9/11 info and sources

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I continue to do what is right for me, based on my own life experiences and what I am guided to do in each moment. I've explained to you in the past that I follow what I am directed to do. It sounds like you are not okay with my purposes.

If you are bothered by/upset or whatever by my purposes, that isn't about me and what I do.

Angelica, I'm not bothered or upset by your purposes. I could simply choose to ignore them if I wished to. The reason I don't is that there is much beauty and potential in your purposes and your vision.

You are bothered and upset by your purposes. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. But that's for a different plane.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, I'm not bothered or upset by your purposes. I could simply choose to ignore them if I wished to. The reason I don't is that there is much beauty and potential in your purposes and your vision.

You are bothered and upset by your purposes. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. But that's for a different plane.

I'm certainly a product of my environment and my life experiences.

Considering I've openly admitted my own bias in these posts, I'm wondering why you think you are showing me something I don't see.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I'm certainly a product of my environment and my life experiences.

As are we all.

Considering I've openly admitted my own bias in these posts, I'm wondering why you think you are showing me something I don't see.

For each bias against, there is a concomitant bais in favor. You may see the first, you do not see the latter. I'm still wading through my own biases in an attempt to explain it.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

For each bias against, there is a concomitant bais in favor. You may see the first, you do not see the latter.

Yes, any one view is only a piece of the whole picture. For each thesis, there is an antithesis. Logic works within the context of each view--truth is within the context of each view. The big picture embraces my view, your view, Abook's view, etc.

Due to your assertion that I am not speaking to the whole truth is why I embrace and align with other people's views. I choose not to make the other guy wrong NO MATTER HOW WRONG THEY APPEAR, because I know what I see is based on my own filters, and lack of understanding of their view.

I don't aspire to be an unbiased arbiter of justice. I aspire to speak my own truth as responsibly as possible. For me it goes without saying that there are other truths that are just as relevent, making up the pieces of the puzzle that portray truth.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Due to your assertion that I am not speaking to the whole truth is why I embrace and align with other people's views. I choose not to make the other guy wrong NO MATTER HOW WRONG THEY APPEAR, because I know what I see is based on my own filters, and lack of understanding of their view.

Angelica, if I can explain myself clearly you'll understand that one cannot make the other guy wrong, regardless of one's choices. Only the choices of "the other guy" himself can make him wrong.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, if I can explain myself clearly you'll understand that one cannot make the other guy wrong, regardless of one's choices. Only the choices of "the other guy" himself can make him wrong.

I agree with what you are saying in essense. The problem comes in with the approach on how to expose the other person's "error".

Obviously I'm not opposed to people showing others their errors and inconsistencies. I actually live to do so. I choose to do it in a way that does not say "you are wrong, and unreasonble, therefore "evil". I prefer to say, "here is some new information or a different perspective that might show you what I'm seeing. If you see what I see, you might be able to add it to your view, were you to choose to do so".

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, if I can explain myself clearly you'll understand that one cannot make the other guy wrong, regardless of one's choices. Only the choices of "the other guy" himself can make him wrong.

Also, the concept of "wrong" is within the regular human consciousness level. From a raised level of consciouseness, wrong does not exist--only lack, ignorance, non-understanding, etc.

The only way to be at the level of universal understanding is to operate from a place of Love--from a stance of Love. If one is out of synch of that Love and therefore understanding, if one is looking to "expose" the other guy, or in anyway be untoward, one loses touch with themself as connected universally and will have to learn to return to balance through the school of hard knocks. We must learn the hard way through our conflicts.

Therefore when one tries to prove the wrongness of the other, they often end up learning much about their own flaws and "wrongness". Poetic justice.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Also, the concept of "wrong" is within the regular human consciousness level. From a raised level of consciouseness, wrong does not exist--only lack, ignorance, non-understanding, etc.

On what "raised level of consciousness" does 2+2=10? On what "raised level of consciousness" does rape become just? One what "raised level of consciousness" does fiction become fact?

The only way to be at the level of universal understanding is to operate from a place of Love--from a stance of Love.

Agreed! I Love the truth and I Love the life that the truth makes possible.

If one is out of synch of that Love and therefore understanding, if one is looking to "expose" the other guy, or in anyway be untoward, one loses touch with themself as connected universally and will have to learn to return to balance through the school of hard knocks. We must learn the hard way through our conflicts.

Again, agreed! I'm not looking to "expose the other guy". I'm looking to expose the truth.

Therefore when one tries to prove the wrongness of the other, they often end up learning much about their own flaws and "wrongness". Poetic justice.

Ok. Now why apply this only to me?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

Therefore when one tries to prove the wrongness of the other, they often end up learning much about their own flaws and "wrongness". Poetic justice.

Ok. Now why apply this only to me?

If you look, I specifically say "when ONE...". For me, use of the word "one" refers to anyone, including my own self, not specifically you. If you want to personalise it, that's up to you. I thought we are on a philosophical tangent discussing the rightness/wrongness of things.

farfromglorified wrote:

On what "raised level of consciousness" does 2+2=10? On what "raised level of consciousness" does rape become just? One what "raised level of consciousness" does fiction become fact?

When one seeks the answers to questions, one finds them.

If you feel I am biased against specific flaws in your arguments as opposed to others, I fully admit it. I've acknowledged that to you publicly and privately. I realise it's a BIG deal to me that your methods resemble my family members methods of logic=right, non-logic=wrong that contributed to mental illness in me. I acknowledged this link when I found out about your adulation of Ayn Rand, which is also the same source that certain family members of mine used to "justify" the unjustifiable. I spent 12 years empowering myself against such justification of the unjustifiable. Therefore I have the arguments that counter such justification. And I use them.

farfromglorified

......

69charger

angelica wrote:

We cannot ever prove anything with certainty.

So all the theory involved in inventing the computer you are typing on is just as valid as the any 'theory' I pull out of my ass?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

......

Whether I have human issues or not, does not make my valid points any less valid.

If you want me to answer to why I don't analyse this or that political issue and choose sides "accordingly", the fact is I'm one of the least politically inclined people that I know. Honestly, to this day, I have no idea who Ann Coulter is. I don't know if she's left or right. Much less the "guy" you asked about before. Frankly, 5 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to tell you who our Prime Minister was or how long he'd been in power. I failed history twice in high school . My one history credit is by correspondence course, and is a Native Canadian history course.

I'm drawn towards human interaction issues which are all over this board. At the same time, I recognise the immense importance and validity of political issues. I recognise since politics is one of my weaknesses, it is best learned by me while doing what I love to do--interacting with somewhat like-minded others. I've come to realise while I do not have a mind of political facts and figures I do have a mind for power issues and humanitarian ones, and somehow I DO have relevent information to offer. If it's not what you want to see, I can live with that.

I've told you before that I only speak to what I KNOW. And despite this philosophical tangent, my points, whereupon I called out diversionary tactics, are entirely relevent (at the very least you've not disproven validity). If you choose to ignore the relevence that's your choice. If it makes you happier having my biases on the table, well, I aim to please.

angelica

69charger wrote:

So all the theory involved in inventing the computer you are typing on is just as valid as the any 'theory' I pull out of my ass?

I was referring to the issue at hand: theory.

We can derive practical application from within theory. That does not prove the theory with absolute certainty. It proves the potential to use the theory practically.

Because we could build our garden sheds using Newtonian physics did not mean Newtonion physics was absolute across the board. As a matter of fact, we found it was not absolute across the board and therefore, we had to redefine our parameters. With a new framework, many new discoveries came into view.

The very same can be legitimately said regarding the going 911 theory. Adhering to any theory as an absolute is not about science. Science must remain open to discovery.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Whether I have human issues or not, does not make my valid points any less valid.

Certainly!

If you want me to answer to why I don't analyse this or that political issue and choose sides "accordingly", the fact is I'm one of the least politically inclined people that I know.

And that's just fine. But you've picked an odd place to hang out then

Honestly, to this day, I have no idea who Ann Coulter is.

You're a better person for it.

I don't know if she's left or right.

Idiocy and hate runs rampant on both sides. She happens to spend her time on the right, however.

Much less the "guy" you asked about before. Frankly, 5 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to tell you who our Prime Minister was or how long he'd been in power. I failed history twice in high school . My one history credit is by correspondence course, and is a Native Canadian history course.

Ok.

I'm drawn towards human interaction issues which are all over this board. At the same time, I recognise the immense importance and validity of political issues. I recognise since politics is one of my weaknesses, it is best learned by me while doing what I love to do--interacting with somewhat like-minded others. I've come to realise while I do not have a mind of political facts and figures I do have a mind for power issues and humanitarian ones, and somehow I DO have relevent information to offer. If it's not what you want to see, I can live with that.

Cool. It is what I want to see -- do you understand that?

I've told you before that I only speak to what I KNOW. And despite this philosophical tangent, my points, whereupon I called out diversionary tactics, are entirely relevent (at the very least you've not disproven validity). If you choose to ignore the relevence that's your choice. If it makes you happier having my biases on the table, well, I aim to please.

I don't ignore the relevance -- to my arguments or anyone else's.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Cool. It is what I want to see -- do you understand that?

Sometimes. I am only human.

I don't ignore the relevance -- to my arguments or anyone else's.

okay.

69charger

angelica wrote:

Because we could build our garden sheds using Newtonian physics did not mean Newtonion physics was absolute across the board. As a matter of fact, we found it was not absolute across the board and therefore, we had to redefine our parameters.

Fact? What is fact? According to you there is no fact, only each individual's perception of things that is valid only for that person and that is what matters most. You can't all of the sudden play the 'fact card'.

angelica wrote:

We cannot ever prove anything with certainty.

angelica

69charger wrote:

Fact? What is fact? According to you there is no fact, only each individual's perception of things that is valid only for that person and that is what matters most. You can't all of the sudden play the 'fact card'.

Oh, there is fact--it's just that it's not absolute. It's what we know to be fact today, that may appear entirely different with new information tomorrow.

Which reminds me of the point I was making, that you seem to be glossing over: what we legitimately believe to be true today we may legimately find to be something very different tomorrow.

as you quoted:"We cannot ever prove anything with certainty."

(you might notice this phenomena happening on this very message board....there is potential for you to bring a new issue to the table that may alter and affect what I already know, or vice versa. The catch is that it works only if each party is willing to be open to hear new information.)

angelica

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"

--Albert Einstein.

baraka

69charger wrote:

Fact? What is fact? According to you there is no fact, only each individual's perception of things that is valid only for that person and that is what matters most. You can't all of the sudden play the 'fact card'.

I think you missed angelica's point. I might be wrong, but I think she is saying that you shouldn't close yourself off to different perspectives and methods. Any scientist will tell you that new discoveries happen all the time and these discoveries change the way we view the world. Angelica used a great example with Newtonian physics. You can also look to mathematics & other areas of science to find theories that replaced or expanded on current theories.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Oh, there is fact--it's just that it's not absolute.

That would be both a fact and an absolute.

The rest of your post there is quite right. A "fact" today may only be part of a bigger fact. But just because some "facts" change, doesn't mean they all do. And it doesn't mean that the flawed perception of them invalidates their reality.