-Caveat Lector- In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:45:27AM -0400 Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:45:27AM -0400, Kris Millegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Now, I may be wrong, but there maybe a scenario "op" going on. . [generalities snipped] >What we have are operatives and ensnared "true believers" trying to set-up >themselves up as "the" 9-11 researchers. Claiming that thier "take" is right and >all others are part of the modified-limited-hangout. Which is exactly what Kris Millegan himself is doing here! >As long-time members know, I have been talking about Berlet and >his conspracism charges for years and exposed him for all to >see on the NewPacifca list several years ago. Yup, about four of us hit him with the facts and he disappeared without conceding defeat. Berlet is one of the biggest pro-elite (while claiming to be leftist) propagandists. >A new wrinkle has been the apperance of known "op" Chip Berlet >on gatekeeper Amy Goodman's show.. Notice that Chip focussed >on the no-plane at the pentagon. This is to furthur muddy the >waters and to try and then link Berlets position with others, >that also say that there was a plane there. And then try to >smear by association of position. This vague "reasoning" applies to Millegan as well, since he's taking the same position (the 757 hit the Pentagon) as Berlet. >The op players or true believer/useful idiots are: > >Scott Loughrey >Gerard Holmgren >Rosalee Grable (a.k.a., the Web Fairy) >Jeffrey G Strahl >"Sean McBride" >Dick Eastman Most of these people have done very good work. Note that putting Web Fairy in with the others is quite dishonest (Mark Robinowitz does it, too), because she says that no planes hit the WTC (which would require some unknown technology to create the illusion that they did), whereas the others just say that the 757 (Flight 77) didn't hit the Pentagon, which does not require any facts not in evidence, and actually fits the evidence much better. But Kris will have to add the following 9-11 researchers to his list of "op players/useful idiots", because they too think that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon: Mike Ruppert, 757 pilot Ralph Omholt, Kee Dewdney, Brad Mayeux, Chris Bollyn, Carol Valentine, John Kaminski, Thierry Meissan, Jerry Longspaugh (physics911.org), Jim Hoffman, and myself. >These folks will play to the crowd with bonafides and patriotic talk. >They are really quite transparent. Or, we're telling the truth, and Kris Millegan is the evil disinformation agent... or maybe his analysis simply disagrees with ours. But the evidence that the plane did not hit includes: If it had knocked down the cloverleaf light poles on its way in then it would have hit the stone wall at almost a 45 degree angle, followed the path of least resistance, and most of it would have slid down the *outside* of the building. If it had hit, much of its 100,000 pounds of aluminum and steel would have ended up on the lawn. Instead there were only a few small pieces. If it had hit, the lawn and tree would have been burned by the jet fuel. They weren't. Ralph Omholt's web page shows a piece of metal inside the Pentagon, probably a landing gear strut, that was *rusted*, and therefore must have been planted there, since those airliners are kept very clean and shiny. The initial holes in the wall were too small, and too close to the ground, for the 757 to have made them. If the light poles had been hit by a 400 mph airliner, they would have been twisted like spaghetti. They weren't. The alternative scenario, that the 757 (which was seen coming in by many witnesses) flew over the Pentagon and landed somewhere, has none of these problems. It only requires some other means (e.g., invisible matte black steel wires) to have pulled down the light poles after their mounting screws had been loosened, and maybe that the one that hit the taxi was tossed from a truck. The objections by Kris Millegan and/or Mark Robinowitz to this scenario include that it would supposedly have required "dozens of MIBs running around" to pull the poles down. This is a ridiculous exaggeration -- little boxes containing radio- controlled electric motors could have been buried at 4AM the night before by a few agents disguised as maintenance men, and no one would have had to be on the scene the next morning. Another objection is that the scenario violates Occam's Razor, but this doesn't apply if the alleged "simplest explanation" doesn't fit the evidence, or if there's a possibility that deception was employed; both conditions exist here. Kris also claims that since we don't know what happened to the plane and passengers afterward that this invalidates the idea, which just doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that someone couldn't possibly have driven his friends to a restaurant because we don't know which restaurant they went to or where he parked the car. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
