Monday, January 09, 2006

There's Lies; There's Damn Lies; & There's Pentagon Lies

You only have to read this article (click here) to understand what I mean by the title of this post. It amazes me that the American people will defend their government's version of events on that dreadful day in September. What amazes me more is how blatant and in-your-face the the Bush Reich are with their damn lies, talk about in plane sight.

I urge anyone interested in knowing a few more FACTS about what really did and did not happened that day to read this article click here for the full article. A few excerpts are below but believe me I think you might be convinced if you read the full article (with pictures).

It might seem hard to imagine real EVIL in an everyday life, it seems to belong to the realms of horror movies, somehow far from our everyday lives except maybe in the odd nightmare, or somewhere in transylvania, and certainly not in our backyards. Dream on...

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither did a 757

by Joe Quinn


After the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain '9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "Above Top Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written just a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of them...

The claim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory were doing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised in Mike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning piece of warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk about or deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracy because of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications" are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened to Flight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole 9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.

Ruppert balks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readers because, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, he suggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public support that they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of the collective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why any member of the public would happily accept that U.S. government officials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11 and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book) yet would be unable to accept the idea that the same government officials played a part in disposing of the passengers of Flight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in the context of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government and military, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and its occupants were flown to a specific destination and “disposed of” by the conspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for much stretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected by this paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens by crashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murdering them "in person," as it were.

Since Ruppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, many other "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea and even expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actually government agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers with the 'kooky' "no plane" theory.

Anyone who takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 is immediately at a disadvantage because the US government has already declared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and who did it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is no possibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analyses of same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the US government is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as truth everything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.

Investigation of the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation. When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has a history of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies) and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do you take as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit the murder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did not commit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that the suspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he was doing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossible scenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on the fact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find and present evidence that backs up his claim to innocence?

The fact is that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact, and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confronted with the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they also face the already well established public belief, by which they themselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth. The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to, if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn off the sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOK at the evidence without prejudice.

Now, if the person with a truly open mind is given all of the publicly available evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, what would such a person conclude about the most likely cause of the Pentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made available to the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from "ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good "best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private" evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated, would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any time soon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videos has not been released is in itself a key piece of evidence that suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is not the real story.

The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he has failed to don the mantle of objective observer of the available evidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts a lot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001. Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up." After you read everything below, you can make a call on that one yourself. ...


Wednesday, January 04, 2006

The Time & Money Scam

Curiously these two are intimately linked and both can be 'spent' we can spend time and we can spend money, or both together, spending time spending money. We can earn money but we can't earn time, we have to buy it if we want more. What is this 'buying time'? Immediately we buy it we spend it, maybe even trying to buy more. There are a lot of commonly used phrases surrounding time and money like 'time's money' so maybe time is a currency like money, there's a major difference though and even though every last second is accounted for, we can't deposit it for use later, neither can we get interest on it.

In order to have money we have to spend time doing something someone is prepared to pay us for. In order to have time we have stop doing the something which we exchange our time for their money, so then we spend time doing what we do with it before it passes. Passing time? Does it flow past as it travels from now to tomorrow, past us or through us, does it flow backwards as well as forwards, or is it circular going round and round like christmas and we have to grab it? If we spend time who 'gets' it and what do they do with it? What does it pay for? Are we buying conscious moments when we spend time?

Just as a matter of interest, if you could choose to have only one of these currencies either time or money which would it be? I like thought provoking questions and this one got me going on the relative values of these two currencies. Money seems to be a currencey of exchange which allows you to posses something when you spend it, if you don't have much money then you can't have many possesions. There isn't much you can do with money other than look at it, count it, and generally feel smug and secure because you have it, but it doesn't 'actually DO anything. You could SPEND a lot of TIME thinking what you might have if you are gifted with an imagination but other than the aforementiond watching and counting, money has little entertainment value of its own.

Time on the other hand might be a little more useful in many respects, we are talking of only having one of these currencies, so you wouldn't have to think about spending time getting someone to buy it for money (paid-work)because money doesn't exist in our world of time currency. But we could spend time doing some other activities, think about doing what might be useful for someone who might otherwise pay us money for our time, we might one day come home to find our lawn had been mowed, the house painted and a new car in the drive, all from someone using the time currency.

Time spent educating ourselves would not be for the purpose of aquiring a good job because as I said our currency doesn't require us to aquire money it is now useless and we can only look at it and count it. So education might entail learning about truth and values, and learning skills which are useful to us in our time spending. Of course everyone is spending their time too, because they have loads of it like we have so it's going round and round.

So why did some fool invent money? Probably the same as the one who, once we were ensconced in the money currency, suggested we exchange our gold for pieces of paper, but that was much much later.

Well can you think of someone who might not fit into our new time-currency deal, someone who might come along and steal your time, tax your time, fight over our time, absorb every bit of your time so you have no time to spend...? If you think about what you spend time doing, working, watching TV, cleaning the house, having and bringing up children, going to the gym, going shopping, mowing the lawn, doing some DIY, hobbies.....on and on. You have no time left for spending on others or contemplating the nature of life and the Universe, there is no way on earth you have time to spend in finding out that you have been had in one of the biggest scams in the entire history of the universe. And that's only part of it. The truth is much more strange than I can possibly write but here is a book which goes a long way towards an understanding of how it all came about. You couldn't make it up if you tried.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

A Voice in the Wilderness

50 or so years ago, a psychiatrist by the name of Carl Gustav Jung wrote a small book 'The Undiscovered Self', aimed at a readership who were not familiar with his more technical works nor with his radical new theory of the unconscious. J.B. Priestley said of this work '...readers should approach the book with an open mind. Suspicious staring and skimming are not good enough.'

What do you think he meant by 'Suspicious staring'? Perhaps he meant that if it doesn't fit with the view we have of the world as we think it is, then it has to be wrong, so we stare at it suspiciously. Well don't we just take a step back and initially reject ideas which despite all the evidence, seem somehow wrong to us? Jung talks about this when he talks about the human psyche and self knowledge,

"What is commonly called 'self-knowledge' is therefore a very limited knowledge, most of it dependent on social factors, of what goes on in the human psyche. Hence one is always coming up against the prejudice that such and such does not happen 'with us' or 'in our family' or among our friends and acquaintances, and on the other hand, one meets with equally illusory assumptions about the alleged presence of qualities which merely serve to cover up the true facts of the case." Jung (1957) p4.

Well how about including 'Our Government' in the above, whatever your country?

What Jung wrote in 1957 in the opening chapter of this book, could just as well have been written today with a few carefully chosen words changed to fit the current 'problem' or 'enemy'in fact could have applied to any period in history just about, and for that matter, there is nothing new under the sun. Jung writes... [my comments in brackets]

"What will the future bring? From time immemorial this question has occupied men's minds, though not always to the same degree. Historically, it is chiefly in times of physical, political, economic and spiritual distress that men's eyes turn with anxious hope to the future, and when anticipations, utopias, and apocalyptic visions multiply. One thinks, for instance, of the chialistic expectations of the Augustan age at the beginning of the Christian era, or of the changes in the spirit of the West which accompanied the end of the first millennium. Today as the end of the second millennium draws near, we are again living in an age filled with apocalyptic images of universal destruction. What is the split symbolised by the 'Iron Curtain' [or the Israeli wall] which divides humanity into two halves? What will become of our civilisation, and of man himself, if the hydrogen bombs [atomic bombs] begin to go off, or if the moral darkness of State absolutism should spread over Europe [or USA]?

We have no reason to take this threat lightly. Everywhere in the West there are subversive minorities [governments] who, sheltered by our humanitarianism and our sense of justice, hold the incendiary torches ready, with nothing to stop the spread of their ideas except the critical reason of a single, fairly intelligent, mentally stable stratum of the population. One should not, however, overestimate the thickness of this stratum. It varies from country to country in accordance with national temperament. Also it is regionally dependent on public education and is subject to the influence of acutely disturbing factors of a political and economic nature".Jung (1957) Pp1-2

But we are through-the-looking-glass here, and I am sure Dr Jung will forgive me for pointing out his 'Freudian slip' calling governments 'subversive minorities' because he goes on to say...

[..."since the gift of reason and critical reflection is not one of mans outstanding peculiarities, and even where it exists it proves to be wavering and inconstant, the more so, as a rule, the bigger the political groups are. The mass crushes out the insight and reflection that are still possible with the individual, and this neccessarily leads to doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny if ever the constitutional State should succumb to a fit of weakness. Rational argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotionality of a given situation does not exceed a certain critical degree. If the affective temperature rises above this level, the possibility of reason's having any effect ceases and its place is taken by slogans and chimerical wish-fantasies. [like 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction', and 'if you're not with us you're against us']

To be continued...

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Nothing New Under the Sun

Rene Descartes, (1596-1650) opens 'Meditation 1, 'The Things Which We May Doubt' by saying.... "Several years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences".

Later he goes on to say " All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived."

I want to add to this......Be Careful what you believe!

Friday, January 14, 2005

This is NOT Good News

This is definitly not good news!

I just received an email about a programme on BBC2 tonight 'Horizon' here's the email and a few personal comments from the person.

Just seen a really good programme on BBC2 called Horizon about climate change & a phenomena called "Global Dimming".

From BBC2 website:

"This may be the one of the most important Horizon films of recent years.Climate scientists have just discovered a phenomenon that threatens to disrupt our world. It may already have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands through drought and famine. Unchecked, it will strike again.The good news is that there is a cure. The bad news is that the cure may be worse than the disease. If they are right, then in tackling the one problem, we may unleash a climate catastrophe on our planet.This is a film about stark choices and about the dawning realisation that all our predictions about the world's climate may be completely wrong. At its heart is something that scientists are calling "global dimming".This film is a warning about what could happen if we fail to tackle global warming immediately. There is time to avoid all this - if the political will is there.

Contains disturbing scenes."

Comment from the sender...

Very scary and for me it puts the tin hat on the future of our climate. Global dimming due to particles (smoke, etc) in the air has been reflecting sunlight back into space & cooling the planet. Meanwhile greenhouse gases have been warming the atmosphere. Since we have taken steps to reduce particle emissions (catalytic converters, etc) the cooling effect of particles is reducing and what we are left with is the heating effect of the greenhouse gases. Global dimming has only just been discovered and since it's effect is lessening, the real effect of greenhouse gases is becoming apparent and it's twice as bad as was thought and maybe worse!The PTB have known this for a long time IMO. They also know that the only solution is to stop burning coal, oil & gas but that is political suicide. So rape, pillage, indebt and collect as much booty & power as possible until the end times roll (Title of my blog?). The dramatic warming could easily melt the Greenland ice sheets within 20 years (7 IMO) and raise the sea level 7m. All major cities around the world will be under water. A new Venice everywhere. That's just for starters. Warming accelerates as the rainforests wither & burn, and frozen methane at the poles is released (8x more powerful than CO2).Imagine trying to maintain food & water supplies, law & order, and economic activity in the middle of that. We won't need heating and we can burn candles/alternative (no electricity) but food is going to be an issue. It will be like North Africa in England.

The other thing is Horizon is a respected science based programme and they said time after time that global warming is occurring as a result of greenhouse gases created by burning coal, OIL & gas. How can anyone go on denying this fact? WiB & BiW.I just thought that you should know all of this.
I'm scared.C****x

Well that makes two of us, I wonder how many other people out there are scared too? Doesn't this just make you want to wake up, sit up, and damn well take notice, and really see what is happening on this earth, at this time!!!!

By the way...for those who are too stunned to think, WiB & BiW = White is Black & Black is White, just as I said yesterday, aint it just.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Got to Start Somewhere

It came as quite a shock to find out just how easy it is to start a blog. Which lead me to the think about how often we just don't DO something because we have a belief which prevents us from getting to grips with what we are not DOing. Thoughts like 'I can't; I don't know how; I'm too old, too fat, not technical; I'll be judged or criticised; I might be wrong; well guess what I am all of those things, and it hasn't stopped me, so at what point did I decide to silence that endless run of pre recorded programme tapes?
Well I didn't, in fact they still run endlessly, but they have a little less control than they did, in fact I would go as far as to say we have a sort of dialogue now, it goes something like this...'Oh yea, sez who' and 'so what'.
I question the validity of my own thoughts, in fact I question the validity of a lot of things these days, but it wasn't always like that, oh no. Once upon a time I was even gullible enough to believe politicians, and if someone said it on the television it had to be true. Believe me, when I say I used to believe black was black, I did, until recently, but thankfully I can now see that black is often white especially when it comes to politics.
Which is why I have called this Blog 'Through the Looking Glass' because nothing is ever what it seems, not even our own thoughts. To see reality we have a long way to go in re-wiring the neural circuits which keep us mired in the muck of what passes for truth in this strange matrix we have the audacity to call 'life'.