--- Gibson Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no idea if your accomplished friend is in on
> anything. If I had
> I would have directly said so. I wasn't trying to
> besmirch her, I was
> pointing out many people accept a
> go-along-to-get-along mentality and
> yet others find this quite handy for climbing the
> ladders of power.
Greetings John. That _may_ be true. But think about
whta that means in this case. It means that she (and
I, and many other people I know) are so committed to
"climing the ladders of power" that we're willing to
countenance - and in fact, actively cover for - high
treason. Do you really think that's plausible?
> Personally, I had never considered massive {in
> repurcussion} internal
> conspiracies from within until I read Tom Clancy's
> "Red Storm Rising"
> many years ago: facing an internal crisis a central
> soviet cabal
> orchestrates an attack on the schoolchildren by
> terrorists as pretext
> to hide other systemic failures by launching WWIII.
Yeah, but, that's a _novel_. I'm not saying
conspiracices never happen - they do - but it's a
novel. It's also a novel about the Soviet Union, and
most people would say the old Soviet Union operated a
little differently than the US does.
> Webster Tarply's
> role in uncovering NATO intelligence behind the
> multiple false-flag
> machine-gun terror attacks by "Reds" in Italy - and
> one such kidnapping
> which killed a government minister is part of the
> Italian public
> record. General Smedley "war is a racket" Butler
> was approached by a
> cabal of wealthy industrialists who sought to
> overthrow Roosevelt in
> the 1930's, but he refused and exposed them - with
> no action taken to
> imprison them: this ought to inform your opinion of
> some timeless facts
> about American power structures. Operation
> Northwoods was concocted by
> American generals in the early 1960's to hijack
> planes and kill
> Americans as pretext to inciting a Cuban invasion -
> Kennedy nixed it
> and fired the perps.
I'm not going to comment on any of these in particular
- except to point out that even if they occurred, they
all involve a handful of people, and they were all
_discovered_. Any 9/11 conspiracy would involve
thousands of people - it would have to be so large,
remember, that it would probably include someone as
insignificant as me - and _none of them_ would have
ever said a word about it. Don't you think that's an
entirely different kettle of fish?
> I'm reminded of a saying Gore Vidal once said
> describing how things
> have long worked in D.C., "I won't rat out your
> scheme, if you don't
> rat out mine." Much mischief gets done all the time
> by our so-called
> protector class. Why insist black hearted and
> aristo-minded people
> could not possibly treat us as expendable chattel?
Well, I met Gore Vidal in June and let's just say, I'm
not impressed by his insight into how the government
works. I'm sure he likes to think that's how it
works, but that doesn't mean that it does.
> I have no doubt there was a massive explosion at the
> Pentagon, but what
> it was is open to question. I'd like to know if
> your friend that close
> to the impact actually saw the exact airline in
> question since almost
> nothing remained, even a dent where the engines
> should have impacted -
> let alone survived. A simple 3-6 clips showing the
> impact from
> different vantage points would clear up the issue a
> great deal - the
> absurd chunky digital frame or two fobbed off on us
> last year did
> nothing to quiet the concerns and as I recall only
> raised the
> temperature of discussion. Surely, you must wonder
> why this event is
> still shrouded when it could be so easily dispensed
> with? The public
> wonders, like it or not.
No, I really don't. It's not a case of like it or not
- the public wonders, but the public has been shown
the truth. Just out of curiosity, why do you think
there would be 3-6 video clips of the Pentagon? And
if there were, don't you think that this would be used
as evidence that there was a conspiracy, since it
would be strange if such clips exist. But if you need
an eyewitness report of the impact, such things do
exist:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp-
for example.
My friend, thank God, was not at his desk at the
moment of impact - or he'd be dead, instead of the
American hero that he is.
>
> Like the three blind men feeling different parts of
> an elephant, we can
> all take different measures of the same item before
> us. I do not doubt
> your impressive credentials. I recognize your name
> from the NOVA
> update to 9-11 last week.
I have to admit my total confusion as to this one.
I've never been on NOVA in my life - and as far as I
know, I'm the only "Gautam Mukunda" in the United
States, so I don't know whom you might be confusing me
with. Whomever it was, though, I assure you it wasn't
me.
> 4) Idiots don't get multiple degrees, but it is true
> that people with
> degrees can be fooled from real estate to oil gusher
> deals as easily as
> a plumber.
OK, this is certainly true. That's doesn't seem to me
to be the question, though. The question is, can they
be fooled on issues that are _directly relevant to
their field of expertise_. I'm sure you could fool a
lot of structural engineers on real estate or oil
gushers. But could you fool them on structurial
engineering? And if you couldn't, how come _not even
one_ has come out and said that the explanations of
what happened on that day don't make sense?
> Now, do you think you would be on that NOVA show
> -or- invited to these
> government study meetings if you were making
> alternate-history noises?
Well, I wasn't on the show, and I've never been
invited to a government study meeting on the topic...
But, just for a moment, let's suppose I was. There's
another, more innocent explanation, though, right?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the
people who make the invitations are honestly
convinced, based on their professional expertise, that
there's no doubt about the significant events of 9/11.
Let's say that they think of people who believe there
is in the same way that biologists and geologists
think of people who believe the earth is 6000 years
old - that, whatever their other virtues and
accomplishments, they have nothing to say about
biology and geology. Do you understand then why they
wouldn't invite people who make these claims about
alternative explanations _even if they were acting
entirely honestly_? I'm just asking you, for the sake
of argument, to put yourself in those shoes.
> This is what I refer to about the Bread & Who
> Butters It issue, but at
> an indirect and subconscious way: you have to admit
> you have an
> investment in this POV - for the many and good
> reasons you've
> outlined. As an exercise, how long do you think
> you'd still be invited
> to VIP symposia if you voiced strong disregard for
> the current
> premises, get votes of confidence by decision makers
> for prominent
> chairs or ever-more important panels {or
> documentaries}?
OK, Yahoo, rather annoyingly, cut off the rest of the
post at this point, but I think I've made my major
point.
My largest one, though, was this. I'm not trying to
make an argument from authority - that I know what I'm
talking about, therefore you should believe me. That
would be absurd. I'm just a graduate student at MIT.
I don't have a security clearance. The only time I've
ever worked for the government was when I did research
at NIST (yes, I was there too - given the number of
links I have to institutions that would have to have
been involved in the coverup if there was one, the
whole thing would damn near have to have been planned
out in my living room). My parents were immigrants.
They have no family wealth or connections (in the US,
at any rate). I hold no positions in the government
and have little in the way of such connections myself.
Yet, for the conspiracy you're describing to have
occurred, it would have to have been so vast that it
_even included me_ - or at least included so many
people I know that a huge proportion of my friends
would have to have been lying to me and complicit,
again, in high treason and mass murder. When I
volunteered to go to Iraq for a position that was, by
all accounts, quite dangerous, _not one of them_ cared
enough to say "Hey man, just between you and me, don't
risk your life for this - it's all a put-up job."
I admit that this is theoretically possible. It is
_also_ theoretically possible that I'm a three-headed
alien from Arcturus. Since only one member of the
list has ever met me face to face, I would argue that
it is _more_ likely that I am an alien than that there
exists a conspiracy involving literally thousands of
people, not one of whom has breathed a word in the
five years since the attacks, and which has also
evaded the most searching investigations in human
history. If I'm in on it, where are the leggy blondes
who you'd better believe would have been part of any
deal for my soul? :-) More seriously, my point is
really simple. What's more likely - that the
government was pretty incompetent about security, or
that thousands of Americans were willing to murder
thousands of their fellow Americans in exchange for -
well, what, exactly? And that tens of thousands of
other Americans, including every structural engineer
in the country, were all either part of the conspiracy
or so incompetent that they didn't see any traces of it?
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
