Jones Beene wrote:
Ed,
Jones, my question is, at what point do suggested events become so
implausible to be deemed impossible? At what point does an active
imagination lose contact with reality and how can this point be
identified?
Like beauty, "plausibility" is in the eye of each beholder, but please...
... do not be so naive as to think that the more-implausible and the
more-insane of the associated conspiracy theories which you and I have
been hearing with regards to 9/11 - were not themselves planted or
promoted by those whose interests involve keeping secret, one
"less-implausible" event.
In other words, how can we define sanity and identify insanity?
Yes, we can... but it is a shifting target... somewhat like defining
"pornography" ... where the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
famoulsy exclaimed, "I know it when I see it" ... the so-called Potty-test.
For a start, can we agree that invading a soverign country under false
pretenses - is itself insane, correct?
No, this is not insane, it just stupid. Bush et al. had logical reasons
for invading, which if true and if they were the only considerations,
would have made this effort look wise. However, they suffered from
ignorance, hubris, and greed. As a result, facts and expected events
were ignored in their enthusiasm. This defect is not insanity.
Now that we have established that underlying fact, we can move on to
lesser instances of risk vs. rewards in governmental activity. With this
Iraq invasion as a standard for insanity, one can not totally rule-out
certain other activities - even if they are to some degree - implausible.
But, the other actions have to be actually possible. The war was
possible because 911 removed all common sense from Congressmen who only
wanted to look good to their angry and frightened constituents. This is
very much different from planting explosives in public buildings before
911. It also makes no sense for the government to overlook a terrorist
plot because they would have no way of knowing the damage it would cause
and which of them or their friends might be in harm's way.
Without such an understanding, we can never interpret another person's
claims or even the action of our government.
As sane individuals, most of us have great difficulty in discounting
enough, the level of ingrained insanity in government, issuing out of
the "red-scare" and "cold-war" years - when such was actively encouraged
- and indeed promotions within the agency depended to a degree on who
was the most extreme.
The questions I ask in deciding the degree of insanity are:
1. Are the claims clearly at odds with well established reality or are
actions at odds with accepted behavior?
2. Do the claims or actions have a clear benefit to the person or
government making them?
3. Are the claims or actions contradictory within themselves?
Answers of yes, no, yes cause me to suspect insanity. In the use of
explosives to bring down the Towers, I would answer yes, no, no.
Consequently, I do not think the possibility is based on an insane act
by the government. However, I do not believe such an act would be
possible or would have been contemplated before 911. Now is a different
story.
Regards,
Ed
Should we believe the people who claim the government has placed
thought controlling devices in their homes?
No, not unless they can produce the actual device
Should we believed claims that chemicals are being rained down upon us
from secret airplanes in order to achieve an unknown objective?
No. Not without trace evidence of such chemicals
Should we believe that the weather is being controlled to increase the
profits of the oil companies?
Not for that particular end (profits), in-and-of-itself - but as to the
braoder issue of influencing "weather control," as a plausible goal of
high-level intervention... hmmm... now that you mention it...
...one hopes that you did not miss the latest news on Haarp ;-) Again
this is something that is within the range of plausibility (for weather
control) just based on the enormous amount of power being used.
HAARP (the High frequency Active Auroral Research Program) will be
adding 132 more transmitters to bring their total number of transmitters
to 180. The installation began in 1993 with 18 transmitters, expanded
to 48 in 1998 and will grow to 180 transmitters. The final expansion
will bring the HAARP array to full power, with ERP increasing to about 4
billion Watts!!
There is speculation that the project is an "effort to develop ways to
jam the electronics of incoming missiles from Russia and/or China".
4 billion Watts oughtta be overkill for radio jamming but as for weahter
control, who knows ??
Using the Potty-test, this amount of power for the stated aim is
"insane" but is it insane enoguh to be related to an attmept at weather
control?
Doubtful, but plausible ...
Where does it end?
Regards, Ed
Not with 4 billion watts, nor with contructing a new building number 7 -
that much is for sure...
Regards,
Jones
