SOMEONE TELL ME!

Has ANYONE read the "Special Report: Bush Admits Guilt Over 9/11"?!! Can someone inform me as to the validity of this story? It says what it says, and if it's true, i don't know what to think, if it's not, i don't know who to trust. I'm goin' nuts here!!

Disposable_hero said:

Has ANYONE read the "Special Report: Bush Admits Guilt Over 9/11"?!! Can someone inform me as to the validity of this story? It says what it says, and if it's true, i don't know what to think, if it's not, i don't know who to trust. I'm goin' nuts here!!

Click to expand...

It's a spoof :)

Actually, Disposable_hero, that article is satire - So, it's not true, and is basically a bit of 'surgical room humor' - it is based on the truth in a way, but I don't think we'll see G.W. actually telling the truth anytime soon - or ever, actually.

anart said:

but I don't think we'll see G.W. actually telling the truth anytime soon - or ever, actually.

Click to expand...

Well if we think of what he says from the perspective of him talking about himself and his cronies when he's supposedly talking about others then some truth comes out!

damn. okay, thanks. i kinda bought that one, it's well written. And the language that he uses...uch...nevermind

Yes Disposable_hero; I started to feel a chill as I read it. I could not believe what I was reading. I started scanning down the page, looking for the 'gatcha' line which I didn't see. I started scanning other sources.....nothing??????? This must be a joke. I didn't laugh at it though. I slowly came to the thought that this Bush guy is too tied into the control matrix to say this. He doesn't have the gonads. Puppets follow their strings.

anart wrote:

'surgical room humor'

Click to expand...

No kidding :) I could feel my blood pressure rising!!!

I got a chuckle out of the adjective used to describe Bush and his wife in an Associated
Press article on MSNBC today. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14780747/
In the third paragragh it states, quote:
'Bush and his wife, Laura, stood ramrod straight and wordless in the bright sunshine.'
The word 'ramrod'
From my Merriam Webster Dictionary
ramrod: 1. a rod used to ram a charge into a muzzle-loading gun 2: a cleaning rod for small arms 3. BOSS, OVERSEER
ramrod: marked by rigidity or severity
ramrod: to direect, supervise, and control

When I read the second definition I though of Colbert's toasting of Bush and the line he said...to paraphrase: 'The president sticks to his principles and beliefs. He believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.' HAHAHAHAHA

The humour we throw at these puppets would all be so funny if the seriousness of the situation they place us all wasn't so real.

wow, some of you really need to crank up your BS-detector!


i knew it was a spoof at 'Bush admits guilt'

well written nonetheless.

DON'T BE FOOLED, HEH!, that's my avatar, a fool! Anyhow, there is a lot of TRUTH hidden in plain sight within this "spoof" article. I'm saving it and studying it very carefully and cross referencing it with the C's transcripts and Laura's articles. Off the top of my head I'd give the article a 97% accuracy rating! (on the points that matter--subject to future foolish correction)

In fact, I think this article is so important, and Funny! that I am including a link here, so those that haven't read this true GEM can find it here: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060911_SpecialReportBushAdmitsGuiltOver911.php Read it and Weep with tears of Laughter and Joy and . . . . Frustration perhaps?

I like how in the V spirit, it's an artist using lies to tell the truth.

Re: Signs Editorial: "Bush admits Guilt"... Well, at LEAST I'm not the only one left 'wondering'... Actually, it's the reason I joined this forum. So, Ignacius, from the standpoint of creating a believable "gotcha", OBVIOUSLY , 'ya' DID GOOD! That said... I doubt I'm alone in saying I'd have PREFERRED to find a disclaimer in there SOMEWHERE, though...~ Remember all that 'panic' that resulted from Orson Well's radio drama?

I'm a contractor. I work in construction and I work off of ladders quite often. To save time I will often try defying gravity by reaching out to run electrical cable; feeding it or grabbing it. At times I've reached out just a little too far and felt the center of gravity shift and for a brief fraction of a second I'm starting to fall. The body reacts quickly to return your center of balance to the safe zone. But that split second is enough to get my sympathetic nervous system ( fight or flight ) firing. And I get a chill running through me. It's the same kind of chill I got when I started reading this 'Bush admits guilt' spoof. 'What if' and 'What is' are colliding in my mind until I calm down and realize I'm back on firm footing; back in the comfort zone.

I think a part of me wanted this article to be real. Alright, now something is going happen that will change the direction we're heading. I'm not sure what would happen but it would happen fast. The controllers would be racing into damage control. How would they explain his actions, his admittance of guilt, his finger pointing? How would they deal with it? I'm sure Bush would not last very long.

I think it would be a great story to continue with. It could go so many ways.

I thought about printing it out and showing it to some people. I'm thinking that they would freak in disbelief. Their cozy little life is not so cozy anymore. And when I let them know it was just a joke, I'm sure some of them would hit me. And then again not everyone is going to read into it the way I did. I think I will print it out and show it around anyway. Then I'll let you all know the reactions I get. It gave me the chill which I didn't like and that is why I didn't find it funny. However it does contain a lot of objectively projected truth.

Maybe you should present them with the facts and the sources on which this article draws so that, if they are so inclined, they will not be able to return to that comfort zone of knowing that it was all a joke. Perhaps you also risk associating these ideas with a mindset which is not entirely serious about their study, which of course couldn't be further from the truth. Finally, what is it exactly about eliciting these kind of emotions in people which attracts you - or is it that you feel that this is what those people 'require'?

Ben wrote
Maybe you should present them with the facts and the sources on which this article draws so that, if they are so inclined, they will not be able to return to that comfort zone of knowing that it was all a joke. Perhaps you also risk associating these ideas with a mindset which is not entirely serious about their study, which of course couldn't be further from the truth.

Click to expand...

Yes Ben, that is a good point and I will provide links for them and encourage them to follow up and explore this information.

Ben wrote
Finally, what is it exactly about eliciting these kind of emotions in people which attracts you - or is it that you feel that this is what those people 'require'?

Click to expand...

OH no. I do not wish to make people uncomfortable. That is not my intent. I'm curious as to what the reaction will be; positive, pro-active, thinking mode or negative, reactive, denial. I would like people to read this stuff....... absolutely.

As I think of what you have said throughout the day the thought of what Gurdjieff and Mouravieff have said about the shock one needs to get change happening. If I interpret this correctly Gurdjieff talks of shock being needed to stay on course, to keep a straight line to jump the interval to the next octave. Mouravieff talks of shock being needed to create change and start the process of fusion within one's self to form a solid block, thus becoming one 'I', rather than several 'I's, each one in turn coming to surface depending on external stimulus. I need to re-read and study this stuff deeper. I think people do need a shock to act as a catalyst to change. I know I do. I'm lazy by default. The more uncomfortable, the more the desire to change. I think I'm slowly changing.

Thanks Ben for the comments. They are very much appreciated.

I have to admit I'm surprised that so many SotT readers took, even if for a moment, this article seriously. I think it would be of great use if those who were 'fooled' to do some immediate in-depth reading on psychopathy.

In defense of those taken in, it is well-written, and really a dream come true, so a double take isn't out of the realm of the understandable - with that said, however, a general familiarization with Ignacious O Reilly might help as well. ;) http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs442.htm

(Not to detract from your point, though Shane, it is very true that anyone who thinks, even momentarily, that the Pathocrats in power would ever actually tell the truth should probably really study the state of things via not only an understanding of psychopathy in general, but Ponerology specifically. I have to tell you that the first time I read the Ponerology material, my jaw hit the floor because every single detail of what we are going through right now with this world's leaders is laid out clearly.)