear refutation of people like Jeff King and other highly educated, well trained people with many years in the field and the various logical holes they point out in the official story. So far, this has not been forthcoming on this thread, but sure has been a lot of distractions.  Rondele is using a lot of those tactics i've noticed.  Another way that people tend to do the whole 'defend belief system structure' dance around truths known unconsciously deep down.  Or, if they happen to be in the business of deliberately trying to mislead.   You telling me that you've heard about the thermite theory, and became aware of it long ago, but just don't buy it, well that doesn't help me one bit.  I want to see all the various reasons, backed by holistic, internally consistent logic, of why these alternative ideas supposedly don't fit the official story.    I think it's "that" important of an issue to be as clear and holistically logical as one can possibly be.  Particularly since i happen to live in the U.S. under this government.  Kind of changes things a bit for an individual in such a case.   But this is not a political forum and this thread has become a huge side tracking to the purposes of this forum, so maybe it's best not to continue this here.  If it's tbc, i will at least do so, in the "off topic" threads speaking for self.

Hi Justin, first of all apoligies for my brief reply,

I wasn't trying to sweep it under the carpet so to speak, if you'd have come into this thread a few pages earlier I would have given a better response. Also you were the first person to mention thermite theory. I'm also thinking that this thread has gone way off course hence why I'm backing off from it now.

Rondele isn't trying to distract with his answers imo, as he said, he finds it difficult when he witnessed something and people are basically saying he's wrong. I can see where he's coming from 100%. 

Oh yes, you made a good point, perhaps the reason I am not as negative about the U.S Government is because I am not under it, I might think differently if I was. Then again I don't like my own but only because of the ridiculous amount of money they take of working people.

Where is the off topic section?

The minute before the collapse of one of the Towers, a lot of white smoke can be seen to rise from the lower parts of the Tower.

Hawkeye says: "Those who push their vegetarian agenda are spiritually confused and entrapped within a belief system. They will need to have some sort of recovery to release them from this confused state at some point."

Substitute the word conspiracy for vegetarian and it sums things up pretty nicely.

Yes, there definitely is a conspiracy mindset.  Rolling Stone Magazine, definitely not a conservative publication, ran an article by Matt Taibbi, definitely not a conservative journalist, about this very thing a few years ago.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/2/103139.shtml

Once again, let me pose this question: If Gore had won the 2000 election, does anyone seriously think he would be accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks??

Those who cling to these bizarre conspiracies do so not because they have any credibility, but because they have their own agenda.  Namely, their hostility to Bush and generally to the U.S. This hostility is apparent throughout their postings.

They conveniently forget that 9/11 was in the planning stages years before Bush was even a speck on the presidential radar.

Why not accuse Clinton?  After all, the first attack on the WTC was in 1993.  And in 2,000 the USS Cole was attacked, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

But then Clinton was a Democrat.......

R

Rondelle asked: Once again, let me pose this question: If Gore had won the 2000 election, does anyone seriously think he would be accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks??

Recoverer responds: Would the attack still have happened? Would Gore had made use of the fact that the Bush family was in charge of the World Trade center security? This is hard to say.

Other wise, if the attack still happened, yes, some people with inquiring minds still would've wondered if it was an inside job.

Perhaps it is a conspiracy theory to believe that people are concerned about what took place simply because Bush was president at the time. Sounds like a Hannity defense. One might still wonder why "ALL" three buildings fell as if controlled explosions took place even though this doesn't happen when other buildings catch on fire.

Andy B wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 3:57am:

Where is the off topic section?

Hi Andy,

  If you click on "Conversation Board" or "Forums" you will see there are multiple forums.  If you count eight down from this forum, "Afterlife Knowledge", you will see "Off Topic Section" wherein posts that don't belong to any other forum or to the general purpose of this site e.g. nonphysical reality, exploration, etc. get put.

  Here is a link to that general forum.

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=offtopic

Speaking of the Off Topic section, that's where this entire thread belongs.

Or maybe Bruce could create a Conspiracy Forum.

R

rondele wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 8:57am:

Those who cling to these bizarre conspiracies do so not because they have any credibility, but because they have their own agenda.  Namely, their hostility to Bush and generally to the U.S. This hostility is apparent throughout their postings. They conveniently forget that 9/11 was in the planning stages years before Bush was even a speck on the presidential radar.

The purpose of the U.S. military & the CIA to execute the WTC attack was to later start factories.

Yes, factories.

Factories for "manufacturing" terrorists.

Each time a U.S. military drone kills a few Pakistani school kids in some village far away, there is the possibility that a new terrorists will be "produced".

The more terrorists the U.S. military succeeds in producing by killing Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghans, Palestinians etc, the more money the U.S. military will get in order to continue the War on Terrorism!

And the power of the U.S. military & the CIA will grow and grow.

  One last reply from me on this thread before i take it to the Off topic section.  Actually, i'm not speaking to 9-11 in a direct sense now anyways.

  Andy wrote, Rondele isn't trying to distract with his answers imo, as he said, he finds it difficult when he witnessed something and people are basically saying he's wrong. I can see where he's coming from 100%.

   Andy, i've been on this site a long time and have had much time and observation of Rondele (and some interaction) .   I am an unusually honest and direct person at times, and despite that it may make me "look bad", unspiritual, or paranoid to others here, i am going to frankly state my mind and heart here. 

  With perhaps the exception of one post wherein Rondele stated that he observed one of the plane crashes on that day, and also knew someone (a neighbor), who died in one of those flights, most of his posts and replies on this thread have been about attaching over generalized and negatively judgmental labels to those who believe differently than he.  Sometimes this has been more subtle, and other times less so.

Rather than argue the specific points people like Albert or i brought up, he has used what i now think of as "Fox News" method of trying to convince people of something.  This is all about undermining the opponent and their character, rather than directly and logicality debating the issue, topic, and facts on hand.  It's a way of appealing to and affecting people emotionally and in a "right brain" sense.  If the right brain doesn't have the balance of the left brain helping out, a person will believe such expressions because of the emotional impact.  Plus, there is the repetition factor.  As Herman Goeing knew so well and said, if one repeats an untruth enough times, people start to eventually accept it as truth.  (especially if it is geared more to their emotional and right brain side rather than clear logic or intuitive side).

  So, due to his style and majority of responses on here, he has lost credibility to me as someone who is open minded about this topic. 

Moreoever, he has lost credibility to me in general, because while this isn't apparent to some on here, i've seen repeated attempts on his part to very oh so subtly undermine Bruce Moen and his work on this site. 

  I will give an example of this.  Bruce has stated in his work that he's been in contact with nonphysically focused Bob Monroe. 

    Rondele brought this up, and then mentioned he met Laurie Monroe and that Laurie told him personally in a private conversation that Laurie expressed disbelief that anyone has contacted her father so long after his transition. 

    Well, not long after this, someone shared a link to an article wherein in Laurie's own words, she wrote that she and others have been in off and on contact with her father.   

    Now, either Laurie Monroe was lying to Rondele, or Rondele was lying to us about the whole situation.  Either way, it seems a bit "fishy" to me.

  I lean to the latter for various reasons, but primarily because like i said earlier, i've seen these subtle attempts of Rondele to undermine Bruce's work and thus indirectly Bruce himself.

  Do i personally dislike Rondele?  No, but i'm not fooled by him.  I've come to believe he has a negative agenda for being on this site, and it's interesting to me that he spent some time helping Vicky who is personally close to Bruce. 

  Originally his "good works" to Vicky was undisclosed and anonymous to both her and this site , but then for some reason, he mentioned publicly that he was the one who had helped Vicky.  The "some reason" seems to relate to peoples questioning Rondele's attitude and comments about Bruce and his work. 

  Rondele responded by saying that he is a long time supporter of Bruce, went to a workshop, has read all his books, etc.  Then mentioned how it was he who had helped Vicky.

    And yet, i've seen what i've seen from him.  I've also seen him mess up on some pretty major points on Bruce's work. 

For example, on this very thread, Rondele mentioned that "Max" of Bruce's book was a thief in a thiefs hell.

  This is not true (If one reads the books, Max was an emotional sadist who in his in physical life had been a psychologist/therapist type who had misused his position to emotionally hurt others) and while i believe this was probably just a simply mistake and misremembering on Rondele's part, it also makes me think he isn't as supportive of Bruce's work as he has claimed.

  I know how my memory works.  When it comes to things i'm really interested in, really like, and emotionally invested or connected to, my memory is excellent and clear.  But with things less emotionally affecting or important to me, i tend to mix things up if there is a lot of time between me and the info, etc.  This is why, despite that it's been years that i've read the book which contains this account, i immediately saw the error. It's because i like and respect Bruce's work that much.

  In any case, i don't trust Rondele as i've seen various incidents over the years, that incline me to seriously question his presence here. 

  One such obvious thing is that this site (and especially this particular forum) is all based around people's actual experiences with the nonphysical.  I've read A LOT of Rondeles posts on here, and i can't remember him speaking on his own experiences dealing with the nonphysical. 

Most often, he speaks on an outer source or book or person, or he talks about unrelated subjects like on this thread.  In general, he doesn't seem very interested in what this site is about at it's fundamental core. 

  This is VERY rare with posters on this site, the huge majority of which have at least shared at least a couple of their own experiences with the nonphysical, even if it was just dreams or what not.   

  Also, isn't it just so convenient that Rondele not only personally saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, but ALSO personally knew and had a neighbor that was on one of the flights? 

  This is either quite a confluence of synchronicity, or it is a lie to bolster his agenda of discrediting the alternative explanations and beliefs which are skeptical of the official 9/11 story.  In any case, it reminds me a bit about his personal conversation with Laurie Monroe and that whole thing.   

   I rarely, rarely ever speak about fellow forum members in such a personal, direct, individual and critical way, but i've been seeing and feeling these things off and on in regards to Rondele and it's only been built up and supported by his actions and words on this site.

  Again, i'm not fooled by either 9/11 or by Rondele's questionable presence here.  I'm about 98 percent certain that he has some kind of negative agenda for being here, and not is all as it seems on the surface of things.

wow, a troll. :)

Rondelle does have a tendency to make judgmental and flippant comments on this forum. It seems as if he follows Don's (Berserk) example.

I believe it is fine to speak about things in a discerning way, but I don't believe it is okay to be disprespectful.

I must also say that before Justin wrote his last post, I found it hard to believe that Rondelle saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon. This seems like a far fetched idea, unlike the possibility of 911 being an inside job.

recoverer wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:

Rondelle does have a tendency to make judgmental and flippant comments on this forum. It seems as if he follows Don's (Berserk) example. I believe it is fine to speak about things in a discerning way, but I don't believe it is okay to be disprespectful. I must also say that before Justin wrote his last post, I found it hard to believe that Rondelle saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon. This seems like a far fetched idea, unlike the possibility of 911 being an inside job.

Hey guy's. I've never read of any credible witnesses reports of seeing the jetliner crash into the pentagon. In fact I've never read of anybody seeing the jetliner crash into the pentagon, except here on this forum?!
If you can post links to witnesses seeing the crash, which includes seeing the airplane, and not just seeing the resulting explosion, it would be appreciated. 

I need to add that I basically believe Rondelle is a good guy and has good intentions.  However, I also believe he allows the sarcastic part of himself to manifest on this forum at times.

If he made up the story of seeing an airplane crash into the Pentagon it would've been more of a matter of him having a flipant attitude when it comes to this forum, than a matter of his being liar. My guess is that he relates to the people he knows in an honest manner. 

Now if he said that he saw a cruise missle fly into the pentagon or saw a guy press a button just before one of the towers came down, I'd be more inclined to believe him.  ;D

That's quite an attack, Justin.  I suppose I could ignore it but if I did that, you would no doubt assume it's because you "caught" me.

First, a general statement: I don't drink the kool-aid that so many of you do.  I was taught to use critical thinking.  If something strikes me as unfounded, I tend to point that out.  That automatically makes me a suspect in your eyes, but so be it.

You say I don't argue the specific points.  If we're talking about 9/11 conspiracies, it's hard to argue specifically simply because the allegations are so far-fetched and are fueled by such anger against Bush or the CIA that no rational rebuttal is ever accepted.

Not to say I haven't tried.  I pointed out that bin Laden was a well known terrorist way before 9/11, way before Bush was ever elected, but that doesn't matter to you.  The WTC was a target 8 years before Bush was even elected.  Again, that makes no difference. 

That said, how dare you compare me to Herman Goeing! That is outrageous.  But it's just another example of how on the one hand you profess your pure unconditional love, while turning around and indulging in character assassination.  Does the word hypocrisy ring a bell with you?

Now, as to your specific allegations:

Bruce's book in which he talks about being in contact with RAM was written years before his northern VA workshop. When I spoke with Laurie during a break, she most definitely did say that her dad had long since passed on and as far as she knew, no one was in contact with him.

Unfortunately, Laurie has since died and cannot corroborate this.  Bruce can confirm she was at that workshop.  Further, please provide the link where Laurie said she was in contact with her dad.  I never said she hadn't ever been in contact with her dad after he died.  You need to understand the timing. Your calling me a liar doesn't change the facts.

The most disgusting thing you have said relates to my helping Vicky with her book.  I did that after she put out a request for volunteers to read and comment on it.  I did that, not because she is a friend of Bruce, but because I had the time and because writing is something I have always enjoyed.  I did it to help her, not to curry favor with Bruce.  If that was my motive, I would have told Bruce right after I had completed it.  The only reason I recently mentioned it for the first time was because I felt bad about my post to Seraphis and wanted to assure him that I was sincere in my apology.

Yet you choose to impute some ulterior motive to my helping her.  You know Justin, you are really in need of some personal counseling.  Your attacks border on the irrational. 

You even make a point of saying I was wrong about Max being a thief.  You're right, I was wrong, but that wasn't my point to begin with.  How petty of you to include that in your attack.

And you pat yourself on the back by saying that you remembered who Max was because you "like and respect Bruce's work that much."  As if I don't.  Why would I have read his books and paid the money to attend his workshop if I didn't think he was on the level?  Cute, Justin, very cute.

Regarding my own personal experiences:  I've been on this board much longer than you, so maybe you don't recall that I did post several experiences indicative of the existence of the afterlife.  One involved my life being saved by an angel when I was about 11 or 12.  I don't go on about these things because they are very personal. 

So once again, my friend, you are wrong in your allegation.

Now to your most egregious (look it up) charge:  You say "isn't it just so convenient that Rondele not only personally saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, but ALSO (your caps) personally knew and had a neighbor that was on one of the flights."

Yes, I get the sarcasm in your remark.  And the clear implication that I'm lying.  I won't repeat what I've already posted about that morning. Since you've already impugned my character, nothing I can say would make any difference to you.  The Olsons lived here in Great Falls, and for you and others to trivialize her death by saying the plane never crashed into the Pentagon is so atrocious and despicable that I'll not dignify it any further.

You can believe what you want.  Whether you accept what I say or whether you don't is totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

All in all, Justin, a shameful attack.

R

Rondelle:

Before you wrote your last post, I saw that you, Justin and I were on this forum. As a joke I called him and hummed the Jeopardy song, as I (and perhaps Justin) waitied for your response.

I got the impression that he didn't feel good about writing his post, but he went ahead and did so, possibly because he's not afraid to speak his mind.

It may be that he has some misunderstandings about some of the accusations he made. For example, the assistance you provided to Vicky.

However, I believe it is a mistake to suggest that he needs counseling or lacks PUL because some of his accusations aren't accurate. You yourself have made false accusations when you accused people of being Bush/Cheney haters. You are so far from the truth about this.

When it comes to Bruce being a disk member with Robert Monroe, my memory about this matter isn't clear, but I do remember that somebody acccused Bruce Moen of not speaking the truth. I also remember that Bruce responded to this allegation. My memory is unclear because I thought Don had written the accusatory post. Perhaps Justin is speaking of another. Whatever the case, when you state that Laurie said one thing while other sources say differently, perhaps it isn't unreasonable for one to wonder about the inconsistency.

As I already said, when I read what you wrote about an airplane crashing into the towers, I doubted what you said. Not because I believe you are a blatant liar, but because your sometimes disrespectful attitude towards this forum caused me to believe that you might make such a false statement. If somebody on this forum stated that they saw a cruise missle crash into the Pentagon, chances are you would doubt this person without having to have an overly negative opinion about he or she.

This forum is set up so you can see a poster's last 40 posts. I checked your last 40 so I can show how often you make sarcastic remarks. Perhaps if you don't want people to have doubts about you, you should find a more respectful way. (I wrote a few comments within brackets.)

-How come no one has mentioned that Bush also ordered the levees in New Orleans to be blown up, in order that the damage from Katrina could be maximized?

You guys are slipping....

R

-It's really all about their hatred of Bush. It's just that the conspiracies fit into that agenda.  I'll say it again...if Gore had been elected, none of this conversation would be going on, the attacks notwithstanding.

Why don't you guys just come out and say that Bush/Cheney are guilty of mass murder?

-I think the hatred of Bush/Cheney (yes, even among those who proclaim their pure, unconditional love) is so strong that it propelled all sorts of conspiracies.  Even the one that supposedly shows a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon. Obviously fake but who cares as long as it fits an agenda.

[I'm not certain if you were serious about the below.]
Another poster's statement: <<Hi Vicky : Without going into what happened I can report that my brain is transforming... this is my second or third session since the above... I am transforming into to an entirely 'different entity... more powerful and balanced... I had a solid vision of an office with a light brown  leather upholdstered desk chair... it was as solid as any physical world office that I might walk into in my physical body... as visualizations began to occur they were very real world but fleeting but the process of transformtion is underway... my tendency is to overdo it rather than stay the course with my present regiem I am tempted to do three meditations a day instead of just one and occasionally two... depending on my time constains...>>
Rondelle's response: Tito-  Sounds to me that you might be transforming into what Bruce calls a "Big Fish."
 
You should contact Bruce asap with this exciting news.


R

-Getting hungry for a nice grilled rib roast, preceded by a well made extra dry martini (shaken, not stirred, topped off with oil from lemon peel). 

I've found that blue cheese with rice crackers goes great with the martini, fyi.

R


-[An example of when you spoke of what Bruce Moen wrote. Certainly it is okay to question what he says, but sometimes you give the impression this is one of your motives for being on this forum.]

Incidentally, regarding AIDS, the guide told Bruce (and I'm quoting here): "Look at the population segment where AIDS first showed up- in homosexuals.  Now there's a group even good Christians can hate.  That's a real incongruity in a religion based on a God who said you must love your neighbor as yourself.......that incongruity is an opportunity to incarnate into a lifetime as a Christian to learn about Love."

You can draw your own conclusions.  I certainly have drawn mine.

R

-Doc-

Amid so much of the outright nonsense that seems to populate this board lately, your post stands out as an eloquent beacon of common sense and compassion.

Juditha, listen carefully to what Matthew said.  He has given you words to live by. You will never get better advice.

R


-Seems to me the Robert Bruce thread has officially jumped the shark.

R


[It seems that with the below you are calling some of us either liars or deluded.]
-Well, one good thing if the world really does end in 2012- we won't have to worry any longer about an invasion of reptilian aliens.

In fact, if the reptilians were smart, they would invade right now.  Otherwise there might not be anything left worth invading.

R

-

Oh, also from Rondelle's last 40 posts.

"First, a general statement: I don't drink the kool-aid that so many of you do.  I was taught to use critical thinking."

If somebody such as Doc, Bruce, Vicky, Justin, Don (despite his rudeness and contempt for new agers) wrote that they saw an airplane fly into the White House I'd be inclined to believe he or she.

But Rondelle, he often comes off as a wise guy (smart aleck), and a wise guy, just for the fun of it, might claim that he saw an airplane fly into the Pentagon so he can see how the discussion continues.

Rondelle,

Thanks for being the voice of reason in a sea of New Age quackdoodle, the same sea in which callers repeatedly show themselves immersed in George Noory's New Age show, "Coast to Coast," a program on which analogous mindless conspiracies regularly fester the airwaves.  Strange, that your detractors are too blind to see the obvious hatespeech implicit in the ant-Bush screed.  As if the gullible charge of mass murder is not hate speech!

This thread illustrates why New Age crowing about PUL is so ironic.  True love allows the  benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence that engages the public attention of rivals who would want to know, but are too rational to concoct fables.  In fact, this thread illsutrates a healthy rule of thumb: whenever New Agers spew venom at conservatives which is ignored by the big bad world of honest and open pundits, stamp the venom with the intellectual merit of the mindless tabloids.  And I remind readers that I say this as a Democrat, not as a Rupublican.

Well, I'm glad you guys are having fun with my thread.  But really, I just wanted to know where Bin Ladin might be now, and if anyone has seen him. 

Goes to show (from the past days comments) how hard it is to be non-judgemental, doesn't it?  That's what everybody here says we should be, but it's harder to walk the walk than talk the talk.

Calypso wrote on May 13^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:

But really, I just wanted to know where Bin Ladin might be now, and if anyone has seen him.

After I read your post, I lay down and asked my guides to see bin Laden.

And almost at once I spotted him at a small market. He is looking at textiles, apparently he wants to buy some textiles. He is surrounded by mostly other men with dark beards, 10 of them perhaps. The housing is in the style from the time of Christ, all white rather smooth outer walls.

I see one woman at a distance, she has a hood, with an eye-slit. A niqab I think. There seems to be a string at the middle keeping the eye-slit narrow.

I see Osama talk with other men. I see him carry some kind of carpet up some flat stairs. Perhaps it's a mat he just has bought.

Osama bin Laden is praying somewhere. He kneels on a mat and splashes his face with water and washes his hands.

Osama and some man in the desert, they grind sand on their soles and on their palms.

Next, I see a man about 20 years younger than Osama standing in the low, orange sun, facing it and perhaps preparing his prayer, keeping his hands towards the sun. After some time Osama walks to the young man and some other men standing. He tells them to move and they start walking out of my view. There is some kind of urgency in Osama's approach.

Next scene. Osama and a another man in same age is pulling a third man who looks wounded into a house. They all wear mostly white clothes, but the there is little blood visible.

Next scene I see Osama sitting among other men on carpets talking. He is raising his index finger and saying something with firmness. He then lets the back of his hand move over the carpet. I also see some kind of wooden (?) pearl necklace on the carpet close to him. The other men seem important and listen to Osama with great attention.

Next scene, Osama is walking down the street, perhaps going back to the market. He passes several disabled beggars and gives them some gifts or coins. He then continues walking with some other men.

A younger man runs up to Osama and says something to him, pointing back at the beggars. Osama has to go back and give something to one of the beggars, which Osama apparently forgot to give in the first instance. It seems to be five beggars in all, all men and severely handicapped.

I saw some more scenes, but they all had the feeling of BST.

Funny enough, I also saw a jew with that little box and string they put one their heads (?). I didn't get the impression that there was any hostility between the Osama people and the jew, so perhaps their territories are close by each other and they respect each other?

I also see a man run down a hill from the Osama side and talk to the jewish man.

I saw a lot of close ups of Osama's face when he talked with firmness to people standing around him. There was an air of respect and dedication to his expressions.

Then I felt I've seen enough and abandoned.

PauliEffect:

It sounds like you received symbolic informaton about Bin Laden. The key is to figure out what the symbology means.

A couple of nights ago I had a dream with Bin Laden. I won't go into all of the details, but at the end we looked at each other and I looked at him in a way that showed love and no judgment. Despite what some might think, I'd look at George W. Bush the same way.

The astral exporer with consistently the best verifications is Swedenborg.  He discovers the principle of like attracts like as a crucial principle for afterlife plight.  From this perspective, Osama is trapped in a hell of those who must learn the consequences of mass murder fueled by blind belief in a hate-based ideology.  His past life review will force him to witness and directly experience the chain-reaction of pain, grief, and sorrow which his plans have inflicted on all his victims.  Beyond that fate, his ultimate future is unknown. 

Don

One impression I got from my dream is that there are beings of love and light who even though they don't approve of some of the things Bin Laden did, they have no judgment towards him. The feelings of unconditional love I experienced during the dream seemed pretty authentic.

I have received thousands of messages from spirits,  and going by what my experience has shown me, it is definitely possible that Pauli Effect received messages from spirits with good intent. They probably sent him information they considered to be most appropriate.

  Interesting account Paulieffect, thank you for sharing it.

P.S., for any possibly interested, i've continued the 9/11 research documenting hard evidence that it was an inside job over in the off topic section. 

Here is a link to the thread:

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1305347958

recoverer wrote on May 13^th, 2011 at 7:22pm:

One impression I got from my dream is that there are beings of love and light who even though they don't approve of some of the things Bin Laden did, they have no judgment towards him. The feelings of unconditional love I experienced during the dream seemed pretty authentic.

  The highlighted part of your post reminds me of many accounts in various "spiritual" and nonphysical literature about the whole "life process review" which is over seen by what different people describe as "Elders", completed Beings, androgynous super wise/aware/loving Beings, etc. etc.

   It's interesting to note that they help less mature Souls to become aware of their errors, by gently pointing these out during the review process and asking things like, "do you think you could have done better?"

  One might think that is "judgmental" of these Beings, and who are they to judge what is error or what is not or even more to point it out.  If PUL is unconditional, then can a PUL attuned consciousness even see or perceive error in others, or in general?

   But i have come to realized that there is a difference between what we know of as common judgment and being judgmental, and of pointing out lack or errors from an impersonal and PUL attuned state and an intent to be helpful to the greater good.

Using these Elder Beings as an example, it's also common to hear that these Beings feel love and concern for the Souls during the whole time of their life review, both when they are highlighting the wise and spiritual parts of a person's life and the things they could work on. 

  I'm sure Bin Laden will get a mix of the above, like most.  Hopefully it will inspire him to positive change and work on self. 

   Somewhat related, but different, are the accounts of Yeshua life and changing teaching style.  Most often he seems like a pretty gentle, laid back kind of guy, very accepting and often ignores people's criticisms of him and negativity shown his way. 

  But there are other accounts wherein he either shows anger (pretty rarely though), or criticizes strongly some of his fellow humans.  He said some pretty strong things to some of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes.

  In some cases, this was in obvious defense of another person or group of people.  For example, the woman about to be stoned for adultery.  He turns their typical, personal, and selfishly sourced judgment back on them, and makes everyone aware of their own errors.

  Was he being typically judgmental as we so often find in human interactions, or was it something else?  We are told by various sources, both non religious and religious that he was an extremely PUL attuned person.

  Maybe there is more to PUL than always being nicey nicey, pleasant, and totally accepting of certain ways, expressions, and activities?  For me, the difference lays primarily in one's intent, how you view and feel about the person as a whole, and whether in defense of others, principles or truth is involved in an impersonal and non selfish or self reactive way. 

  It does seem like the latter kind of judgment is very rare when speaking of physical Earth and human interaction though.

Maybe I should also mention that besides the jewish old man, I also shortly felt the presence of someone who seemed to be Sufi. So some BSTs with very similar foundation and background were close to each other.

My feeling is that the message given by the constant shifting of the scenes with bin Laden, is that he is in a BST, and that it was important to tell people on this site that Usama bin Laden has ended up in a BST Hollow Heaven.

My guess is that it's because it is important to question some people's personal Belief-Thinkings that bin Laden has end up alone in a F 23 Hell. I don't have the impression that that's the case.

Usama bin Laden's own state of mind was from a BST perspective. In an unfair world, he felt that he was one of the individuals who stood up for the weak and most likely he felt that he was fighting against the "evil" in the name of his God.

Berserk2,

"Thanks for being the voice of reason in a sea of New Age quackdoodle, the same sea in which callers repeatedly show themselves immersed in George Noory's New Age show, "Coast to Coast," a program on which analogous mindless conspiracies regularly fester the airwaves."

They fester the airwaves of free speech, and you choose to row your boat on that sea.

"Strange, that your detractors are too blind to see the obvious hatespeech implicit in the ant-Bush screed. As if the gullible charge of mass murder is not hate speech!"

Dissent, the same way you reserve your right to speak up about the new age ghetto. Another facet of gullible is when very obvious dark pathers are hailed as heroes.

"This thread illustrates why New Age crowing about PUL is so ironic.  True love allows the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence that engages the public attention of rivals who would want to know, but are too rational to concoct fables."

Turning the other cheek is basically about being unconditional. You may turn the cheek to someone others might not do, but the new age spook seems to haunt the living daylight out of you.

The number of how many believe they are bodies when viewing the world as a whole is a poll I won't be doing, so the assumption is the overwhelming majority. For me it's the greatest "conspiracy" in the history of the earth, yet for others it's a concocted fable and are content with the idea of pushing daisies.

I'm not having any problem with this thread. I'm on a Mac. Pictures like that don't prove anything though. I've read a much better explanation which does not support the theory here on the Top Secret Forum which has pictures galore for anyone who wants to look at them.