Ed Opperman, Trump, Epstein, Why Beliefs Don’t Change |399|

Well Eric, nobody can say you are afraid to express what you think! The problem with "We should kill them wherever we find them without mercy. They will never change." is that the permit to this kind of hunting is self issued by combatants on all sides, and follows from similar atitudes on all sides. That the enemy is stupid or evil and will never change is a verdict, not a plan. Does it not strike you that this approach is part of an endless, self perpetuaring cycle? And even if most humans (working class) are as mediocre as you describe, why settle for such a gloomy, pointless picture and prognosis? You seem to admire something about Western Civilisation. If your estimate places that civilization some level(s) above what was accomplished historically and is seen currently, is it not the case that these advances happened because enough people had the attitude that it was possible? That progress, though utopian (and often objectionable) in the minds of most elites and commoners, was in fact possible?
 
As for 9/11 controlled demolition, If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell ya. I'll give you a great deal! But seriously, that points to a huge problem with all these conspiracy theories. People who don't understand a subject matter listen to people who are on the fringe and, for whatever reason, are selling a pov. Everyone likes to be "in the know" and that eagerness causes them to buy into silliness. It's worse when they are predisposed to paranoia. People, IMO, are first and foremost story tellers. They care less about objective truth than they do about spinning a good yarn. That's before we factor in other motives. The only thing you can believe in these days, especially where the internet is concerned, is what you have deep experience with and what you see with your own eyes and ears in real life...and of course what you find deep within your own consciousness. And, what is true for you may not be true for me. You should consider that before calling people "nutcases". Different souls = different roles = different realities.
A prolonged insult is not a counterargument, Eric.

Since you are so certain you are correct, you probably know the topic pretty well, I suppose? So, can you explain what EXACTLY is wrong with the controlled demolition theory?
 
I like how you see beliefs and "knowledge" as part of systems. Aldous Huxley, upon experiencing his first dose of mescaline, observed that, while on the drug, if you start with a basic premise, you must follow it to its logical conclusion.(that's more or less a quote from memory). I think that is an important observation on Huxley's part b/c, IMO, psychedelics allow us to observe how we concoct reality. I also like how you add in the emotional component to the process of solidifying what you "know". I believe you are essentially correct. We create systems of "knowledge" based on our fundamental beliefs. The systems are self-reinforcing and internally consistent. The concept of cognitive dissonance avoidance enters here.

If you start with the basic premise that elites are out to get you (or use you mercilessly) and you feel disconnected from the power centers of society (the emotional component), then following to the logical conclusions causes you to believe that your own govt may have blown up the Twin Towers. That will "feel" right to you. Then you take that fundamental bias and filter through the "evidence" so as to confirm what you already "know".
Eric, thanks for the discussion. I do think that we concoct reality, but maybe not so much at the level of perceived objects and the grossly observed world, where I think filtering is a better fit to the animal-level processes involved. But definitely once we enter the world of language, abstracrions, definitions, logical arguments and system building. I eventualy keyed in to the emotional component present in all beliefs, but it took a long time before it became fully apparent to me that this component was always there, even in the dryest expresions we humans are capable of committing. These emotional tags, attached to all thoughts, seem to funcrion like little little energizers, providing the power to maintain and relate these mental objects, no matter how seemingly obvious or "given" they seem to their user, and combining their power the more concepts we couple together in our trains of thoughts.

I need to think about how you tie all this to the big 9/11 conspiracy question, so let me take in a bit more coffee before I come back to that.
 
Last edited:
Well Eric, nobody can say you are afraid to express what you think! The problem with "We should kill them wherever we find them without mercy. They will never change." is that the permit to this kind of hunting is self issued by combatants on all sides, and follows from similar atitudes on all sides. That the enemy is stupid or evil and will never change is a verdict, not a plan. Does it not strike you that this approach is part of an endless, self perpetuaring cycle? And even if most humans (working class) are as mediocre as you describe, why settle for such a gloomy, pointless picture and prognosis? You seem to admire something about Western Civilisation. If your estimate places that civilization some level(s) above what was accomplished historically and is seen currently, is it not the case that these advances happened because enough people had the attitude that it was possible? That progress, though utopian (and often objectionable) in the minds of most elites and commoners, was in fact possible?
You misunderstand me. I do appreciate western civ. I do appreciate material progress. I further believe that as material conditions improve that some people are going to be able to express their better sides more often. However, we will never eradicate evil, stupidity, etc from humans. So progress of consciousness, as a species, is incremental and probably limited to certain boundaries. Individuals may surpass those boundaries, but heaven on earth ain't gonna happen.


I am not gloomy at all. I enjoy life and I enjoy the human play, including its endless cycles. I am merely objecting to those who *I* see as gloomy with all their conspiracy theories and despising of "elites" and criticism of the current compared to utopia. I also object to those who think you can make friends of enemies who hold radically different world views as well to those who put their heads in the sand pretending that such people do not exist. If you don't like the endless cycles you can evolve yourself and move onto something else beyond this here people farm. It is the people who, through good intentions, try to bring about heaven on earth, that cause the most misery on earth within western civ. I started out here, many comments ago, by saying that; the social science types and spiritual do-gooders that want to save the world through various interventions, who believe this is possible and good to do, that constitute our foreign policy elites. Many people think Iraq was all about the oil or all about Israeli plans. Well it sold to the govt and to most Americans because we were going to help the Iraqis. Somalia...we were going to help the people, but we ended up feeding the warlords....Afghanistan...we were going to fight the Soviets and ended up building up Bin Laden.....prohibition....we were going to save everyone by removing alcohol...and we ended up creating a powerful mafia on bootleg $s....I can do this all day, but I think you get my point
 
Last edited:
Your problem - and it's a common one - is that you're an idealist that thinks there is a possible utopia that would be led by wise spiritual philosophers
Yes, I am an idealist. I do however realise that any ideal I seek to achieve will not be achieved within my lifetime, more like many such lifetimes. I will admit to not being content with things moving in the direction they are, and will do what I can to push back. ‘Wise spiritual philosophers’ my ass, I think things will only change when the average consciousness reaches a certain level.

You are going to be perpetually frustrated and that is not conducive to spiritual development. See Herman Hesse's Siddhartha.
Any talk of ‘spiritual development’ in this discussion reminds me of christian preachers asking their flock for donations allowing them to buy the latest Gulfstream jet. It just doesn’t compute!

As for 9/11 controlled demolition, If you believe that,
I never said anything about that, Vortex did.

You should consider that before calling people "nutcases".
So no problem with you talking about Afghans and Iraqi’s being ‘stupid flunkies that are not salvageable’. Talking about killing them “wherever we find them without mercy.”, or was that ‘terrorists’? but picking me up on this? Haha, ok.

Keep talking Eric. It’s really quite an insight.
 
A prolonged insult is not a counterargument, Eric.

Since you are so certain you are correct, you probably know the topic pretty well, I suppose? So, can you explain what EXACTLY is wrong with the controlled demolition theory?
You're only insulted because I think that something you believe is wrong. I don't need to do anything to prove anything to you. You're the one with the notion that is totally alternative and out of whack with everything that is known. You are the one that needs to offer proof if you want to be taken seriously. I mentioned that I have had OBEs with veridical content of current and future events that I could not have obtained by any normal means. I accept that I've analyzed properly and come to a valid conclusion. I also accept that no one needs to believe me and that few will because I am asserting something that is out of bounds of what is objectively provable (caveat being Stargate, etc). I'm being fair to others. You're not. You offer up some extraordinary claim and then demand not only that it be accepted, but that those that don't accept it prove a negative.

Yes, I have studied this incident to the best of my ability because I have an acquaintance that thinks like you. He likes to debate me over a beer or two. He's a reasonably smart guy, but has no experience with how the govt works, military ops, terrorism/counter terrorism, explosives, etc. I don't have any inside info. I am working from the same sources you and my friend are, no doubt. But I do have some knowledge about some of those other things (I'm telling you that there is no way military personnel or CIA is going to blow up the towers and kill thousands. If you think they could find a team to do that and that no one would leak before executing, there is no point in us talking anymore because you are lost in a very sad La La Land - maybe they do that sort of thing in Russia ;-)...kidding, they are dedicated patriots too). I am not a structural engineer and I bet you aren't either. So what? You want to have a battle of expert witnesses? Been there/done that. Gets us nowhere because we can't assess the details of they tell us.

Guess I should add that I know people who were in the Naval Annex on 911 and they saw the airplane flying past and hitting the Pentagon. I believe they made statements as part of the official record. I know you mentioned only the twin towers, but I also know that a missile strike on the Pentagon is part of the 911 truthersim thing. I have also seen pictures of airplane parts inside the Pentagon....but you know what? Maybe I was sent here by the govt as part of the conspiracy to alter people's thinking. I can't prove I wasn't. So I must be!

I used to believe that the Kennedy assassination must have been the work of more than one gunman and, therefore, a conspiracy. I dismissed all of the points that conspiracy people like to point to (shot from grassy knoll - gunshots echo in urban environments. people don't know where shots came from or how many. Carcano rifle not accurate nor high enough rate of fire - Kennedy shot at 60 to 80 yards. A competent pistol shooter could have hit him. Scoped Caracano is perfectly fine little rifle capable of consistently hitting a grapefruit at 200 yards based on personal experience with one. Oswald poor shot in Marines - A conspiracy theory lie. He qualified in the middle of the three possible levels of qualification. he could shoot as well as the average Marine; meaning pretty darn well. The magic bullet - silly. Based on the angle and elevation Connally was sitting a single bullet would pass through Kennedy and do exactly what it is claimed to do to Connally..........etc. etc.......BUT, I rejected the lone shooter based on what happened to Kennedy's head when hit. having shot many things, the skull frags, brain matter and pink mist going back toward Oswald's position *only* told me the shooter must have been in front of Kennedy. ......then one day I came across someone who had obtained, through FOIA, some more info about the event. It turns out that 1. There was brain matter splattered all over the front of the limo 2. There had been a fairly strong head wind that had blown the pink mist back 3. Then there is another movie (not Zapruder) that was taken from a different angle and you can definitely see the blood, etc blowing to the front of the car. I had never seen that movie before..........so my belief in multiple shooters was evaporated instantly upon viewing the new info.

The point being that I'm willing to bet that you have one or two pieces of evidence or analysis that you're hanging your 911 hat on and that are shaky, untrue or based on incomplete info.
 
Last edited:
So yeah, I think skepticism is indispensible in all real journeys (even on regular road trips) and especially when it comes to the barely known, the uncharted, the bigger or stranger than imagined, and certainly in the quest to know what life and consciousness is about. Plopping down in comfy spots along the way is just as bad as refusing to look out the window because it may cause some cognitive dissonance! There is no reason to think that the truth about things spiritual will be a nice, familiar story, or that Trump can't be that bad, or that UFOs are real in just the ways we want them to be. Never stop, except when meditating.
Welcome to the forum Daniel!

What I have found is that skepticism should be the forthright friend of a challenging subject, not its enemy. If it is always the enemy, then you must question the ability or motive of the 'skeptic' (example can be found here: The Skeptic's Dictionary - SkepDic)
 
Yes, I am an idealist. I do however realise that any ideal I seek to achieve will not be achieved within my lifetime, more like many such lifetimes. I will admit to not being content with things moving in the direction they are, and will do what I can to push back. ‘Wise spiritual philosophers’ my ass, I think things will only change when the average consciousness reaches a certain level.



Any talk of ‘spiritual development’ in this discussion reminds me of christian preachers asking their flock for donations allowing them to buy the latest Gulfstream jet. It just doesn’t compute!


I never said anything about that, Vortex did.



So no problem with you talking about Afghans and Iraqi’s being ‘stupid flunkies that are not salvageable’. Talking about killing them “wherever we find them without mercy.”, or was that ‘terrorists’? but picking me up on this? Haha, ok.

Keep talking Eric. It’s really quite an insight.
Steve,
Ok. You're a morally superior guy that has no blood on his hands; not even through third party agents. Good for you. Please forgive me my sins.

Have you ever considered that if consciousness was raised to the extent that you seek, that maybe the earth would cease to exist at that point? Or, conversely, that all the spiritually evolved people would exist somewhere other than earth? Or that maybe that's exactly how it works today - raise your spiritual vibrations (to use the vernacular) and you're out of here and onto something else and that everyone who is here is here because this is where their spiritual specific gravity draws them to be....in which case you depopulate the earth by saving it en masse. ...but wait....assuming reincarnation, there is a whole bunch of souls that are waiting to return that also need saving...so it's going to take a while to complete the project.......then there's the likelihood of new souls being created from cosmic karmic forces who's spiritual specific gravity will draw them to the earth plane. And it starts all over again.

Are you sure you've thought through this business of saving humanity once and for all?
 
It's not a conspiracy theory if it's true. This is from an article by Adolph L. Reed Jr. which for me, was a real eye-opener. If the professor was white, he would certainly be labeled as "Racist":

"As the argument has progressed, a de facto alliance between ostensibly progressive identitarians and Wall Street Democrats has come together around asserting, along with Paul Krugman and others, that “horizontal inequality”—i.e., inequality between statistically defined racial/ethnic groups—is a more important problem than “vertical inequality,” characterized as inequality between individuals and households."

"I submit that there’s clearly a problem when anti-socialism is defined as socialism."

"Not only would pursuit of an agenda focused on addressing “horizontal inequality,” if successful, disproportionately benefit upper-status, already well-off people ...the reality of a standard of justice based on eliminating group disparities is that a society could be just if 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources so long as the one percent featured blacks, Hispanics, women, lesbians and gays, etc. in rough proportion to their representation in the general population"

In fact, the Democrats have been in an openly declared class war against their own traditional base - poor and middle-income whites. This means that there is currently no one in Washington representing the interests of the majority of Americans. Instead, we have two political parties which each represent the "elites" - the economic 1%. The 1% are the owners of the Swamp, and the MSM. The 1% hide their power-grabbing beneath a thin veneer of Politically Correct virtue signaling.

So quite openly and in plain sight, the USA has turned into a plutocracy since the end of the Cold War.

https://nonsite.org/editorial/what-materialist-black-political-history-actually-looks-like
 
Last edited:
My son thinks that the Afghans (and the Iraqis - he was there too) are stupid flunkies that are not salvageable. They will continue to live short brutish lives. He also thinks terrorists and the people that harbor them need to be killed. So does my daughter and son in law - and so do I. I don't think you have a clue as to how many enemies of the US and of western civilization are out there and formulating plots to attack us every day. Please spare me the "America as bad guy that created these people" argument. It's BS. Sometimes we try to work with these bastards and then they turn on us. That is stupid tactics, IMO. We should kill them wherever we find them without mercy. They will never change. Sorry if that offends your spiritual sensibilities. You get to enjoy pacifism b/c someone else is doing the dirty work and keeping you safe.
Thank you, Eric! No joke. You have just freed me of some last doubts about you. Now all I feel towards you is a deep revulsion.

Since you are not willing to formulate counterarguments, and prefer building lines of straw men (your last incoherent slur against Steve was a masterpiece of a kind!), I want to demolish a few of your straw men and clarify a few things - not for you, but for others - before I leave you be.

1) First, I'm not a pacifist. People have a right to fight back when an act of violence is initiated against them. This even include these Iraqi / Afgani / Syrian / Venezuelian "subhumans", who do have the full right to kick away the imperial "supermen" from America, with armed force, if they come to them in a violent and invasive way. Sorry, "supermen", the lives of "subhumans" are as valuable as yours - for the simple reasons that you are not in fact "super", and they are not "sub".

2) I do not hate America. Yet I do hate imperialism, colonialism and aggressive war, whether American or not. This includes the aspiring would-be imperalists like Russia and China, not just the currenly leading violent imperialist force, the USA.

3) The USA IS a world's top violent invader, pillager and murderer here and now, but not because it is somehow fundamentally evil (it is not). It is so because it is a leading imperial force today, and thus can afford itself the ugliest behavior possible; it is, in the moment, the biggest and the meanest bully in the large schoolyard known as "planet Earth". Yet, before it, there were a long line of similar global bullies - the USA's former main competitor, the USSR, say; before that, Britain, France, Germany; before that, Spain and Portugal; before, Ancient Rome... and so on. And Western civilisation is not somehow especially bad in this regard: Mongols, China and Japan were also violent imperial bullies in their own time. So, nothing exceptional about America - neither in positive nor in negative sense: it behaves so ugly because it can afford it. It is this simple.

4) Neither I think that if America suddenly disappears from the map - say, because of some natural catastrophe - world will imediately turn into some kind of paradise, filled with peace and love. There are a lot of would-be imperialists, who are currently look at America with envy and jelaousy, and dream of taking its place and behaving as badly as America does today; Russia and China are the two prime examples. And, when America falls (one day it will happen, one way or another), they will start to rise and fight for its legacy, for the dubious right to be the biggest and meanest bully. So, the anti-imperialists of the future will have their own work to do, whether the USA is still the leading threat to global peace, or it is not.

5) But I do think the struggle against the Empire is a winnable one, even if on a very long run. Part of it will include the armed stuggle against the currenly leading embodiment of imperialistic global bulliness - people may and should defend themselves against the imperial violence, and should not subdue themselves to such violence - but the other part would be in minds and hearts of people. Imperialism and the Empire should be fully discredited and delegitimised in every mind and every heart of an every human being, as it fully deserve; an Empire should no longer be able to present itself as a global savior, a force of righteousness and truthfulness - it should be universally seen as a global gangster, thief, murderer and conman, as it is.

6) And you, Eric, however unwittingly and unwillingly, have worked for the latter cause. Your pro-Empire position is so clearly disgusting - to anyone except you and people like you - that it will avert more hearts and minds from the imperial cause than any anti-imperialist like me can ever hope to. Thank you for that!

Here, I leave you, Eric. There is nothing more we can talk about.
 
I certainly don’t.
But the media in America sure hates (or rather fears) Putin, therefore the vast majority of Americans do too.
I think, the Putin's attitude to America is rather one of jealousy and envy: he would have liked to act as America does... yet, he can't.

In the end, Putin should be neither demonised nor idealised: he is not the global-democracy-threatening super-villain that he is painted, yet is no saviour: in his own country, he supresses freedom of any kind quite harshly (this I can say as an actual Russian).
 
"Struggle against empire". ...Sure. Good luck there, comrade, on the people's glorious struggle to reengineer humanity....haven't we heard something like that before? The people were going to stop wars and own the means of production and everything else? Seems somehow familiar . I suppose someone like me is one of those eggs that needs to be cracked to make that omelet. Of course when you crack eggs that's the good kind of egg cracking; not the bad kind that people like me do....... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
 
Last edited:
Do you think sitting on the fence in an ever so slightly superior way will bring any resolution Michael? I’ve tried the ‘spiritual, non ego road’ and it smelled a tiny bit off. I’d rather that we wore our hearts on our sleeves, it’s more honest. It’s where we are, or rather where I am, at least.
I think it will bring resolution much quicker than what we are currently experiencing in the US. This country has lost its mind with this political atmosphere. Most are too emotional to think clearly. Own faults cannot be seen, faults of others are magnified, falsified, or exaggerated. Truth in information no longer matters, only the emotional appeal to your side to be found within the information. Casual communication is impossible to partake in. It is only name calling and vitriol and accusations full of half truths and hyperbole, often bordering on the level of ridiculous.

When a couples relationship is in turmoil, they will go to a counselor. Who, essentially, does act as a fence sitter, and progress can be made. By themselves, the couples when they argue rarely make anything in the form of progress. It’s all emotion going back and forth. Similarly, a judge (in a legal case) will act as a fence sitting intermediary. This is all necessary because people simply cannot be objective enough to make any sort of progress in communication.
 
"Struggle against empire". ...Sure. Good luck there, comrade, on the people's glorious struggle to reengineer humanity....haven't we heard something like that before? The people were going to stop wars and own the means of production and everything else? Seems somehow familiar . I suppose someone like me is one of those eggs that needs to be cracked to make that omelet. Of course when you crack eggs that's the good kind of egg cracking; not the bad kind that people like me do....... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I don't think you're one of those eggs that needs to be cracked, you are a deep thinker, and had made many good points. We just have different conclusions. We must beware of the "Conspiracy of Conspiracies ", and guard against those anarchistic tendencies just because we're disappointed or suspicious of our own governments. Let me quote David Bailey, but substitute "Dictators" with "Goverments" - The trouble with removing governments is that more often than not, they held together a country with several potentially warring factions, and the country immediately descend into hell- The strong will always prey on the weak, and we're no exception.
 
I think it will bring resolution much quicker than what we are currently experiencing in the US.
Whose going to be the arbiter and whose representing the various sides? Fence sitting might work with couples getting councelling, they can see better options. Does talking nicely work with psychopathic killers? I don’t know the answer to our ills, but I know that it’s gone way beyond fence sitting.

I’d love to be proved wrong on this.
 
I don't think you're one of those eggs that needs to be cracked, you are a deep thinker, and had made many good points. We just have different conclusions. We must beware of the "Conspiracy of Conspiracies ", and guard against those anarchistic tendencies just because we're disappointed or suspicious of our own governments. Let me quote David Bailey, but substitute "Dictators" with "Goverments" - The trouble with removing governments is that more often than not, they held together a country with several potentially warring factions, and the country immediately descend into hell- The strong will always prey on the weak, and we're no exception.
Thanks for the kind words and the reassurance that I won't be cracked for that glorious omelet - although Obama called me a "Bitter Clinger" and Hillary Clinton said I am "Deplorable" and Vortex and Steve seem to agree with these fearless leaders' assessments....so I wonder sometimes.

It is unfortunate to have come to fierce disagreement and at a personal level of vindictiveness with two regulars here; especially so early in my participation.

As I started off here saying, wars and all of that are NOT due to conspiracies - at least not as I would define a conspiracy. They are started by a foreign policy establishment that wants to make the world a better place and who are convinced that their ideology is superior and thus worthy of reigning over others - which is exactly the attitude that Vortex and Steve hold.

I am extremely leery of people that are not able to process grey areas or able to live within murky morality. I find such people to at best be dishonest hypocrites and, at worst, the kind of fanatical believers that are the ones who start the wars (for the greater good, of course). Such people always end up demonizing groups of people with certain ideologies and making saints out of others.

John Lennon wrote leftist/utopianist anthem "imagine" - all the while he was a multi-millionaire (1%er we'd call him these days), with an obscene collection of fur coats, a bad drinking habit and was a woman beater. Physician heal thyself. He'd fit in nicely with the Clintons. He is exactly the kind of person that sits in his office at the state dept and goes to cocktail parties to discuss which eggs need cracking. A classic example! Is it a conspiracy? Not in my opinion. It's right there in the open for the most part. The People just dupe themselves by denying their own eyes. The people want to believe in things that don't exist. They want good leaders so badly that they "find" them in the wrong people...looking for love in all the wrong places...

Yes, I did say that terrorists and their supporters should be hunted down and killed. Unfortunately, I was misrepresented as saying that all foreigners should be killed - or something like that - because I said that Iraqis and Afghanis are flunkies. To clarify, I think that these people should be left to being flunky tribes with flags (which is what they've always been) and to kill each other as often and as much as they desire; as long as they are not posing a threat to us. Vortex and Steve think that somehow the tribes' consciousness will be raised and they will be all sunshine and rainbows and signing happy songs in harmony with the rest of the world in addition to their neighbors. The problem starts when this little fantasy doesn't emerge. Then the do-gooders want to intervene, Then comes the "nation building" and all of that rot....I am a big fan of the humanities. They show us what humans are and that they have not changed a bit since they started writing down their stories. I despise the social sciences because they seek to create through programming a "new man". The Soviets tried this and are extreme, but logical outcome of this kind of thinking; that people will be changed so as to do what people have never done before.

I think all of that relates to some conspiracy theories - it goes like this, more or less; If not for predatory governments messing with the noble little people, the world would be living in harmony and equality. Who are these predators? How have they achieved their nefarious ends? Start concocting the theories. It can't be that 19 Muslim fanatics turned airplanes into missiles. No! That violates the larger conspiracy world view. It must be that the predatory US govt attacked its own people so as to further their evil plots for world domination. Once you have accepted that the US govt is that evil, then you can make yourself believe anything, even in the light of strong evidence to the contrary. Occam's razor goes right out the window.

Then you have people that know nothing about, say, explosives and structural engineering playing at amateur sleuth and selectively favoring "evidence" and media personalities that confirm their biases. There are a number of videos that can be watched that very plausibly (to me at least) show how building 7 came down due to the aftermath of two airplanes hitting the main buildings. The refutation of these arguments is refuted and that refutation is, in turn, is refuted...all on minutiae that none of us has the expertise to evaluate and that, in fact, even structural engineers aren't qualified to discuss unless they have detailed knowledge of the specifics of building 7's construction, full facts about the nature of the fires, etc.....it is idiotic for someone to declare that they "know" building 7 was a controlled demolition and I question why anyone would invest so much time and energy into nursing that perspective after all of these years - and must conclude that they are true believers in a world view that is not a good fit with the realities on the ground.
 
Last edited:
They are started by a foreign policy establishment that wants to make the world a better place and who are convinced that their ideology is superior and thus worthy of reigning over others - which is exactly the attitude that Vortex and Steve hold.
You appear to be a fan of propaganda Eric? Say it enough times with enough conviction you might get a few people believing you.

I very rarely think that there’s little or no point in further discussion with people, but with this ranting post, you’ve removed any remaining doubt I might have had.
 
Top