9/11 > General Discussion

Kill your tv. It's lying to you.

(1/2) > >>

herrnimrod:
I assume we can all agree that the official story of 9/11 is about as truthful as a politician with his mouth open. Theories are abound, and while I can't tell anyone what actually happened, I believe I can share a perspective not often encountered.

What if 9/11 didn't "happen" at all? What if the planes are computer graphics, witnesses actors and victims simulations? If you haven't put me on the ignore list by now you need to see these videos:

September Clues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWl8mUSDIwU

Did 3000 people really die?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0

SAO:
Hi herrnimrod, this theory has already been addressed on this forum many times, and it is not really so rare, the followers of this theory are called "no-planers", and this idea comes up wanting. It seems to be a distraction from the lies that are supported by overwhelming evidence (instead of a lot of suppositions like in this theory). For example - the lack of a plane at the Pentagon, and the controlled demolition nature of the twin tower collapse.

It's much more useful to focus on what we do know from the overwhelming evidence, the smoking guns if you will, rather than the more fringe ideas that require a lot of "what if's". The main idea is that it was an inside job, a fraud. However, it's been almost 10 years since 9/11 and the general public has either not realized it en masse, or experience cognitive dissonance and don't know how to deal with that realization other than shove it under the rug. Without the general public's consensus realization, nothing will change. And if the blatant smoking guns weren't enough to wake people up, then a fringe idea like the no-plane theory, which has far less evidence than the smoking guns in question, stands no chance either - and might only function to turn people away from the idea that 9/11 was an inside job even more., and perceive "911 truthers" as crazy.

herrnimrod:
It's not a theory. The pictures shown to us speak for themselves. A theory would be what actually happened. I don't know that, but I know the pictures we were shown are not real. That's all this is saying.

Of course it won't change anything. Is that your goal? To change things? Doesn't that entail relinquishing part of your self to what others think? I have no such ambition. What interests me are the implications it has for everything else. It basically means you can't trust anything. And that's why they're making it obvious, so you'll have a shot at becoming independent of it.

The evidence you speak of are mostly witnesses you can't trust, science you may or may not understand, media stories which all could be calculated lies, whistleblowers who may or may not be truthful etc. How could you ever hope to discern what really happened? Past knowing it was a lie, does it really matter?

I think to change others you must change yourself. This has helped me greatly in that regard, cause I realize I have no choice but to trust my own instincts. And once that hill has been crossed it becomes easier to live with the lies.

If I ran a psyop I'd definitely want to have control of every factor.

venusian:

--- Quote from: herrnimrod on March 29, 2012, 01:30:17 AM ---What interests me are the implications it has for everything else. It basically means you can't trust anything. And that's why they're making it obvious, so you'll have a shot at becoming independent of it.

--- End quote ---

Hi herrnimrod,

I don't understand what you mean to say in the above. Maybe you can clarify? Who is 'they'?

herrnimrod:
I don't know. The forces behind our worldwide deceptions, whoever or whatever they are.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page