WTC

 

From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:26 am
Subject: WTC

I think I sent this to you all before, but it is the best website I have found to clearly expose what happened on 9/11 with lots of pix & graphics to make it easy to see for yourself.

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

Christine

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:04 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

ADVERTISEMENT

Uhu Christine, what did you post ? Surely, Frank will jump in to type "it's only liberal bullshit!!" (See what he said to Bradford)

Psssttt... If... you wanna be Frank's friend you don't have to talk about both soccer and 9/11...., I unsubscribed from SCR mailist just after Franks' comments about this thread, but ..I am only a green-leftist (just like PS ....ah ah ah ah ).

A.

----- Original Message ----- >

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

Christine

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:59 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Hi Andrea,

Surely you don't take ANYTHING that Frank says seriously, do you??? I sure don't!

: ) Christine

He got into it with me once before about my posting "nonsense".

How're you doing with that new a...hole, Frank? LOL

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:13 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Andrea:

Surely, Frank will jump in to type "it's only liberal bullshit!!"

Not only Frank, but I will as well. Anyone can make it into what they want. Just have an idea and watch it go. We can all see what how the critics work their magic and it is very similar to this. We don't like Bush so we can see why he has done what he has done. No clear thinking going on here. No discerning just reacting.

Bradford shares in another post that nobody loves Bush. Well, I love Bush. I just don't like his policies. I was thinking about how people said Dr. Steiner disliked Wilson immensly and was wondering how to work that in with what was going on with Bush. But it really is not for me to work in because noone is perfect. We can keep demofying President Bush or we can find a way to turn the tide to where we would like it to go.

There is a reason why these reports are non credible and it has nothing to do with the fact that I nor others think these kinds of things can not happen. We can see through the smoke and mirrors set up to guide one to the particular thought of what is being said. Better to watch who we follow down that rabbit hole.

Bunch of baloney and shocking how great minds will follow this type of propaganda.

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:59 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

----- Original Message -----

Andrea:

Surely, Frank will jump in to type "it's only liberal bullshit!!"

Not only Frank, but I will as well. Anyone can make it into what they want. Just have an idea and watch it go. We can all see what how the critics work their magic and it is very similar to this. We don't like Bush so we can see why he has done what he has done. No clear thinking going on here. No discerning just reacting.

Bradford shares in another post that nobody loves Bush. Well, I love Bush.

Hi Dottie ! No problem at all! I live in a country where. more or less, 25 millions of fellow citizens are in love with a guy like Silvio Berlusconi .....

There is a reason why these reports are non credible

Oh yes, I have been listening to this song since early 2002 but i have never seen anybody discuss "point by point" the issues. (when, where, who, why.... ). I heard only hysterical screams and not a single fact seriously counterbalanced.

propaganda?

You can call it "propaganda" but again, nobody has been able, till to day, to give "official" answers to the question on the desk. Only hysterical screams of "bullshit". It's just the same way that they used to carry on in Italy when, between 1969 and 1980, people began to find out that the "Strategy of Tension" in Italy (159 murdered) was not a "communisty-anarchist matter" but a right-wing work for the benefit of CIA, NATO and . Internatiuonal US policies as it was demosnstrated in the following years.

Rory Gallagher (1969) played a song ... "Same old Story, I'm really down....... Same Old Story, I'm underground..........)

A.

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:36 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Hi Dottie,

Please do me the favor of really reading the entire article posted before you bash it. And if you can offer real explanations of what you see with your own eyes, I (and many more like me) would be very glad to hear them.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking Bush. He, like many previous Presidents, is simply a puppet. But there is a much bigger picture and much bigger stakes being played.

Dismissing reality because we just don't want to look at it is what 90% of the people in this country are doing and have been doing for a very long time.

1. Where is the plane (or the parts of it) that flew into the Pentagon?

2. Why was building 7 (farther from Tower 1 & Tower 2 that Buildings 5 & 6) demolished, but 5 & 6 were untouched?

3. Why did the towers implode and why did Tower 2 go down before Tower 1?

There are only a few of the very reasonable questions being asked.

If you do not wish to read the article, fine. But to lambast it without a fair read is just unreasonable.

Christine

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:04 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

At 16:36 27.03.2004, Christine wrote:

Please do me the favor of really reading the entire article posted before you bash it.

Personally, I think your posts about mind-boggling conspiracies are thought-provoking. Those who don't like it don't need to read it. Oliver Stone's "JFK" may have been rather far out too, but it's one of my favorite flicks with a permanent home in the collection on my video shelf.

So don't let anyone discourage you from posting, Christine. I'll comment some of it myself if I get the time.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:07 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Christine:

Please do me the favor of really reading the entire article posted before you bash it.

Dear Christine,

I have read these articles and they have literrally bored me to tears in the manner that Staudenmaiers had when I first read his paper and in the same manner that the author of Work on What Has Been Spoiled as well.

And not bashing it but just recognizing the stupidity of the claims because there is not a this or not a that and so forth. Common sense, just common sense Christine speaks to the opposite of what these papers claim. You and Bradford are free to jump on that bandwagon if you so want but I will call to your mind the thought Dr. Steiner gave in a point about the events leading up to the war: don't buy into the media sensationalism. In this case the left media sensationalism. Did we or did we not have men confirmed to have been taking flying lessons specifically wanting to run into tall buildings. Did we or did we not have relatives of these men confirm that they left messages and so forth that point to the day of recognining. Did we or did we not have Mr. Clarke speak to the very point and now being villanized by Washington. Do you really think this is all just a game?

Yes there are many conspiricies I can consider but this bullshit, now so bashing it, is not one of them. And why take it so personally that I disagree with you. It is not you really it is the people who write such ignorance. Do you know you are right about this? Do you know you are not spreading false hoods about this subject? Have you really thought it through without any preconcieved ideas about how you feel about Bush and regime that allows it to be sense free thinking? I do not ask these things lightly or heavily just have you seperated how you feel about Bush and where he is leading this country and the points of this scenario?

Christine:

And if you can offer real explanations of what you see with your own eyes, I (and many more like me) would be very glad to hear them.

Christine, you must be kidding me. Is it only the things we 'see' with our own eyes that count? If so than Mr. Staudenmaier would have his case sown shut if that was how one was to judge a thing: just look at the words and they will become what you want them to become. Just look at the pictures and negate all the points we know about the terrorists and their follies all over the world bombing American targets and so forth. Yes, maybe we bombed the Cole and maybe it was us and not the blind Mullah sitting in jail that bombed the Empire State Building. And maybe just maybe it was us who were trying to bomb the Lincoln Tunnel.

Christine:

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking Bush. He, like many previous Presidents, is simply a puppet. But there is a much bigger picture and much bigger stakes being played.

I sense yours and Bradfords to be the same kind of points that Mr. Lightsearcher brings up, just different ends of the scale.

And yes a lot is riding on the line and yes boy did it play into Roves hands there would have to have been complicity even from the raging muslims across the world. It's beginning to sound like the OJ Simpson defense in how the police from the bottom to the top planted evidence. Now, do we say that can not happen, no of course not. We know better. However looking at the whole picture and not the part that knows about bad police activity is what should be considered.

Christine:

Dismissing reality because we just don't want to look at it is what 90% of the people in this country are doing and have been doing for a very long time.

Who's reality Christine? Are you saying you know for one hundred percent that what you are sharing is correct? Do you? Show a few pictures and so forth and that means what you want it to mean? Rumsfield just got bad publicity along with some other FBI agents for having shards of the plane in his office and showing it to people. Now, no I do not know that for truth either, what I do know is that one must use common sense and take in the whole picture and not the idea that the country has been doing bad things for a very long time. I do not doubt this, but this does not make you correct.

Christine:

1. Where is the plane (or the parts of it) that flew into the Pentagon?

So, you know there was no plane Christine? Have you looked as ferociously for that which counters your point to just make sure you are not being misled?

Christine:

2. Why was building 7 (farther from Tower 1 & Tower 2 that Buildings 5 & 6) demolished, but 5 & 6 were untouched?

Why did Dr. Steiner say one thing in one lecture and allude to something different in another? Why did Christ say I have not come here to judge yet in another scripture say he has? You want to nit pick anyone can do this Christine to prove their point. You only have to read a little of the critics points on Waldorf and Dr. Steiner to see this.

Christine:

3. Why did the towers implode and why did Tower 2 go down before Tower 1?

I am unaware that you have added Engineering to your abilities at some point along the line? You must be kidding me. You must. How can you possibly say this with a straight face? This is Staudenmaier talk. The reason I point to him and the critics is because they have this similar 'prove it to me' point when everything else points against what they are saying.

Christine:

There are only a few of the very reasonable questions being asked.

These are not reasonable in my mind Christine given all the information we have seen and the comments made by on site people at the moment of striking. Do you want to say that the world did not see the Twin Towers go down? Do you want to say that the people calling in from the planes were lying? What are you possibly thinking of when negating all the other evidence. Again I will say this thinking is very Staudenmaier like in its logic.

Christine;

If you do not wish to read the article, fine. But to lambast it without a fair read is just unreasonable.

Why are you taking this so personal Christine? It shows a lack of clarity as far as I am concerned. I have read the article and many of these points from other posts you and Bradford and others have shared here. Lambast I did not. You may feel lambasted or that I did but that is untrue. Lambast is completely different than my points on the former post. Wow.

And again, just because I do not agree with you does not mean I have not read the article. The points are ridiculous when taking in the whole. I don't see how a rational mind that has taken all things in can not see this point.

Sincerely,
Dottie

p.s. Now the other post you forwarded I had no issue with and thought it sounded like a good possibility if not the outright truth.

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:00 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Hi Dottie,

1. I simply do not believe that you have read the entire article that I gave the link to. What you say does not indicate that you have read it at all.

2. There is absolutely no reason to mix up this subject and issue with Rudolf Steiner and/ or Peter Staudenmaier.

3. I actually had some information off list that the article I forwarded on the use of uranium was incorrect and I appreciate the info that was given to me about it. I forward article such as this expressly for the purpose of thought and feedback.

However, your feedback in this case reflects much more the emotionalism of not wanting to "believe" the horrors that our own power structure is capable of, rather than real evidence that supports the media brainwashing that we all live with.

Of course, if the media version makes sense to you, that's fine. In some ways, it would be "better" for us all if this were the true story. It is much easier to live with an "enemy" who can (supposedly) be identified, captured and eliminated.

For me personally, the photographic evidence and the explanations of people who have far more knowledge of the physics and chemistry involved than I do suggest that the mainstream media version is (at the very least) distorted and misleading.

In today's media age, it is not much of a stretch of the imagination to think that those with power and money have the means to make us see what they want us to see, to hear what they want us to hear and to believe what they want us to believe.

Those with the real power in this world have and have had both the means and the motive to create this horrific scenario. What does the evidence support?

Christine

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Christine:

1. I simply do not believe that you have read the entire article that I gave the link to. What you say does not indicate that you have read it at all.

What that I do not believe the 'evidence' they put forth? They do not have evidence. They have inuendo. And if that is good enough for you than fine but it is not good enough for me.

Christine:

2. There is absolutely no reason to mix up this subject and issue with Rudolf Steiner and/ or Peter Staudenmaier.

Polemic.

Christine:

3. I actually had some information off list that the article I forwarded on the use of uranium was incorrect and I appreciate the info that was given to me about it. I forward article such as this expressly for the purpose of thought and feedback.

And what does that mean? Just because I think it is a possibility means I am wrong about the other. I don't think so. And in my post I said it was believable but not that I knew it to be true. Do you know that what you are putting out there to be true? I think this kind of reporting is very similar to Mr. Staudenmaiers in its approach to proving a thing.

Christine:

However, your feedback in this case reflects much more the emotionalism of not wanting to "believe" the horrors that our own power structure is capable of, rather than real evidence that supports the media brainwashing that we all live with.

Whatever Christine.

Christine:

Of course, if the media version makes sense to you, that's fine. In some ways, it would be "better" for us all if this were the true story. It is much easier to live with an "enemy" who can (supposedly) be identified, captured and eliminated.

Making judgements on me because I do not agree with this paper. Fine. But that isn't true about me. I sift through lies in the media all day long and its a chore. But I am not going to be caught with out oil in my lamp either way.

Christine:

For me personally, the photographic evidence and the explanations of people who have far more knowledge of the physics and chemistry involved than I do suggest that the mainstream media version is (at the very least) distorted and misleading.

And how do you know these specific people are credible? Its the same with Peter Staudenmaier. He studies a certain thing and gives his opinion. Now we know its whacked but so what. Others read him and they do not know he is reading ass backwards. How do you know these people you are reading are not doing the same thing. Given all that I have followed in the last couple of years and from the beginning this story does not add up in the way it is portrayed in the paper you have presented as far as I am concerned.

Christine:

In today's media age, it is not much of a stretch of the imagination to think that those with power and money have the means to make us see what they want us to see, to hear what they want us to hear and to believe what they want us to believe.

No it is not much of a stretch. But stretch we do have to. In order to find the truth of what is going on we must sift through all the shit and make sure our own personal beliefs or inclinations are not poluting the scenario.

Christine:

Those with the real power in this world have and have had both the means and the motive to create this horrific scenario.

I agree there is real power and real ugliness in the world. This does not mean the scenario you presented makes sense. It does not to me in any way shape or form. I feel lots of funkiness in there and lots of little bells going off saying 'hey who are you? where do you come from? what is your gig? Just like I did with Mr. Staudenmaier when I first read his picture. I had to see why he was so off base to what I read in Dr. Steiners work. And this article feels the same for me.

Christine:

What does the evidence support?

To me the evidence does not support what the paper you shared presented. Taking in the whole it seems like a ufo story. I don't doubt that there may be some things of truth mixed in with the scenario they presented but so it is with Staudenmaiers work as well.

Sincerely,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Dottie to Christine:

I think this kind of reporting is very similar to Mr. Staudenmaiers in its approach to proving a thing.

Dear Christine,

This remark was not towards your reporting rather the reporting in the article. I have the utmost respect for all that I have seen here of your work. I disagree with you on this theory and what the 'evidence' means. I do not see it as evidence rather I see it as insinuations from a bunch of people that I have not had time to do my homework on. And above all it feels completely off the mark. This is my opinion.

Sincerely,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:01 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

----- Original Message -----

[Christine:]

1. I simply do not believe that you have read the entire article that I gave the link to. What you say does not indicate that you have read it at all.

and/ or Peter Staudenmaier.

your feedback in this case reflects much more the emotionalism of not wanting to "believe" the horrors

This is the same inner attitude that led some goodwill people( not only Nazi) to believe that the horrors of the Shoah are an "hoax". When something happened is too horrible to be believed it's better to think that it did not actually happen.

A.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:14 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

At 10:01 28.03.2004, Andrea wrote:

This is the same inner attitude that led some goodwill people( not only Nazi) to believe that the horrors of the Shoah are an "hoax". When something happened is too horrible to be believed it's better to think that it did not actually happen.

Besides, even if some speculations are exaggerated, they can incite people to demand the truth. For example, the missing pages in the Warren report were supposed to be sealed until 2030 or something, but Oliver Stone caused the documents to be published immediately after the release of "JFK". If we don't make provocative statements, governments remain silent. If some listmates don't want to read such things, they can just skip messages that don't appeal to them and start their own threads more to their liking.

(By the way, I received a spam yesterday, and one spam only is one too many, so I'm deleting the address I've been using for Anthroposophy Tomorrow. It goes to show that posting messages with email addresses included in the quoted message responded to causes extra work for those of us who insist upon being spam-free. Addresses in the texts of public web archives only take a few weeks to pick up spam.)

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:48 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Hi Tarjej.

As anthropops we have been told about the "Lodges" aims. Well, here we got lots and lots of infos about it. Think not only about Stone or the richest web issues about 9/11 but also about the writings of people like Sutton (what about the fact that Kerry and Bish are BOTH Skuulbonesmen ?) Quigley, Boardman, Gulbekian, Tradowsky, Prokofieff and many others (myself, ha ha ha )). Is it so difficult to get a link among these facts and see what is going on ???? Someone once called me "conspiracy anthronuts" , and I'm proud of it........

A. (the "Lodgeshunter")

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:01 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Andrea:

This is the same inner attitude that led some goodwill people( not only Nazi) to believe that the horrors of the Shoah are an "hoax". When something happened is too horrible to be believed it's better to think that it did not actually happen.

Bullshit Andrea. Just because one finds the 'evidence' of this type presented on list to not be credible does not mean one can not believe certain things can happen. I believe THESE CERTAIN THINGS did not happen not that they couldn't. All you people with the psychoanalyzing thing should take a break. The evidence in that paper is like Bushs' math, FUZZY. Wanna believe be my guest but don't expect others to cop to your specific world view, and if they don't, just say 'oh you know they just don't want to believe such horrible things'. A little more thinking power than this it takes Andrea.

Good Sunday,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:03 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

[Andrea:]

Hi Tarjej.

As anthropops we have been told about the "Lodges" aims. Well, here we got lots and lots of infos about it. Think not only about Stone or the richest web issues about 9/11 but also about the writings of people like Sutton (what about the fact that Kerry and Bish are BOTH Skuulbonesmen ?) Quigley, Boardman, Gulbekian, Tradowsky, Prokofieff and many others (myself, ha ha ha )). Is it so difficult to get a link among these facts and see what is going on ???? Someone once called me "conspiracy anthronuts" , and I'm proud of it........

A. (the "Lodgeshunter")

Being proud of it doesn't make it true Andrea.

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:49 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

----- Original Message -----

[Andrea:]

This is the same inner attitude that led some goodwill people( not only Nazi) to believe that the horrors of the Shoah are an "hoax". When something happened is too horrible to be believed it's better to think that it did not actually happen.

[Dottie:]

Bullshit Andrea.

Ahah! Don't forget that I'm a cave-dweller!

Just because one finds the 'evidence' of this type presented on list to not be credible does not mean one can not believe certain things can happen. I believe THESE CERTAIN THINGS did not happen not that they couldn't.

Oh no You are playing PS's like music!!! Well, I repeat it in a different way "These certain things" aka "somebody in the USA did plan those tricks" are too hard to be carried for many goodwill guys, just like the Shoah's idea is too hard to becarried by many others " Does it play better ? Obviously you don't agree: and what matters ?

All you people with the psychoanalyzing thing should take a break.

What "Psychoanalysis" are you talking about ? Here we are in presence of facts, facts and facts, that nobody was be able until now to deny (Norad, WTC, Pentagon, Mossad, Foreknowledge, links between Osama and the Bushes, Northwood Operation. and on and on and on) Hey Dottie have you ever read for instance (one among many others) Mussadeq Nafez and his "War on Freedom" ? (attention please since in the "democratic" USA it should have to be a kind of "forbidden " book. just like the "frogs-eater" Frenchmen Mr. Meyssan has been declared "unwelcome person" in America.

The evidence in that paper is like Bushs' math, FUZZY. Wanna believe be my guest but don't expect others to cop to your specific world view, and if they don't, just say 'oh you know they just don't want to believe such horrible things'. A little more thinking power than this it takes Andrea.

Wow!! Can you give me some lesson of "thinking power!" ? ( I can pay by an exchange of harmonica lessons, since at this moment in time I'm quite penniless,) (Excuse me Dottie but on this thread I see you on the way of Dr Scaccabarozzi's treatment....)

A.

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:52 am
Subject: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

----- Original Message -----

[Andrea:]

about 9/11 but also about the writings of people like Sutton (what about the fact that Kerry and Bish are BOTH Skuulbonesmen ?) Quigley, Boardman, Gulbekian, Tradowsky, Prokofieff and many others (myself, ha ha ha )). Is it so difficult to get a link among these facts and see what is going on ???? Someone once called me "conspiracy anthronuts" , and I'm proud of it........

A. (the "Lodgeshunter")

[Dottie:]

Being proud of it doesn't make it true Andrea.

Wake up Dottie!!!!!! Have you ever heard of a word like " SELF-IRONY" ?

A.

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:29 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Andrea:

Ahah! Don't forget that I'm a cave-dweller!

Oh yeah, so what nananananana :)~

Andrea:

Oh no You are playing PS's like music!!! Well, I repeat it in a different way "These certain things" aka "somebody in the USA did plan those tricks" are too hard to be carried for many goodwill guys, just like the Shoah's idea is too hard to becarried by many others " Does it play better ? Obviously you don't agree: and what matters ?

No, I don't agree. But thats okay because my needs of expressing my self have been met:) Learned that from the Matrix workshop I did yesterday. Its based on Joseph Campbells 'Heros Journey, Hermann, and some other fellow I can not remember at this moment. And hey! where are the girls in this picture...hmmm...must be my need for choice and independence:))

Andrea:

What "Psychoanalysis" are you talking about ?

I am talking to me about my 'need to see things all be nicey nicey and not see the bad bad things. This is what was pointed out at me because I disagreed with what was in the paper. Not only that but of course I must not have read it through because I found it to be as boring at Staudenamiers account of Dr. Steiners racial ideology that was a forerunner to the Nazi regime.

Andrea:

Here we are in presence of facts, facts and facts, that nobody was be able until now to deny (Norad, WTC, Pentagon, Mossad, Foreknowledge, links between Osama and the Bushes, Northwood Operation. and on and on and on)

Fact facts facts are according to whom? These are not facts to me they are inuendo in my opinion. Have you checked out these men and women who put these facts forth. What is there reputation in their specific fields of operation or at least claimed operation. We have Mr. Staudenmaier claiming at one point and taking bows for being a Historian. Of which he is not. But boy he can look like one can't he with all his facts facts facts...but we know his facts do not line up because we know of the works of Dr. Steiner and his reputation and we have seen where his works lead when we decide to work on his exercizes. So, have you done a thorough review of these men and women who purport these things to be facts so that you are aware of what you are subscribing too?

Andrea:

Hey Dottie have you ever read for instance (one among many others) Mussadeq Nafez and his "War on Freedom" ? (attention please since in the "democratic" USA it should have to be a kind of "forbidden " book. just like the "frogs-eater" Frenchmen Mr. Meyssan has been declared "unwelcome person" in America.

So what? What does that have to do with truth Andrea? Just because you are unwelcome does not make your story true nor untrue. We are called to discern fact from fiction and keep it seperate from our own personal world view are we not? We need to be able to discern a thing right? So, you discern it to be differently than I and we both get to ask each other the question if we have done our homework on the particular people writing such articles as the one offered the other day. Now, if it is authors you have found credible outside of your sympathies and antipathies than I would be interested to hear such a thing.

And again I have to say this is the kind of stuff in my opinion that Dr. Steiner said to avoid in regards to sensationalism on all sides. And it is sensationalism in my understanding. We can disagree with each other but I am not calling you wrong for not agreeing with me. Well at least I hope I am not, I may have started out like that in my first post I will have to double check. My point is that I am not wrong and all mishy in the middle because I do not agree with your thoughts on this matter.

(Excuse me Dottie but on this thread I see you on the way of Dr Scaccabarozzi's treatment....)

Whatever Andrea the cave dweller

Good Sunday,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:31 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Wake up Dottie!!!!!! Have you ever heard of a word like " SELF-IRONY" ?

Want to explain your self Andrea? This way instead of word playing we can have some truth in the house. What do you really want to say Andrea?

Good Sunday,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:48 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Andrea to Dottie:

Oh no You are playing PS's like music!!!

Dottie to Andrea:

Not only that but of course I must not have read it through because I found it to be as boring at Staudenamiers account of Dr. Steiners racial ideology that was a forerunner to the Nazi regime.

Hmmmm... Remember when I was going after Joel for publishing that Catherine article and Joel said I was reminding him of PS and the other WC'ers? Remember I turned around and threw the same accusation right back in his face? It's amazing, isn't it, that every time we get into a fight, we accuse each other of being little Staudenmaiers and Dugans and Dianas and other Waldorf Critics! Nobody is accusing others of being demons or hyenas or gremlins or reptiles or trolls, but Waldorf Critics! I think that's a blast.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: eyecueco
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:53 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, golden3000997 wrote:

Hi Dottie,

1. I simply do not believe that you have read the entire article that I gave the link to. What you say does not indicate that you have read it at all.

Christine,

I am with Dottie completely on this. I've read all these sites ages ago.

I feel very sad about what you have fwd and, like Dottie, am very disturbed about these conspiracy links and the hate mongering going on here on AT. I don't know how there can be protesting about the extreme biases of WE critics when the same kind of biases are displayed by so many here who think that their views, politically, are THE correct views.

The 9-11 issue is very person for me. I lived in the D.C. area and still have family and friends there who were affected by the Pentagon attack.

I know for a fact that a plane went into the Pentagon.

I know for a fact that the first plane that went into the WTC was reported correctly because a good friend had an uncle on the plane that went into the 1st tower. This man, a marine, and an astronaut was one of several killed by the terrorists before the plane hit. He had cut his throat slit open with a box cutter when he rose from his first class seat.

How do I know this? Because, contrary to the nuts publishing the crap that you are frwd. there ARE tapes. One tape is from that plane is a recording of the conversation that took place between a hostess on the plane and ground control where she reported the take over of the plane and how several people had had their throats cut with box cutters, including "one military type who was sitting near the pilot's cabin".

The FBI _played_ this tape for my friend's family. My friend heard it. The entire family in NJ heard it!

Another wacko url talks about how Ted Olsen is telling nothing but lies about the phone conversation he had with his wife, Barbara, who was on the plane that went into the Pentagon. I don' t know why Olsen doesn't sue these wacko nuts! How terrible to put forth such disinformation about a man who lost his wife under such horrific circumstances! Barbara Olsen called her husband from her cell phone, not from the credit card phones on the plane, as alledged on one wack site. She called not once, but three times, on her cell phone, from her seat. She did not know about the planes that had hit the WTC and Ted Olsen did not tell his wife that she was doomed and there was nothing he could do! This man (even thought some here might hate him because his is in the Bush administration) is a human being, a husband only fairly recently married, who sat and listened to his wife ask for his help as the television in his office reported the horrors going on, knowing he could do nothing but hold the phone in his hand and wait for his wife's cell phone to to silent.

How horrible that people would twist and distort such tragedy for their own ideological purposes based on hate and paranoia. How equally horrible to be able to disconnect one's imagination from the human tragedy of that day to play out one's ideological obsessions about their political views,

No, Christine, there wasn't much of a plane left in the ruins of that crash, just as there were no bodies to find or bury, not Barbara Olsen's, nor my oldest friend in the DC area's young friend, nor the bodies of the school children going on an awards trip to Calif.

What is your point, Christine? And why do you continue to assume frwd from pot-head links are of relevance to everyone? I'm personally as offened by the drug culture as you are about the Bush administration.

Paulina

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

eyecueco wrote:

What is your point, Christine? And why do you continue to assume frwd from pot-head links are of relevance to everyone? I'm personally as offened by the drug culture as you are about the Bush administration.

Paulina

Well Paulina & Dottie,

You both may be right and I and others may be crazy. Time will tell. Like most other issues today, this one is complex and full of emotion on all sides. To me, there are many unanswered or under-answered questions. I don't "get" that the serendipity site or many others like it are "hate filled". Whether the info is correct or not, most of the sites I have looked at do not promote hate. In fact, they tend to remove the onus of "hate" against those who have been promoted by the mainstream as our "enemies" ie, Arab Terrorists.

As for the "drug culture" - that too is a complex and emotional issue and I feel I have some understanding of the pros and cons involved. However, I have found many intelligent and insightful things written by or forwarded by people on many sites other than Anthroposophy sites per se. I even admit that when I first looked at Tarjei's site I was a little "put off" by the fact that he has articles relating to marijuana along side articles on Steiner. But I got over it.

If nothing else, this kind of discussion should go far to erasing the stigma of "brainwashing" and "mindlessness" that our "Critics" have labelled us Steiner people with. That people with vastly differing political and social views can still see something or many things of value in Anthrosophy AND still retain their vibrantly individual thinking in spite of the "Steiner guru" says alot about different Anthroposophy is in its very essence from any "cult" or "religion."

N'est ce pas?

Christine

Contraband and Human Rights

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Christine:

You both may be right and I and others may be crazy.

Dear Christine,

I do not think you are crazy in the least. Thought never crossed my mind.

Christine:

Time will tell. Like most other issues today, this one is complex and full of emotion on all sides. To me, there are many unanswered or under-answered questions. I don't "get" that the serendipity site or many others like it are "hate filled".

Time will tell Christine you are right. And then there are some things we can find now by doing research that goes counter to what we have decided is true. And in that a truth may be seen or understood to a certain extent. And there are many unanswered questions in my mind as well and mostly I am watching them come out of the closet one by one. Just like the October surprise. I get a feeling a real big one is about to explode if they push this Mr. Clarke too far. He just said if they are going to declassify his remarks he wants the whole six hours desclassified and his remarks to Condi along the way. It shall prove quite interesting what is about to happen. And Powell just said that Clarke has done great things for his country and doesn't want to see him villified but challenged.

In regards to the site being hate filled I did not find that. However I do think that those thoughts can lead to hate filled thoughts depending on who's reading and what their mind sets are. And I would hope to believe that the people who wrote these things believe this to be true and not some agenda filled balloon that is waiting to burst into all kinds of divisions. So, I think it is good to question all these things to see what is really driving it? Is it the search for truth, it very well could be, or is it something else, and that could be as well. I think we can tell more so if we know the biographies of the writers of such papers and what their personal biases are. And this is my main argument with Peter about his work on Anthroposophy: his bias to a particular subject: Essoteric

Christine

In fact, they tend to remove the onus of "hate" against those who have been promoted by the mainstream as our "enemies" ie, Arab Terrorists.

For me it seems there is more to it than they removed the hate. They then replaced the bad feelings onto something else that may not have any validity. So, the same as it was not right in my eyes to blame and hate all Arabs neither is it right to put the blame where they did if their facts are not soundproof. And they do not feel soundproof to me.

Christine:

If nothing else, this kind of discussion should go far to erasing the stigma of "brainwashing" and "mindlessness" that our "Critics" have labelled us Steiner people with. That people with vastly differing political and social views can still see something or many things of value in Anthrosophy AND still retain their vibrantly individual thinking in spite of the "Steiner guru" says alot about different Anthroposophy is in its very essence from any "cult" or "religion."

I agree completely. And that is the wonder of this site and the people who participate.

Sincerely,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:32 pm
Subject: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

----- Original Message -----
To: Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Andrea:

Ahah! Don't forget that I'm a cave-dweller!

[Dottie:]

Oh yeah, so what nananananana :)~

Andrea:

Oh no You are playing PS's like music!!! Well, I repeat it in a different way "These certain things" aka "somebody in the USA did plan those tricks" are too hard to be carried for many goodwill guys, just like the Shoah's idea is too hard to becarried by many others " Does it play better ? Obviously you don't agree: and what matters ?

[Dottie:]

No, I don't agree. But thats okay because my needs of expressing my self have been met:) Learned that from the Matrix workshop I did yesterday. Its based on Joseph Campbells 'Heros Journey, Hermann, and some other fellow I can not remember at this moment. And hey! where are the girls in this picture...hmmm...must be my need for choice and independence:))

OK.Let's go on.

Andrea:

What "Psychoanalysis" are you talking about ?

I am talking to me about my 'need to see things all be nicey nicey and not see the bad bad things. This is what was pointed out at me because I disagreed with what was in the paper. Not only that but of course I must not have read it through because I found it to be as boring at Staudenamiers account of Dr. Steiners racial ideology that was a forerunner to the Nazi regime.

EXcuse me but it looks to me like an "Encyclopaediae of Prejudice".

Andrea:

Here we are in presence of facts, facts and facts, that nobody was be able until now to deny (Norad, WTC, Pentagon, Mossad, Foreknowledge, links between Osama and the Bushes, Northwood Operation. and on and on and on)

Fact facts facts are according to whom?

Different sources and individuals. Have you staudied the sources or not ?

These are not facts to me they are inuendo in my opinion. Have you checked out these men and women

Pls Dottie !! When you read a book of whatever kind do you "check" the author before reading ?? Do you call him/her on phone, see him /her face to face, have a cup of tea and then, you begin to read ?????

who put these facts forth. What is there reputation in their specific fields of operation or at least claimed operation.

That's just what I do. THIS kind of checking.

We have Mr. Staudenmaier claiming at one point and taking bows for being a Historian.

Dottie!! You're obsessed by this guy !

Of which he is not. But boy he can look like one can't he with all his facts facts facts...but we know his facts do not line up because we know of the works of Dr. Steiner and his reputation and we have seen where his works lead when we decide to work on his exercizes. So, have you done a thorough review of these men and women

No Dottie, I'm human and when I do a rserarch I'm not looking at their "aura" but I'm only judging their way to work in History or something else how they use the sources and , most of all, how does it fit with my conceptual framework and background. I did so with LOTS of sources about 911 (as you did NOT) and I've found out that they were correct, That's enough

who purport these things to be facts so that you are aware of what you are subscribing too?

Andrea:

Hey Dottie have you ever read for instance (one among many others) Mussadeq Nafez and his "War on Freedom" ? (attention please since in the "democratic" USA it should have to be a kind of "forbidden " book. just like the "frogs-eater" Frenchmen Mr. Meyssan has been declared "unwelcome person" in America.

So what? What does that have to do with truth Andrea?

Dottie!!!!! "Truth" is not something "in the air" but is something walking on Earth by the legs of individuals, each one in his field of work.

Just because you are unwelcome does not make your story true nor untrue. We are called to discern fact from fiction and keep it seperate from our own personal world view are we not? We need to be able to discern a thing right? So, you discern it to be differently than I and we both get to ask each other the question if we have done our homework on the particular people writing such articles as the one offered the other day. Now, if it is authors you have found credible outside of your sympathies and antipathies than I would be interested to hear such a thing.

And again I have to say this is the kind of stuff in my opinion that Dr. Steiner said to avoid in regards to sensationalism on all sides.

Cazzo!! What "sensationalism" you're kidding about ? These are facts (AGAIN) and they fit very well just in the framework RS gave us! WAKE UP!!!

And it is sensationalism in my understanding. We can disagree with each other but I am not calling you wrong for not agreeing with me. Well at least I hope I am not, I may have started out like that in my first post I will have to double check. My point is that I am not wrong and all mishy in the middle because I do not agree with your thoughts on this matter.

As you like...

(Excuse me Dottie but on this thread I see you on the way of Dr Scaccabarozzi's treatment....)

Whatever Andrea the cave dweller

Hi Dottie ! See ya later (it's time for the job and i'll have a busiest day)

Bye, Dearest.

A.

Skull and Bones

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:35 pm
Subject: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Wake up Dottie!!!!!! Have you ever heard of a word like " SELF-IRONY" ?

Want to explain your self Andrea? This way instead of word playing we can have some truth in the house. What do you really want to say Andrea?

Dottie you can find truths ALSO playing a little
Doesn't it?

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:27 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Andrea:

Pls Dottie !! When you read a book of whatever kind do you "check" the author before reading ?? Do you call him/her on phone, see him /her face to face, have a cup of tea and then, you begin to read ?????

Yes I do. If I buy a book I want to know who it is that I am reading. Now if I am buying a fiction book, which is not very often, I do not read up on the author or just to see what background she may be writing from.

I learned this when I bought a book one day on Sojourner Truth. It seems as I went on I started to notice a funky feeling about what was being said. As if it wasn't the facts that were being uncovered rather it was the authors prejudice of the black woman he was writing about. Now, it was supposed to be on history and what it turned out to be was this sickening depiction of a thing he had no references for just inuendos with his point of view of what pariticular things meant. So, I had to read up on the author to see why he was seeing things the way he was and if there was any validity in my feeiling that he was pushing an agenda versus telling history. Well, my hunch paid off and I took the book back to the store for the first time ever and asked for a refund.

Another book I was reading on called Magdalene was so far out that I had to check the references of the writer on this as well. She was so into the Jesus having sex with Magdalene and actually abusing her for her worth to his personal needs. And then all these points with no references. By the end of the book I do not want to give it back and I do not want to burn it but I do not want it to see the light of day because it was so horrific in how mangled the truth was.

Peter Staudenmaier commented on his book about Dr. Steiner and I found it hard to believe he had references for the things he was stating on the critics list. So, I decide to read his book and suddenly realized his points were clothed in his own personal world view that had nothing to do with Dr. Steiners. He was my second author that I had to do a check up on. And when I did I had a better understanding of how he came to the conclusions he had although I had no excuse for his two word quotes wrapped in his own personal Peter Staudenmaier dictionary.

So, yes, if someone is stating something that rings a warning bell in my self about the truth of a thing and I care to know if it is true or not I look to see the antipathies and sympathies of the writer. I don't need to have tea with them nor meet them face to face but I do need to know if they are a credible source of information and what they are beholden to within. Yes, I do need to know these things on such important matters if I am going to consider something that feels so wrong to be a possibility of being right. You are welcome to believe what ever you want to.

Andrea:

That's just what I do. THIS kind of checking.

So, what are their references in other works Andrea? Are they on the left side of the political screen? Or are they well balanced in their reporting?

It's actually getting a little pointless to continue this conversation because I am not interested in proving you wrong or whathaveyou. I think the evidence shown here is not evidence and it goes counter to everything I have seen on the ground from the beginning. It is not self evident to me and I would have to do the ostrich in the ground routine if I wanted to say 'yes, I can see this is a possibility'. I can not. The questions and points are lame to me. Coming up with questions that really no one can have an answer to that would satisfy anyone. I mean it is impossible to ask 'well why did 1 go down faster than 2'. And we shot down a plane because the people were winning against the terrorists. Utterly ridiculous given the facts of this case and the cell phone calls and so forth. Anyone can ask questions that others say 'yes, why did that happen' you are right there must be a conspiracy. Whatever Andrea.

So, do you subscribe to the left side of politics? I have no issue if you do or do not but now I need to know just as I needed to know that Mr. Staudenmaier has inclination towards spiritual research other than to negate it. So, why are you so willing to bite this bait hook line and sinker? Did it make sense to you right away? Was it an AHaa moment for you? Was it an "I knew it' moment for you? Or did it gradually come to you that the world was being screwed by these evil lodgers trying to take over the world?

Dottie:

We have Mr. Staudenmaier claiming at one point and taking bows for being a Historian.

Andrea:

Dottie!! You're obsessed by this guy !

Whatever Andrea. Do you not see that his facts facts facts do not add up to what he says they do Andrea? He has all the facts Andrea just like that paper has all the facts that are not facts just inuendos. Just looking at photos without taking into consideration all the other 'facts' that make up the whole.

Dottie:

So, have you done a thorough review of these men and women

No Dottie, I'm human and when I do a rserarch I'm not looking at their "aura" but I'm only judging their way to work in History or something else how they use the sources and , most of all, how does it fit with my conceptual framework and background. I did so with LOTS of sources about 911 (as you did NOT) and I've found out that they were correct, That's enough

Oh please Andrea. Spare me the melodrama here. Once again we have you stating what I did and did not just because I disagree with you.

Well I am glad for you that it fits into your conceptual framework and background. Yours does not fit with mine. Now what?

Andrea:

Dottie!!!!! "Truth" is not something "in the air" but is something walking on Earth by the legs of individuals, each one in his field of work.

And????

Andrea:

Cazzo!! What "sensationalism" you're kidding about ? These are facts (AGAIN) and they fit very well just in the framework RS gave us! WAKE UP!!!

Wake up to your reality? I think not Andrea. It doesn't feel balanced in the thinking on this subject. And I am not interested in saying 'I do' to please you. You are too emotional on this subject and seem to have to much invested in it. Not my cup of tea. I prefer to take all things into consideration and not just those that fit my nice neat world view. I am looking for truth not slavery.

They do not fit into the framework that Dr. Steiner gave us and neither would I care if they did. I am after freedom as the teacher taught not to be some robot to others thinking. Dr. Steiner talked about sensationalism trying to get us all into division and neglecting our own independant thinking. This is sensationalism as far as I am concerned Andrea.

Andrea:

As you like...

And you as well.

Whew,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:31 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Andrea:

Hi Dottie ! See ya later (it's time for the job and i'll have a busiest day)

Bye, Dearest.

Follow the yellow brick road and watch out for that rabbit hole my friend, you never know who you are going to find down there or was it up there or was it nowhere???????????????????????????????

d

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:32 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Andrea:

Dottie you can find truths ALSO playing a little
Doesn't it?

Me thinks you do not want to say truly what you are thinking about me, my friend.

Off with his head,

d

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:43 pm
Subject: Cazzo!!

Andrea:

Cazzo!!

And this means what, you Italian Anthro name caller? d

...................................................................................................................................

From: danifyou
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 2:46 am
Subject: Rép. : Re: R: R: R: R: R: WTC

Does all these 'R' stand for Roar?...

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:09 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rép. : Re: R: R: R: R: R: WTC

Ditto
A.
----- Original Message ----- >

...................................................................................................................................

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 3:33 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Hi Andrea,

Surely you don't take ANYTHING that Frank says seriously, do you??? I sure don't!

: ) Christine

He got into it with me once before about my posting "nonsense".

How're you doing with that new a...hole, Frank? LOL

Just fine, Christine, only it's the old one.
http://southerncrossreview.org/33/editorial.htm

Frank

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 4:31 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WTC

Oh look, everybody... Frankie has his own magazine. Now he can publish whatever he wants. Isn't that special? : )

...................................................................................................................................

From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 6:59 am
Subject: Southern Cross Review [was: WTC]

Oh look, everybody... Frankie has his own magazine. Now he can publish whatever he wants. Isn't that special? : )

Gee, Christine. The existence of the Southern Cross Review should hardly be news -- especially on the Steiner Internet. I've posted about it a couple of times on this very list. We even get fan letters! <G> It's been a going concern for over 4 years now, and until we decided to donate all the proceeds to the Escula El Trigal, it even made enough to cover its (admittedly modest) costs.

The new issue is just up. Why don't y'all come on by and check out the fiction by Joseph Roth, the poetry by Goethe & Dylan, Gaither Stewart on Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, a lecture RS, and much much more? Dip into the back issues and choose from a virtual cornicopia of essays on politics, education, anthroposophy and more; reviews; stories old and new; passion and poetry!!

Musing on the workings of the Muse....
JoAnn
http://www.SouthernCrossReview.org

...................................................................................................................................

 

From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 10:35 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Southern Cross Review [was: WTC]

Hi Jo Ann,

I like the magazine, I'll just pass on the editorials from now on!

: ) Christine

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

March/April 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind