The truth about September 11th

[Bruce]

Toward the end of 2006, I happened to see a video on the internet of Bill O'Reilly interviewing a Dr. Jim Fetzer on O'Reilly's TV show. I'm not sure when this particular show actually aired on FOX-TV.

What struck me was how incredibly rude O'Reilly was, how hatefully O'Reilly was treating this man. This Dr. Fetzer claimed to have proof that 911 was an inside job, that Bush, Cheney and the boys were complicit in this horrible crime. O'Reilly went nuts! I have never seen O'Reilly so angry, except for perhaps the time he screamed at Al Franken.

O'Reilly simply wouldn't allow this Dr. Fetzer to explain himself. However, this Dr. Fetzer did give out his website, "st911.org", telling the TV audience to check out his website if you want to learn the truth about this crime.

I checked it out and was amazed, particularly impressed with the collapse of WTC Building Number 7, a 47-story building which fell at free fall speed directly into its own footprint. First of all, I had never even been aware of a building number 7. It fell at 5:20 PM on 9/11, about 7 hours after Buildings 1 & 2.

Interested by this startling revelation, I've since done quite a bit of research into this matter and it certainly appears this guy Fetzer is correct. Check it out for yourself. Watch the videos on the internet of people like Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Steven E. Jones, Webster Tarpley, and many others.

The reason I'm pointing all of this out to this particular audience of people interested in Dr. David R. Hawkins is that Dr. Hawkins says that the Bush administration's intentions in Iraq are honorable. If, however, the Bush administration was complicit in this crime, I'd have to say Dr. Hawkins is dead wrong about Bush's intentions, wouldn't you?

I have also done some digging into Dr. Hawkins' claims about the accuracy of his method when subjected to actual double blind testing. Go to Wickipedia and read these articles by his critics. Look, I've read Dr. Hawkins first four books, each at least twice and I really want to believe in him. However, things aren't looking too good in that regard.

Just think about it. If Dr. Hawkins' method truly could stand up to scientific double blind testing, he would have certainly demonstrated this to the world by now, wouldn't he?
I mean, just how tough would it be to use, for example, several groups of 10 year old children in various cities around the world to "Prove" his method. He hasn't. Why?

[Scott Jeffrey]

Bruce,

The are a number of factors you must keep in mind. Let's start with the critics of kinesiology.

First, critics of kinesiology calibrate at 160. Their intention is to disprove it, not test it, which lacks the needed integrity to generate accurate results. In essence, nothing else really needs to be said about it.

Second, the technique is not available to most people for calibration testing. Although it was believed that you and your partner just needed to be over 200 to get accurate results (which would limited the technique to roughly 22% of the world's population), further research has concluded that accurate calibration testing requires a calibration level in the high 400s. Statistically, very few people can use the technique, but this doesn't negate it's viability.

Third, wanting "proof" of the method is a sure sign that the method will not work for you. What would be the intention behind of wanting that proof? If you've been around Hawkins' teachings long enough, any concerns you might have about kinesiology shorely dissolve. The technique itself is just a diagnostic tool to verify levels of truth. But the truth stands revealed even without the technique.

Now, onto your issue of O'Reilly.

First, O'Reilly calibrates at 460 (one of the highest of all broadcasters) and has a unique ability to call out those lacking integrity. He comes from true power and what you observed as being "hateful" was more likely the weilding of the "sword of Truth." Al Franken calibrates below 200 and is listed as one of the leading people who are screwing up this country, so O'Reilly's reaction is quite understandable.

Second, 50% of the information of the Internet is fallacious, so how much weight do you really want to put on your personal "research"?

Third, the provide a thorough explanation of the political issues you've raised in your post would require a great deal of context. I can tell you that if you've thoroughly read and understood "Truth vs Falsehood", the issue you've raised below would be re-contextualized and become non-existent. In particular, Section II: Practical Applications provides all the necessary insights you'll need.

sj

[lindawalling]

A good source for checking out a lot of the information posted on the internet is snopes.com. I check and found this one page full of checked-out rumors and myths that have come from the 9/11 attack:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/rumors.asp

The media didn't show us much about building 7--probably because no one lost their life in it because firefighters were ordered out of it once they realized it was lost--but it was not a secret. One account of it is on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_7

Truth Vs Falsehood is a tough read, but I really can't think of a better way to get immunized against the programming that is prevalent on the internet and in the media today--misinformation which Dr H says is directly related to the fall in the level of consciousness of the world in the past few years from 207 to its present 204.

By the way, in someone who loves the truth, anger is a natural response. The key is that we don't get stuck there. Nisargadatta Maharaj was famous for his quick temper--there are stories of him actually throwing people out of his 2nd story room where he entertained guests! I read Bill O'Reilly's book "Culture Warrior" and it is clear this guy is devoted to standing for the truth and he feels that our nation and the world are at great risk due to the nontruth that is so prevalent these days. For me, reading Truth Vs Falsehood was very hard exactly because it confirms that Bill's concerns are totally valid. And I do mean reading it, rather than just looking at the charts as it seems that some critics of the book have done.

Linda

[apelike22]

Hi Bruce,

I've noticed that the issue of kinesiology is often polarizing for people. There is a tendency in academic/intellectual circles to assume that the observable, Newtonian universe of causality is, in fact, the whole of reality. Kinesiology falls into the relatively recent scientific realm labeled "nonlinear dynamics." Chaos theory, for example, falls into the field of nonlinear dynamics.

Even within the realm of the scientific community, there is a great deal that is not understood about what appears to be the observable world. Particle physics has, for decades now, been a realm where it is acknowledged that the Newtonian model falls apart. The quantum realm is one dictated by probability, not cause and effect. No one knows at what point the physical world transitions from the causal to the probable, but it happens. And keep in mind, all matter in the universe contains these lovely, unpredictable, unobservable particles. Einstein spent - some say wasted - the second half of his life trying to find a Unifying Theory and failed.

For more information about this kind of thing, I recommend "The Tao of Physics."

With all this in mind, about three years before I was introduced to Dr. Hawkins' writings, my digestive system went haywire with an assortment of anaphylactic allergies. No one knew what was happening and I was getting concerned that my life could be in danger. My mom heard of a woman who used a strange technique to determine and treat allergies and had experienced a great deal of success with this technique.

So, I went to this woman and she performed kinesiological testing on me to determine exactly what I was allergic to. I have had skin tests and blood tests done before, so this seemed utterly insane. It worked. It was 100% accurate and she proceeded to use acupressure to reset energy meridians in my body - and keep in mind I had NEVER heard of this stuff before - and my digestive system returned to normal.

My wife was with me when this happened. We were in Lincoln, MA which was full of pollen at that time of year. She was experiencing constant sinus allergies to airborne stuff. This practitioner went outside, collected some pollen, muscle-tested my wife for an allergy, confirmed it, treated it, and she didn't sniffle or need a kleenex from then until we returned to Los Angeles.

I approached the treatment skeptically but hopeful that it would work. And it did. This is not a third-hand experience. This happened to me and I witnessed the experience my wife had. It is a completely legitimate practice. When I was introduced to "Power Vs. Force," it made complete sense that kinesiology could be used the way Dr. Hawkins uses it. But I can't imagine reading that book without having the experience I had. It would be a tough sell.

To anyone who chooses to believe that kinesiology is untrue, impossible, etc. I find it best to not resist them. People approach a great many things in life with learned positions which can consciously or unconsciously influence every interaction they have with the world. What can be gained from trying to convince someone who loves their skepticism that they are wrong? Most people don't want to be "wrong" and the more intellectually-gifted the person, the more defensive they will become when confronted with ideas contradictory to the ones with which they identify.

Much love to you in your journey!

Best,
Jon

[bobfiske]

The title "Dr." before someone's name simply means s/he was a good student. It sure as hell doesn't mean the person is integrous. A serial murdering psychopath can obtain a doctorate. I mention this because we can sometimes forget to see through our collective infatuation with titles and degrees, while overvaluing intellectual attainment.

Some people, such as John Gray, PhD, obtain their doctorates from less than wonderful schools, such as Columbia Pacific University (now Commonwealth Pacific U.) which lack the same level of accreditation as most schools we think of as credible. Some do this to raise their stature (see above) and to sell their ideas. Not to take anything away from Mr. Gray's work, but such degrees seem to cast doubt on the individual's integrity. When doing research, it's important to research the sources themselves and not just what they claim.

Muscle testing isn't the only method of access to All That Is (whatever you want to call it). Dr. Hawkins's method is one of several. But the same caveats apply: your own level of integrity, the integrity of your motives, and permission. But if you explore other methods, you may very well obtain validity for his method while avoiding the circular illogic of someone using what Dr. Hawkins says to prove what he says is true.

Last but not least: Since we are discussing science, double blind testing, and people with advanced degrees, have any of your sources published their 'findings' in peer-reviewed journals? Or are they just talking trash? Lots of people out there are trying whatever they can to make a name for themselves, while actually contributing little or nothing.

[liquidsky555]

Keep in mind the origin of various 9/11-conspiracy-theories, such as jihadists and marxists. Both the current leader of Iran as well as Chavez of Venezuela believe 9/11 was an "inside-job," and their supporters disseminate this kind of information all over the Internet.

Also, keep in mind that Hawkins calibrates the CIA and other Intelligence Agencies at a non-integrous 190.

I've examined the 9/11-inside-job-theory without bias (before reading about Hawkins take on it) for awhile and my conclusion was that it's not true.

[nearlyawake]

Excellent article here:


Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
"Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/1227842