--- 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