Why So Important No Concrete Core? (Quasi Psych & Techno Disinfo)

[Christophera]

Herein you will find the most convoluted issue of 9-11 that is in existence.

Pay careful attention to the psychology presented HERE.

 

[Christophera]

People with an interest in the structural aspect of the towers, the "core issue" really should examine this thread,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2165572#post2165572

Where deniers of the concrete core (they cannot support steel core columns so they must be termed deniers) are shown to be grossly inadequate in supporting the fallacy promoted by FEMA or, denouncing the concrete core.

 

[Ruth]

Ahh, the art of distraction... Good, isn't it?

To do this, a person needs to have something that sounds reasonably sensible, sane or scientfic, but in actual bears no relevance to anything, in fact it is superfluous irrelevent information. They then proceed to dress it up in a way to pretend that it is in fact very important information, and that they are actually very important themselves 'important' themselves for bringing it to everybodies attention. Next, they hope (or even demand?) that everybody give it their most rapt and detailed concentration to the thing of no relevance in order to distract. When nobody is interested (and this is quite likely on this forum), the person who brought it up in the first place becomes upset and insulted because:

a. their fragile sense of self imporance was not 'supported' and they were given not any attention at all.
b. they didn't distract anybody and they are somewhat 'put out' by this - being not important enough tends to mean that one is ignored.

The one thing they seem to be in complete denial about is the influence that their need for acknowledgement (self importance) has. It is quite important to them and yes, they do get upset when they are ignored. I'm not really sure if this makes them more a conscious or an unconscious agent. I suppose that this depends on how they respond to the dissappointment of having their irrelevant information ignored. Of course, they can always leave and go to another place where their distraction does work. But it's just that these other places aren't too serious.

 

[Christophera]

Ahh, the art of distraction... Good, isn't it?

Do you have any proof of this?

 

[ark]

Ahh, the art of distraction... Good, isn't it?

Do you have any proof of this?

A side remark: In real world there are no proofs of anything. For instance, I could ask: "Do you have any proof that you are not an agent?' And I will find holes in any proof that would supply. So, instead of asking "Do you have a proof?" it is better to say: "I read what you wrote, but I fail to see a basis for your statement." The term "basis" is better than "proof". For instance, we may have a basis for thinking that atoms exist, but we do not have undeniable "proofs". In real life we deal with more or less "plausible reasons" - they may (and should) tend to be "objective" yet, in fact, they are all subjective, because they depend on the set of data available to any given person (or a group of people) at any given moment.

It is good to keep it in mind.

For instance, in another thread you asked:

Do you know how the gathered data for analysis is being analysed and if the credentials of analysts as well as their analysis are available?

Well, my answer is "yes, to some extent". I was studying in details the commissioned engineering report, and it was clearly adjusted so as to meet the "expectations" of the commissioners. I do have a sufficient (for me) basis for thinking so, but I do not have a "proof".

 

[Christophera]

It is good to keep it in mind.

Yes, a good thing to keep in mind, and a good point. Let me exercise it immediately.

Ahh, the art of distraction... Good, isn't it?

Dear Ruth,

Do you have any basis for establishing that distraction is a "good art".

 

[ark]

Dear Ruth,

Do you have any basis for establishing that distraction is a "good art".

Well, although I am not Ruth (though I can't "prove" it) - I can reply to you question. Read this: The art of distraction. It applies to "pickpocket artists", but you can easily generalize it to other situations:

This is how hard-core salesmen operate, says, Derren. 'They draw your attention to another area of choice such as what colour you want, presupposing that you have already agreed to buy an object,' he says. 'By getting you to focus on the peripheral areas, they bamboozle you into thinking you are getting more value for money.'

You have been warned...

Whether the art is "good" or not - is subjective. "Good" is always subjective.

The other, related, art is that of nit-picking.

Once in a while we tend to do be such artists (and I do not exclude myself :) )

 

[Christophera]

Whether the art is "good" or not - is subjective. "Good" is always subjective.

Being a person that is spiritually trained in nit picking for the "best" not just "good", I've learned that "good" is what protects life, not just subjective. It is a human thing, aliens won't relate to it, or they won't tell us it is so.

So if acting in the protection of life is "good' then things like truth are good and things like deception are not. Of course deception could be used to protect life but it would always be a temporary deception because it would be eventually be okay to reveal the deception had been done after life was secured.

In the example provided, distraction was used to facilitate deception. What Ruth implied was that the issue of the concrete core was a distraction. But Ruth never returns (in my brief experience here), just squats and leaves a mess.

My point with the core issue is that everything else is a distraction because the event cannot be explained adequately without the concrete core. So Ruths mess is particuarly odious, and a distraction. Not a good one because it attempts to diminish an issue central to obtaining a vital truth that will protect life.

 

[Ruth]

Well, although I am not Ruth (though I can't "prove" it)

I believe you Ark, and I think I can prove it too! :D

Being a person that is spiritually trained in nit picking for the "best" not just "good", I've learned that "good" is what protects life, not just subjective. It is a human thing, aliens won't relate to it, or they won't tell us it is so.

I'm sure that one of the most highly evolved parasites in the universe (those aliens you mention) will tell you anything that you wish to hear in order to get what they want. We are to them, what animals on this planet are to us. - That's just a working hypothesis by the way. Humans and/or human life is not all that special to them either. Unless of course, they have a use for it. And (shockingly) there is a hierachy on this planet that emulates them. They don't give a toss about human life (or the truth) either.

So if acting in the protection of life is "good' then things like truth are good and things like deception are not. Of course deception could be used to protect life but it would always be a temporary deception because it would be eventually be okay to reveal the deception had been done after life was secured.

I believe free will is more important. Encouraging people to keep their free will or at least take it back from their 'masters' is much more important than protecting the physical vehical of a soul in one particular life. Souls are eteral, btw. But not all souls are the same have the same abilities.

In the example provided, distraction was used to facilitate deception. What Ruth implied was that the issue of the concrete core was a distraction. But Ruth never returns (in my brief experience here), just squats and leaves a mess.

Could be that I'm pointing out (in an oblique way maybe) somebody elses 'mess' which incedentally I am not going to be taking responsibility for, so I have therefore have absolutely no interest in 'proving' its importance. I've never thought of pointing out the obvious in your terms, that's for sure.... :D Should I add that to my list of distractions - get people to 'own' the issue in order to make it the center of attention.

My point with the core issue is that everything else is a distraction because the event cannot be explained adequately without the concrete core. So Ruths mess is particuarly odious, and a distraction. Not a good one because it attempts to diminish an issue central to obtaining a vital truth that will protect life.

And there we have it: concrete cores 'protect life'. I'm thoroughly reasured now. Lets not worry about why, how or anything not related to the subject of concrete cores. The stench of anything else simply isn't important. Must be because it isn't there!

 

[Christophera]

Could be that I'm pointing out (in an oblique way maybe) somebody elses 'mess' which incedentally I am not going to be taking responsibility for, so I have therefore have absolutely no interest in 'proving' its importance.

To define exactly what you think the mess is; or the distraction, to avoid more mess, and then explain why the issue of distraction you have implied is justified in being a part of this thread which I've started to underline the importance I know the concrete core has; would show accountability on your part.

 

[John G]

Being a person that is spiritually trained in nit picking for the "best" not just "good", I've learned that "good" is what protects life, not just subjective. It is a human thing, aliens won't relate to it, or they won't tell us it is so. So if acting in the protection of life is "good' then things like truth are good and things like deception are not.

That makes it seem like truth is subordinate to good when maybe good should be an inadequate but useful descriptor for a concept under truth... your use of good seems a little overly self-serving...

 

[Christophera]

Being a person that is spiritually trained in nit picking for the "best" not just "good", I've learned that "good" is what protects life, not just subjective. It is a human thing, aliens won't relate to it, or they won't tell us it is so. So if acting in the protection of life is "good' then things like truth are good and things like deception are not.

That makes it seem like truth is subordinate to good when maybe good should be an inadequate but useful descriptor for a concept under truth... your use of good seems a little overly self-serving...

There is one thing I would say in the philosophical discussion which comes from the Indigenous people of America who imparted a great deal of knowledge regarding human social contract.

"Truth protects itself" which is the basis for stating that truth protects life.

Let's stick with the truth of 9-11 and truth serving the principles of the US Constitution which is actually in service to life by virtue of the Declaration of Independence before it and the Magna Carta before that.

Can you offer any opinion on the concrete core issue?

 

[han]

There is one thing I would say in the philosophical discussion which comes from the Indigenous people of America who imparted a great deal of knowledge regarding human social contract.

What do you mean with this scentence?

"Truth protects itself" which is the basis for stating that truth protects life.

You seem to equate "truth" with "life," but would that not be a shortcut? I can remember a statement that said: "The Universe is infinitely capable of taking care of itself." The question then would be; can we? And how could we do that?

Let's stick with the truth of 9-11 and truth serving the principles of the US Constitution which is actually in service to life by virtue of the Declaration of Independence before it and the Magna Carta before that.

What do you mean with this scentence?

Can you offer any opinion on the concrete core issue?

What are the implications?

 

[Christophera]

There is one thing I would say in the philosophical discussion which comes from the Indigenous people of America who imparted a great deal of knowledge regarding human social contract.

What do you mean with this sentence?

The indigenous Americans had over 300 forms of self governance which they shared wih the founders, who were Masons and gained through sojourn a deep enough appreciation of their wisdom to incorporate it into the amendments to the constitution, eventually. The greater meaning of free speech, something not writtin into the founding documents and it should be;

Through free speech and understanding can be found; through the understanding can come;

Forgiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship, and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Truth protects itself" which is the basis for stating that truth protects life.

You seem to equate "truth" with "life," but would that not be a shortcut? I can remember a statement that said: "The Universe is infinitely capable of taking care of itself." The question then would be; can we? And how could we do that?

A statement such as "The Universe is infinitely capable of taking care of itself." is a quasi facetious, new age evaluation which is correct only in the sense of the morphogenetic fields that organize our lives in a day to day fashion through dream states. There is rarely any rational considerations to this so it is limited. Hence the control over secret societies as they facilitate insertion of false logic into unconscious realms which are disabled from analysis.

Let's stick with the truth of 9-11 and truth serving the principles of the US Constitution which is actually in service to life by virtue of the Declaration of Independence before it and the Magna Carta before that.

What do you mean with this sentence?

Modern Americans do not know the significance of the Magna Carta as it relates to secret orders and the control they exerted of the populations of England that gave rise to the magnificent charter. The secret control was only possible as an effect of the inquisitions and the crusades before them. Secret, as in "unconscious alliance" between factions of military, economic elite, and governmental positions thorugh what was termed "occult". Now, with an awareness of the abuses of somnambulism and exploitations of instincts it is called an unconscious alliance

Can you offer any opinion on the concrete core issue?

What are the implications?

Without the concrete core the event seen is impossible..

Disinformation focuses on ridicule of the concrete core for those very reasons. Basically supporting an impossibility (steel core columns, FEMA) to obscure a possibility.

 

[John G]

Can you offer any opinion on the concrete core issue?

There most probably was an inherent structural defect in the twin towers but the problem from an overall 9-11 truth perspective is that the twin towers have a large slippery slope of half-truths the public could be lead through. The public could some day have no problem believing FEMA bungled an analysis and did some face saving but that would still miss the bigger overall problem with 9-11. The Pentagon may have a smaller slippery slope of half truths.