Wondering Why so many people stop at the first Hurdle

[Lee.T]

I was trying to find out a decent explination as to why my family and friend's (if i can call them that anymore) when faced with simple truths that things are not right with this current planet setup, instantly gone on the defensive and fire off abuse. An example is my best(so called) friend of now 31 years, while on holiday visiting his sister in France, at one of the dinners (I do love the way french dine) approx 10 people eating and drinking, one particular French man nice guy started talking politics and that started me talking of course i just could remain quiet when i was hearing so much stuff that was spoon feed from the local news. Well people stayed queit and listened, and then promply moved to another subject.
Later after the Holiday, i heard only from a heated discussion with my so called best freind that, the group had started calling me names. And he refused to contact me anymore because he did'nt want to be called a conspiracy nut. And told me that the particular group though i was a lunatic.

I got that while i lived in Hong Kong also, but since, half of my friends in hong kong have come to ther own conclusions after me planting seeds, so to speak. Which is heart warming that they are now starting there own search for truth.

I found this (article below) as i was trying to figure out the mecanism of why people or so against a truth. Would any of the SOTT team comment on what would be your direction that you have found best for getting a message over and avioding the back lash. If there is infact a best way?


Slavery and the eight veils

by Don Harkins

Over the last several years I have evolved and discarded several theories in an attempt to explain why it is that most people cannot see truth -- even when it smacks them in the face. Those of us who can see “the conspiracy� have participated in countless conversations amongst ourselves that address the frustration of most peoples' inability to comprehend the extremely well-documented arguments which we use to describe the process of our collective enslavement and exploitation. The most common explanation to be arrived at is that most people just “don't want to see� what is really going on.

Extremely evil men and women who make up the world's power-elite have cleverly cultivated a virtual pasture so grass green that few people seldom, if ever, bother to look up from where they are grazing long enough to notice the brightly colored tags stapled to their ears.

The same people who cannot see their enslavement for the pasture grass have a tendency to view as insane “conspiracy theorists� those of us who can see the past the farm and into the parlor of his feudal lordship's castle.

Finally, I understand why.

It's not that those who don't see that their freedom is vanishing under the leadership of the power-elite “don't want to see it� -- they simply can't see what is happening to them because of the unpierced veils that block their view.

All human endeavors are a filtration process. Sports is one of the best examples. We play specific sports until we get kicked off the playground. The pro athletes we pay big bucks to watch just never got kicked off the playground. Where millions of kids play little league each spring, they are filtered out until there are about 50 guys who go to the World Series in October.

Behind the first veil: There are over six billion people on the planet. Most of them live and die without having seriously contemplated anything other than what it takes to keep their lives together. Ninety percent of all humanity will live and die without having pierced the first veil.

The first veil: Ten percent of us will pierce the first veil and find the world of politics. We will vote, be active and have an opinion. Our opinions are shaped by the physical world around us; we have a tendency to accept that government officials, network media personalities and other “experts� are voices of authority. Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the second veil.

The second veil: Ten percent of us will pierce the second veil to explore the world of history, the relationship between man and government and the meaning of self-government through constitutional and common law. Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the third veil.

The third veil: Ten percent of us will pierce the third veil to find that the resources of the world, including people, are controlled by extremely wealthy and powerful families whose incorporated old world assets have, with modern extortion strategies, become the foundation upon which the world's economy is currently indebted. Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the fourth veil.

The fourth veil: Ten percent of us will pierce the fourth veil to discover the Illuminati, Freemasonry and the other secret societies. These societies use symbols and perform ceremonies that perpetuate the generational transfers of arcane knowledge that is used to keep the ordinary people in political, economic and spiritual bondage to the oldest bloodlines on earth. Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the fifth veil.

The fifth veil: Ten percent of us will pierce the fifth veil to learn that the secret societies are so far advanced technologically that time travel and interstellar communications have no boundaries and controlling the actions of people is what their members do as offhandedly as we tell our children when they must go to bed. Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without having pierced the sixth veil.

The sixth veil: Ten percent of us will pierce the sixth veil where the dragons and lizards and aliens we thought were the fictional monsters of childhood literature are real and are the controlling forces behind the secret societies. Ninety percent of the people in this group will live and die without piercing the seventh veil.

The seventh veil: I do not know what is behind the seventh veil. I think it is where your soul is evolved to the point you can exist on earth and be the man Ghandi was, or the woman Peace Pilgrim was-people so enlightened they brighten the world around them no matter what.

The eighth veil? Piercing the eighth veil probably reveals God and the pure energy that is the life force in all living things-which are, I think, one and the same.

If my math is accurate there are only about 60,000 people on the planet who have pierced the sixth veil. The irony here is too incredible: Those who are stuck behind veils one through five have little choice but to view the people who have pierced the veils beyond them as insane. With each veil pierced, exponentially shrinking numbers of increasingly enlightened people are deemed insane by exponentially increasing masses of decreasingly enlightened people.

Adding to the irony, the harder a “sixth or better veiler� tries to explain what he is able to see to those who can't, the more insane he appears to them.

Our enemy, the state

Behind the first two veils we find the great majority of people on the planet. They are tools of the state: Second veilers are the gullible voters whose ignorance justify the actions of politicians who send first veilers off to die in foreign lands as cannon fodder -- their combined stations in life are to believe that the self-serving machinations of the power-elite are matters of national security worth dying for.

Third, fourth, fifth and sixth veilers are of increasing liability to the state because of their decreasing ability to be used as tools to consolidate power and wealth of the many into the hands of the power-elite. It is common for these people to sacrifice more of their relationships with friends and family, their professional careers and personal freedom with each veil they pierce.

Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), author of “Our Enemy, the State� (1935), explained what happens to those who find the seventh and eighth veils: “What was the best that the state could find to do with an actual Socrates and an actual Jesus when it had them? Merely to poison one and crucify the other, for no reason but that they were too intolerably embarrassing to be allowed to live any longer.�

Conclusions

And so now we know that it's not that our countrymen are so committed to their lives that, “they don't want to see,� the mechanisms of their enslavement and exploitation. They simply “can't see� it as surely as I cannot see what's on the other side of a closed curtain.

The purpose of this essay is threefold: To help the handful of people in the latter veils to understand why the masses have little choice but to interpret their clarity as insanity; 2. To help people behind the first two veils understand that living, breathing and thinking are just the beginning and; 3. Show people that the greatest adventure of our life is behind the next veil because that is just one less veil between ourselves and God.

 

[Rich]

Hi rolyateel.

what would be your direction that you have found best for getting a message over and avioding the back lash. If there is infact a best way?

This is a common problem and one I and others have recently been battling with. Some excellent advice was given on this thread: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=5732

 

[name]

rolyateel, just look back at your own way until where you are, remember the obstacles you superated each time you came to the knowledge of an 'impossible-to-even-think-about' fact, how horrified you were and how much time and effort you needed to let that new and very uncomfortable knowledge sink in and put it in context. these are the obstacles which everybody needs to superate (is that the word ?) in order to 'pierce a veil'. often, many of such pieces of new and very unsettling pieces of knowledge are needed to advance even one veil. this is beyond the capability of many people, this is why they call those who are 'behind the looking glass' crazy: it is easier, much easier.

if MY math is correct, the sixth veil would be 6 million

 

[Alana]

Hi rolyateel, thank you for the article, i like the way he explains things. The link for those interested is here. It is a good idea to provide links for the articles, so that others can check them out too.

It's ok when people don't want to know, or can't understand. I know it can be frustrating at times, or feel one might start thinking themselves crazy, if the most see white and they alone see black. It is good to have this forum to interact with one another, otherwise we might have commited ourselves already :) And if life is a school, and all are lessons, then all people are in the same school building which is one big class (earth). And in this class, not all people are on the same level of learning. Some are in 1st grade, 2nd, etc. And each person has to go through the grades on their own time. If i am in 4th grade, i can't understand the lessons of 5th grade, but i can't make somebody understand the lessons of 4th grade if they are in 2nd grade. And there's no point for me or them trying to do it. If you read the thread Rick offered, you'll find good advice of how to behave so you don't attract General Law against you. This bit by Mouravieff's Gnosis explains the general law idea:

The position of man in the Universe is analogous to that of a cell in the human body. Each cell is a part of an organ which, in its turn, is an element of a group of organs that assures proper accomplishment of some definite function of the organism.

From this point of view, let us examine the lot of a cell in our bodies. It is subject to two categories of laws. To simplify, let us say that it is placed under the rule of two laws.

The first keeps the cell in its place. In esoteric science we call it the General Law. The second leaves a certain liberty of action for the cell, and is called the Law of Exception.

The first law, which is conservative, ensures that the organ of which this cell is a part accomplishes its function with no impediment. To this end, the first condition is that during their lives the cells which compose the organ fulfil the role given them. This law obliges these cells to remain in their own places, to complete their work, and to dedicate their lives to it.

It is evident that if this law did not keep the cells of the body within the limits of each organ, if it did not oblige them to fulfil their function, the latter would not be able to exist. Thus this law is beneficial; by ensuring the existence of the organs, it permits the whole body to endure.

We know, however, that the total removal of certain organs of the body is compatible with survival. In the current state of our knowledge it even seems that removal of some of them leads to no serious functional inconvenience. Even more; the organism tolerates partial resection of some organs without compromising the roles played by the latter in the general economy.

This shows that the disappearance of a few cells, an infinitesimal part of an organ, goes unnoticed: its functioning is not impaired. As the essential role of the General Law is to watch over continuity of function, this disappearance passes unnoticed by it. Therefore it places no further obstacles. Symbolically, one can say that cells which escape from this law now enter the domain of the Law of Exception.

This escape of a few cells is a phenomenon which occurs constantly. All our cells from the epidermis to the nervous are constantly renewed according to different and variable rhythms. In addition to this renewal from within, there are also disappearances, compensated or not compensated for by new units.

Up to this point, the analogy with what happens to man because of the General Law and the Law of Exception could be taken as complete.
But it stops here, at least as regards the present state of our knowledge. In this activity of life, of migrations and of cellular death, there is no justification for thinking that the passage from the General Law to the Law of Exception results from any conscious actions of the cells.

For man it happens differently. As a cell of humanity, man forms part of organic life on Earth. This life in its ensemble represents a very sensitive organ of our planet, playing an important role in the economy of the solar system.

As a cell of this organ, man finds himself under the influence of the General Law, which keeps him in his place.

In fact, this law leaves him a certain margin or tolerance. It allows him some free movement within the limits it sets. Within these boundaries, which are very limited objectively although subjectively they appear vast, man can give free rein to his fantasies and his ambitions.

Without going too far into the definition of these limits and detailed description of the components of this General Law, we can say as an example that one of those factors is hunger: the servitude of working to assure our subsistence.

The chain: sexual instinct; procreation; and the care of parents for their children, is another factor. The esoteric maxim that applies to this aspect of life is conceived thus: carnal love is necessary for the general good.

Lastly, fear in its many forms constitutes the third group of factors in question.

On the whole, the permitted margin for free movement tolerated by the General Law is limited by something best described in a term less scientific than colourful: bourgeois happiness. Careers in every branch of human activity; fortune; family; love; honours etc.; all are subject to the sine qua non condition of unconditional if only subconscious acceptance of the inevitability of Death.

As long as man accepts the principle of the final annihilation of his Personality without a fight, he can carry on in life without attracting the increasing pressure of the General Law upon himself.

The case is totally different if he struggles to surpass the limits which it imposes. He then runs against the action upon him of this Law and its derivatives.

It acts simultaneously on several planes: physical, mental and moral.

Its action on the moral plane is conceived by man, since time immemorial, in the form of a personification: the Devil.

In the orthodox Tradition demonology occupies a considerable place. We find there practical and profound observations on the highly sophisticated and insidious forms that the "Devil's" action takes in very varied circumstances, in which it goes as far as using the good faith of humans for its own ends.

It must be realized that in placing himself under the aegis of the Law of Exception, man goes against the General Law, which he is even called upon to overthrow, if only on the individual scale.

He must not forget-under penalty of 'surprise attack' -that his success depends on "victory over the Devil", which as we have said, is the personalized moral aspect of the General Law. This is so even though this, being a cosmic law, is naturally a divine law.

However, one must not be afraid, as the Law of Exception is also a divine law: in choosing it, man continues to serve the interest of the whole, but differently and in an incomparably more efficient manner.

During his fight against the General law that keeps him in bondage, he is subject to tests that often take the form of temptations. In orthodox Doctrine deep studies are devoted to this theme.

As stated above, they contain precious advice of a practical nature, details of which we cannot cover in this present work. We are however permitted to draw attention to the indirect nature of diabolical action.

If, aiming straight towards his goal, which is liberation, the seeker successfully overcomes the obstacles and by this shows proof of a strength that would permit him to defy the authority of the General Law, the latter will begin to act upon him indirectly, generally by the mediation of his near ones if they do not follow the same path: this action occurs on the moral plane, and often takes emotional forms appealing to his most noble, generous and disinterested sentiments: to his charity; his obligations; his pity. It impels him down blind alleys, insinuating that he will thus be returning to his duty, that by so doing he will go on walking in the right path, etc. This will clarify the profound saying of Jesus that: ~ man's worst enemies are those of his own household.

Let us now repeat, because it is important, that esoteric work is by its nature a revolutionary work.

The seeker seeks a change of state: to overcome Death and attain Freedom.

 

[Joe]

Would any of the SOTT team comment on what would be your direction that you have found best for getting a message over and avoiding the back lash. If there is infact a best way?

I find that the problem in getting an unconventional point across is tone and style. Most often we react to a usually outrageous (from our point of view) comment by another, and already our blood pressure is up. We also forget to listen a little to the person talking before deciding what to say and the way to say it. It is best to cite examples in a nonchalant type of way, but making sure to give concrete examples that the listener knows to be factual. From there you develop an argument that is eminently logical because it is based on historically accurate and widely known facts or at least data generally held to be true.

For example, if you want to implant the idea that governments in general are evil and should not be trusted, do not try and say that all governments are evil, instead, pick one government, for example the US, and cite the widely accepted truth that they lied about the reasons for the Iraq war. State that, since the US government is surely peopled by intelligent men and women, as are the intelligence agencies, (in this way you pander to the "conventional wisdom" listeners' viewpoint) it is not logical to suggest that these people were so stupid as to misunderstand the data or to accept the word of people they knew to be suspect sources of information. In this case, we are left with the likely conclusion that government members lied consciously.

From there, you follow the same logical strategy with any other points. At some point you may push the person too far in terms of his or her "comfort zone", but if you have followed this strategy faithfully and kept a measured and accommodating tone throughout, there is a very good chance that the person themselves will come across as "flaky" or pig headed, or unwilling to accept facts, rather than you.

The problem with doing this is two-fold. It takes a lot of time (often more time than the listener is prepared to give which is a common opt out - "I have to go") and it is very difficult to keep ones composure.

I know from experience!

Having said that, email is much easier since the emotions don't come across so easily and it is easier to present a moderate tone.

Below is an exchange from over 2 years ago that I had with someone who was unfortunate enough to stumble across the PS video and felt compelled to tell us what was what. I'll call him "john doe".

First mail:

Subject: Pentagon Video

"I am appalled and shocked at the total disregard for the truth you have shown in the video in question. NONE of the theories you state in the video are accurate and have been disproved by experts who state their finding on a plethora of other sites. This video is harmful to the war on terrorism and it’s lies seek to weaken the bonds Americans have built since that day."

My response:

Hi,

you seem to have missed the point. The information in the Flash presentation is simply a collection of facts about the events of that day. We do not state any "theories". As such we are not "disregarding the truth", quite the contrary, we are standing up for it and demanding that the unanswered questions be answered. As far as we know, and we have checked, there exists no website or official government report which explains how a 757 plane could have punched a 14 feet wide circular hole through 6 reinforced concrete walls, after having first disintegrated on impact with the outside of the building, leaving barely any trace of wreckage.

If the official story is true, the government can easily prove it by releasing even one still or piece of footage from the many cameras that recorded the event which should show categorically what type of aircraft hit the Pentagon. Sadly, they seem very reluctant to do so.

If this video is harmful to the "war on terrorism" then the fault lies with the US government and the incessant lies it has attempted to pass off on the gullible public about the events of 9/11 and the so-called "war on terror" itself. We demand the truth, as should every freedom-loving US citizen.

Thanks for writing, we appreciate all comments.

His follow up:

Subject: No Sir

No sir you have missed the point. I watched your video and you didn’t even have the core to look at the link I sent you. The site I provided disproved everything your video stated. I understand that we need to seek out the truth, but the truth has been blurred by your “black helicopter� theories and unsubstantiated claims. All of the claims you make in the video have been disproved by the U.S. government, independent investigators and even American Airlines themselves (they are the ones who LOST the plane in the first place).

The link I have provided should prove without a doubt that a jet plane flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. It is utterly pathetic for your website to make such false claims that, conveniently, put the current presidential administration under scrutiny, when the rest of the cassiopaea sites obviously have a democratic agenda. Quit trying to scare people with these underhanded tactics and lies. People like you and site like yours are great, for entertainment purposes only. If you had any leg to stand on, why isn’t 60 minutes or another news program jumping on your findings? I know why: because you are a big liar.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Check out this link, unless you are scared of the truth.

My response:

Sacred of the truth? How does asking extremely important questions that have NOT been answered make me scared of the truth? I seek the truth. Do you think that I would be scared if the official story about 9/11 proved to be true? Of course not, I would be happy in such an event. However, if our assertions are proved to be true, then that is a very scary scenario indeed. So who really is scared here? Those that ask the difficult questions or those that attack the person posing the questions?

You say that "ALL of the claims we make have been disproved". If so, please point me to information that disproves that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. You see, there is no proof of this, yet there is a lot of evidence that suggests that it simply could NOT have been a large commercial aircraft that hit the Pentagon that day.

We have diligently researched all available information as part of the process of coming to an opinion on the events of 9/11, this research included the Snopes.com article. Again we see that your preconceived prejudices do you no service and I am surprised that you are basing your argument on the rehashing of mainstream media lies by an elderly couple from California. Snopes.com is NOT an authority on anything. I had already read the article you suggested, now will you have the intestinal fortitude to read one that I suggest?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396670

I recommend that you also read a recent article in the Los Angeles Times entitled:

"The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket - The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer19oct19,1,6762967.column?coll=la-util-op-ed

That article talks about a secret report by the CIA into the events of 9/11 that is being deliberately withheld until after the election. The report, by all accounts, contains information which shows dereliction of duty by high level government members on September 11th. Are you sincerely happy to go and vote on November 2nd when potentially damning information about the candidate(s) is being withheld from the public?

In bringing up the Republican Vs Democrat issue you seem to have missed another point that we repeat often - we are neither left wing nor right wing, these classifications are illusions designed to make the American people believe that they have a choice when they do not. If Kerry is elected there will be no change insofar as the lies and disinformation spread by government will persist.

You ask: "why isn’t 60 minutes or another news program jumping on your findings"

You seem to be unaware of the fact that mainstream media corporations are essentially controlled by the government. There is a wealth of information to back up this assertion if you were interested enough to look for it.

It seems clear that the motivation for your arguments is that you do not WANT to rationally and objectively consider the possibility that the American public is being lied to by the government. That possibility is simply too uncomfortable for most to consider, and we fully understand that, but please do not attack us for asking the questions that are too difficult for you to even think about.

You have made your choice to believe whatever the government says without question that is your right. We also have the right to look at the facts and decide for ourselves, based on the evidence, whether or not the government is lying, that's what freedom of speech and thought is all about isn't it? Or do you agree with the actions of the police at a Bush rally in suburban New Jersey recently. Sue Niederer, whose son was killed in Iraq in February, spoke out against the killings and the war. She wore a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son." The Police handcuffed, arrested, and hauled her away.

In conclusion, the truth does not scare me, but it most definitely scares millions of Americans, and the louder and more widely the truth is proclaimed the more violent its enemies become. Remember that the truth is not always pleasant to behold, but it can awaken you from years of government propaganda-induced sleep.

Kind Regards

His response:

Subject: Ok, let me get this straight

So you are telling me that 2 planes went into the WTC and another crashed into a field in PA and a 4th explosion that day that rocked the Pentagon was something different? Even after American Airlines said the plane was heading towards Washington D.C. before they lost the plane from radar? It’s just too far out there man.

Have you ever heard of Acom’s Razor. It’s a idea that says that the most obvious solution is the most probable. In this case, what’s more likely: a madman flying a plane flew it into a government building like his friends did earlier that morning; or that the U.S. government bombed it’s own building. And as far as you and your website go you have done yourself in with your own words. You stated in your email to me that most of the mainstream news organizations are controlled by the government but then use those same news organizations to try to prove your futile point.

You can not have it both ways. If the information coming from those news agencies are false because of government suppression, then your argument is just as flimsy because you use that same info to help your cause. Bottom line: if you are correct and most news agencies are controlled by the government, than what’s the point? If the information I use to make an educated decision is tainted by outside influence then how can I be sure anything I read is factual? I can’t! And neither can you sir. I appreciate your views and I love alternative open media like your site, but c’mon.

If it didn’t go into the Pentagon: Where is the plane? Where are the passengers? And if we we’re lied to about the Pentagon plane, were we lied to about the other planes? Did the government fly those planes into the building? If so, why? If so, how do you explain the phone calls from the passengers of the plane that crashed in PA? Did the government do all this for some grand scheme? The reason people believe the news is because what you are trying to say is utterly preposterous. Your theory doesn’t make sense.

Every claim the video makes (i.e. where is the wreckage? How did the plane not go through the other side like the WTC crash?) is disproved with a minute amount of research. I do want to know why memos and CIA briefings were no released, of course I do. But I will not become a paranoid conspiracy theorist, like yourself, nor will I believe for one second that our government had anything to do with 9/11.

But, I respect your opinion and all the hard work you and your colleagues have done in presenting this. Thank you for your opinions and insights I just disagree with them.

I responded to each paragraph:

So you are telling me that 2 planes went into the WTC and another crashed into a field in PA and a 4th explosion that day that rocked the Pentagon was something different?

why not? As for the plane that "crashed" in PA there is much evidence to suggest that that plane was shot down. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the plane explode high in the sky and seeing a white jet circle the area. However, by far the most convincing evidence that it was shot down is the fact that the wreckage was strewn across an area of 8 miles. Now you tell me how a plane that crashes intact on the ground can have its wreckage thrown 8 miles from the impact site. You can find this in official reports of the event.

Even after American Airlines said the plane was heading towards Washington D.C. before they lost the plane from radar? It’s just too far out there man. Have you ever heard of Acom’s Razor. It’s a idea that says that the most obvious solution is the most probable. In this case, what’s more likely: a madman flying a plane flew it into a government building like his friends did earlier that morning; or that the U.S. government bombed it’s own building.

Well, Occams razor states that all things being equal, or lacking any evidence to suggest otherwise then the simplest explanation is most likely the truth. In this case there is lots of evidence to suggest that the "simple" explanation does not fit. I find it hard to see why you are so averse to the idea that the government would use a faked terror attack to further its own goals. There is historical evidence to show they have done this before. Have your heard of the Northwoods document? Have you heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident that provided the impetus for a full scale US war in Vietnam? See our Signs page of October 17th for the evidence. (skip the top commentary and go to the articles if you wish) Here's the link. http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20041017.htm

And as far as you and your website go you have done yourself in with your own words. You stated in your email to me that most of the mainstream news organizations are controlled by the government but then use those same news organizations to try to prove your futile point. You can not have it both ways. If the information coming from those news agencies are false because of government suppression, then your argument is just as flimsy because you use that same info to help your cause. Bottom line: if you are correct and most news agencies are controlled by the government, than what’s the point? If the information I use to make an educated decision is tainted by outside influence then how can I be sure anything I read is factual? I can’t! And neither can you sir.

The way the mainstream media works is by presenting the news in a certain way with certain spin. Many of the reports that we present each day are NOT from mainstream US media corps, the US people are being starved of information and as such are very limited in their ability to understand what is really going on in the world. When we do use news reports from US mainstream sources we often juxtapose them with news reports from other countries and "Flashbacks" of reports from many months or even years ago to show a more complete picture of what is really happening.

I appreciate your views and I love alternative open media like your site, but c’mon. If it didn’t go into the Pentagon: Where is the plane? Where are the passengers?

Perhaps it landed somewhere else and the people were disposed of. You think certain factions of the government would not do this? You think they value human life? Do you remember the US funded eugenics program? Do you remember that the US government was carrying out all manner of biological and chemical experiments on unwitting US citizens in the 40s and 50s? See our timeline for more on this here http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline9.htm and here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline6.htm (all of the details within the time line are historically verifiable.

And if we we’re lied to about the Pentagon plane, were we lied to about the other planes? Did the government fly those planes into the building? If so, why?

The answer to that is quite evident - to create the justification for the war on terror and the defacto take over of Afghanistan and Iraq, stealing Iraq's oil and re-establishing the Afghan opium trade. And that's just for starters, do you think the "war on terror" is over? In case you have trouble believing that the US government generates funds from the drug trade, you should research the "Golden triangle" in South East Asia and "Air America".

If so, how do you explain the phone calls from the passengers of the plane that crashed in PA?

An independent report was produced showing that the chances of making cell phone calls from the 9/11 aircraft to be 1 in 100. See here for one report http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact/

Did the government do all this for some grand scheme?

Yes, war in Iraq and control of oil resources in the Middle East, clampdown on civil liberties at home.

The reason people believe the news is because what you are trying to say is utterly preposterous. Your theory doesn’t make sense. Every claim the video makes (i.e. where is the wreckage? How did the plane not go through the other side like the WTC crash?) is disproved with a minute amount of research.

This is not true. Can you please explain to me how a 757 plane tore a 14 feet wide hole in 6 separate steel reinforced concrete walls while leaving little or no wreckage on the outside? Why did people report seeing what looked like a small commuter jet hitting the Pentagon?

Look at it this way, if the government claims that something is so, yet there is evidence to show that what they is unlikely to be true, is MY responsibility to answer the questions as to why the government would say such a thing, or even lie about it? It IS my responsibility to look for the facts and not take everything the government says at face value, but when clear questions are raised about the official government story, it is the government's responsibility to clear up those questions.

I do want to know why memos and CIA briefings were no released, of course I do. But I will not become a paranoid conspiracy theorist, like yourself, nor will I believe for one second that our government had anything to do with 9/11.

Who is asking you to be "paranoid"? I am not paranoid, I am just interested in the truth, and I will not allow any "sacred cows" I may have developed to interfere with the search. As for conspiracy theories, they are not the exception but the rule to the way government and power elites work. Did members of the Enron board in conjunction with Dick Cheney not "conspire" to defraud Americans of their hard earned savings? Our recent history is replete with evidence that conspiracies go on every day among politicians and those tasked with governing the masses.

But, I respect your opinion and all the hard work you and your colleagues have done in presenting this. Thank you for your opinions and insights I just disagree with them

And I respect your opinion, and even moreso, I understand it, but the truth is that it is not that you are unable to accept that the US government may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, but rather that you are unwilling to even go the first step to objectively looking at the evidence. You already have a "full cup" as far as what you think constitutes reality or the truth, and no amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise, even if the evidence is compelling, you will reject it before even looking at it. You have made up your mind in advance and every piece of evidence is pre-judged before you see it. You are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of something because it falls outside of what you are prepared to believe. This is very dangerous and rather extreme stance to take

Regards

his final response

Subject: Thank you

I have to thank you sir. I have emailed several web sites similar to yours and none of them even sent me a reply; you have taken the steps to convince me to open my mind wider to any and all news, not prejudge any topics (no matter how much the mainstream media tells us otherwise), and to understand that the opinions I have in my mind may not be everything I need to understand.

I considered myself a very open minded person prior to our email exchange, but you have changed my definition of open minded. If I want to be as informed as I claim to be, I need to know any and all theories on any and all events. I do think someone in the paparazzi made Princess Di crash and die; I do believe that aliens landed near a small town in Nevada 40 years ago, I do think there are things are government hides from us in the form of conspiracies. But, it is so hard to draw the line between an open minded truth seeker and a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I understand from your emails that you probably straddle that line; but that’s a good thing. I see that now, only people who seek out the truth, no matter how far fetched it may seem, can bring true knowledge to the masses.

Again, I appreciate your views, your hard work, and, in some cases, your imagination and unwillingness to conform to the “normalcy of the news� the way most Americans do. You question the news. That’s a good thing. That’s our right as Americans to do so. I did not expect you to change my mind at all, and you haven’t as far as the Pentagon crash is concerned, but you did make me change the way I will approach news and websites like yours from now on.

No matter how far fetched a theory is, if it brings up questions that can’t be answered it needs to be look at and scrutinized by any expert that will look. That’s what finding the truth is all about. Thank you Joe, not for making me believe, but for forcing me to be a steward of the truth. And being a steward of the truth means seeking out any questions that are not answered. I will gladly become a member of your mailing list and I would appreciate it if you would add me to any mailing lists you saw fit for me to see. I want to know the truth no matter how hard it is to fathom.

Again, Thank You sir.

 

[Amelopsis]

Joe, I think that while John Doe already thanked you; you deserve a pat on the back for so patiently regurgitating facts which you (and the SOTT team) surely already spent an immeasurable amount of time reviewing in detail.

You've provided a wonderful example of diplomacy in this email exchange.

I know that I myself take this as more of a lesson in patience, I have all the time in the world for facts, but the excercise in patient (and tedious) slow, gentle, feeding of these to someone who's raring for an argument (even if not intentionally) is where the lesson really begins...for me, in any case.

Thanks, and congratulations on a job well done. Another person now has eyes less closed, if not wide open.

 

[Ruth]

I know that I myself take this as more of a lesson in patience, I have all the time in the world for facts, but the excercise in patient (and tedious) slow, gentle, feeding of these to someone who's raring for an argument (even if not intentionally) is where the lesson really begins...for me, in any case.

It does not seem to be the facts which are the problem, its more like the implication of those facts which are the problem. I guess that's what people start arguing about. :)

 

[Amelopsis]

It does not seem to be the facts which are the problem, its more like the implication of those facts which are the problem. I guess that's what people start arguing about. :)

Yes Ruth, I agree with you on this point. Facts, the existence or implications of which threaten a person's beliefs, faith even, in the status quo- are received defensively and this translates into some level of aggression toward the messenger of the facts ... this is usually where discourse wanes and arguments wax.

The Devil is in the details, as Ark says; and the proverbial Prozac is in the blissful ignorance.

I found Joe's exchange to be a good example of gentle coaxing without either sugar coating or bombardment; a comfortable and honest balance was struck.