9-11 box cutters 11 september utility knives

Markekohut markekohut at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 23 07:37:57 CST 2013 

Joseph,

You repeat the same fallacy. Please reread what you just wrote about Sci American vs. .......other explanation. 

Mark

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 22, 2013, at 7:26 PM, malignd at aol.com wrote:

> That would be so that half a dozen other buildings and a subway system wouldn't go with it, while rendering acre upon acre of surrounding geography unlivable and impairing the health and the dreams of untold thousands.
>  If all it takes to bring the largest buildings 
> in the world down perfectly on their own footprint is a single impact and some 
> jet fuel, why are millions spent on the expertise and preparation needed for 
> controlled demolitions. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2013 3:12 pm
> Subject: Re: 9-11 box cutters 11 september utility knives
> 
>  
>  Mark, I don't say it ( SA article)is "conclusive" but the only "possible" 
> explanation that remains after eliminating another explanation, not with 
> evidence but simply presumption.  If all it takes to bring the largest buildings 
> in the world down perfectly on their own footprint is a single impact and some 
> jet fuel, why are millions spent on the expertise and preparation needed for 
> controlled demolitions.   Maybe scientific American is right but it seems to me 
> the argument works not by comparison to a competing hypothesis which has many 
> examples, but by a presumption that those are inadmissible for consideration.  
> 
>  All most people who have doubts want is a truly thorough publicly open 
> investigation of the questions. There are just too many anomalies and extremely 
> weird coincidences piled up here to dismiss as nutty conspiracy theories without 
> such a procedure. 
> 
> No planes intercepted 
> no credible film of pentagon strike, too small a hole for 747, no engines. no 
> defensive action of most defended building on earth
> Many firemen and other witnesses on scene heard and felt powerful explosions 
> that don't match timeline of current narrative
>  building 7 - no planes, no jet fuel, (several other comparable historic fires 
> but no example of free fall collapse).
> no credible explanation for flight skills of terrorists . accounts of flight 
> instructors describe complete incompetence.
> many insiders with financial motives, accrued power from event, and willingness 
> to lie and commit mass killings
> thermitic materials recovered from site
> 
> Personal. I admit that what is sought by those who question this story will 
> never be taken seriously, for political reasons.  I have, in the past always 
> advised truthers to pursue other avenues of change since this is a closed door. 
> But I have also taken the time to look into their questions. Some folks  in this 
> scene are  wacky gun nuts  who I dismiss out of hand, but there is a core of 
> very troubling questions here that I  and many perfectly reasonable people 
> including structural engineers, pilots, and first responders have found no 
> satisfying account for.  Calling me wacky or dumb hurts my feelings  a little 
> but doesn't really answer these questions. Apparently nobody in the mainstream 
> media seems to think that such a thorough and reasoned and respectful 
> presentation with an honest give and take of parties would be a worthwhile 
> undertaking. If there is such a thing please tell me about it.
> 
> We have a society where mass hallucination built around loud messages with scant 
> evidence has become quite common and is a recurrent theme of our history:   
> commies in all walks of life/McCarthyism,  Gulf of Tonkin/Vietnam, Weapons of 
> Mass destruction/ Iraq war,  Iran nuclear weapons program/crippling 
> international sanctions.  We also live in a society of increasingly secretive 
> one way power which crushes journalists who reveal its crimes and secrets. We 
> live in a country that has no popular mandate on many of its decisions and no 
> populist party shaped by the interests of the majority of working people.  We 
> live in a corporatist world empire backed by military force which has seized the 
> options for how humans will live.  Who to trust or believe is a critical part of 
> this paradigm.  
> 
> The internet was the communication tool that could have induced a 
> democratization of information and decision making but as BE shows, that dream 
> is dead.  Only the earth itself seems to have a revolutionary option to 
> overthrow the madness.  
> 
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 6:40 AM, Markekohut wrote:
> 
> > Well, I for one would rather reread Pynchon and other books than post evidence 
> here refuting the whack jobs....
> > 
> > Also, please reexamine your line re the Scientific American article. You seem 
> to say it is conclusive if one rules out " controlled demolition" theory. I no 
> longer remember the name of that logical fallacy but please tell me what acts in 
> our physical world could NOT have different supporting facts---if the reality 
> were not believed.
> > 
> > Sorta like " the epicycle theory of the sun and planets would be true" if 
> Galileo's proofs are not believed. 
> > 
> > Sent from my iPad
> > 
> > On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Very thoughtful and credible psychological reading of this issue, Robert.
> >> So far no one here is willing to take on the larger questions asked by the 
> truthers and seriously point to information that might dispel them. The 
> Scientific American article seems not so much like a credibly probable 
> explanation with supporting examples of similar structural failures as the only 
> possible explanation when you exclude the evidence supporting a controlled 
> demolition.    I do not know of a truly impartial comparison  of the science, or 
> an impartial  attempt to allay the major questions raised.
> >> 
> >> Much of what I have ben reading lately, a very odd cross section, has been 
> making me think about mass psychology, real conspiracies like the Nazi 
> conspiracy, the Mafia,  various revolutions, coups, the propaganda to invade 
> Iraq, Gulf of Tonkin etc.  In fact conspiracies and battles to shape mass 
> psychology are troublingly common and even fundamental in history. 
> >>  The history of the world is the history of the warfare between secret 
> societies.   Ishmael Reed , Mumbo Jumbo
> >> 
> >> Psychological responses and processes tell us much about ourselves, but the 
> actual physical events of the world are  not determined by what we think or what 
> we want or what we believe. The bullet that killed JFK was fired by someone 
> specific.  If it was plot from within some branch of the government it would be 
> critical to understanding our recent history and the nature of the society we 
> live in. If it was Oswald as a lone gunmen acting out of a troubled mind, what 
> it says is important but would not reshape our general view of how things work . 
> What is clear in that case is that the cost of a hasty investigation controlled 
> and inhibited by Hoover, Warren  etc. was far greater than whatever trouble 
> would have resulted from a truly painstaking and thorough process. 
> >> 
> >> Because so much of human history has been shaped by internal conspiracies  
> and because several have taken place in the US , I believe citizens have both a 
> right and a duty not to excuse our own agencies from legitimate questions 
> concerning an act of political terrorism.  There are certainly truthers who are 
> obnoxious egomaniacs,  but there is also, as far as I can honestly see after 
> looking into this several times, a core of legitimate questions by honest people  
> that I have seen no explanation for.  Many of the strongest doubts about the 
> official narrative comes from first responders and folks who were part of the 
> investigation commission. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Nov 20, 2013, at 8:45 PM, Robert Mahnke wrote:
> >> 
> >>> "The box cutter-knives story isn't demonstrably false, but it serves to 
> divert attention from the other weapons and to mask the fact that we don't have 
> any idea how the hijackings happened."
> >>> 
> >>> It's not about someone else trying to divert attention, it's about what we 
> all want to believe.  We really want to believe that the next time we surrender 
> our ordinary control over thing and place our lives in other people's hands by 
> boarding an airplane, the plane won't be seized and flown into a building.  So 
> we don't want to hear that we don't have any idea how the hijacking happened.  
> We want to hear that the hijackers were armed with puny weapons because this 
> means that if we are faced with such hijackers, we can resist them and their 
> box-cutters.  You don't need to hypothesize that someone else is trying to pull 
> wool over our eyes -- we all do to ourselves that every time we get on a plane.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Matt Ryan <matthew.ryan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Slate piece that seems salient: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2003/09/what_you_think_you_know_about_sept_11_.html
> >>> 
> >>> 2. The misconception: We know how the hijackers seized the planes. Within 
> days of Sept. 11, Americans believed they knew how the planes were grabbed: 
> Terrorists had taken control by stabbing pilots, passengers, and flight 
> attendants with box cutters and knives.
> >>> What's wrong with the story: It's incomplete and misleading. We don't really 
> know what happened on the planes. The cockpit voice recorder survived neither 
> New York crash and was damaged beyond salvage in the Pentagon crash. The Flight 
> 93 voice recorder doesn't start until several minutes after the hijackers took 
> the plane. What little we know about tactics and weapons comes from phones calls 
> made by passengers and flight attendants. As Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, 
> the evidence is incredibly paltry. No one on United Flight 175, which crashed 
> into the World Trade Center, reported anything about weapons or tactics. One 
> flight attendant on American Flight 11, which also crashed into the World Trade 
> Center, said she was disabled by a chemical spray, while another flight 
> attendant said a passenger was stabbed or shot. On the Pentagon plane, American 
> Flight 77, Barbara Olson reported hijackers carrying knives and box cutters but 
> did not describe how they took the cockpit. And on United Flight 93, passengers 
> reported knives but also a hijacker threatening to explode a bomb. The box 
> cutter-knives story isn't demonstrably false, but it serves to divert attention 
> from the other weapons and to mask the fact that we don't have any idea how the 
> hijackings happened.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I agree w Ryan. " Box cutter" showed how pre-9/11 hijacker scenario strategy 
> used minimal counter resistance from airline staff (or passegers) not thinking 
> hijackers were on suicide missions.  The passengers on the third plane learned 
> the new equation quickly and valiantly.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Tuesday, November 19, 2013, Matt Ryan wrote:
> >>> For what it's worth, I have worked various jobs involving regular use of 
> these blades and the terms "box cutters" and "utility knives" were always used 
> interchangeably. Maybe it's a regional thing, I dunno.  As far as the media 
> glomming onto the term box cutters, I'm guessing it has to do with the narrative 
> they were trying to shape, i.e. "something as mundane as this ubiquitous little 
> tool was used to carry out this hugely significant attack, oh the irony, etc."
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
> >>> I may be misremembering, but didn't Popular Science or Popular Mechanics 
> fully explain the collapse of WTC 7?
> >>> 
> >>> The boxcutter was just an example of one small thing I thought about that 
> >>> troubled me and an attempt to clarify to myself and anyone interested why.  
> The 
> >>> Other issues are quite large and have in no way been adequately addressed. 
> Why 
> >>> did building seven, unstruck  except by minor debris and the fire that 
> started, 
> >>> collapse. There has never been a steel frame building that collapsed even 
> from 
> >>> intense fires leaving twisted framework.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> >>> To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> >>> Sent: Tue, Nov 19, 2013 12:59 am
> >>> Subject: Re: 9-11 box cutters 11 september utility knives
> >>> 
> >>> The boxcutter was just an example of one small thing I thought about that 
> >>> troubled me and an attempt to clarify to myself and anyone interested why.  
> The 
> >>> Other issues are quite large and have in no way been adequately addressed. 
> Why 
> >>> did building seven, unstruck  except by minor debris and the fire that 
> started, 
> >>> collapse. There has never been a steel frame building that collapsed even 
> from 
> >>> intense fires leaving twisted framework.  Whatever hit the pentagon followed 
> a 
> >>> path that no pilot could accomplish in a747. This is the fucking Pentagpn 
> and 
> >>> there are no photos or film of a non scheduled flight entering their 
> airspace 
> >>> which has a large perimeter warning system. The hole in the Pentagon is too 
> >>> small. The 2 engines never turned up.   Thermite. Explain some of this or 
> point 
> >>> to a detailed explanation that is not a denial based on the idea that it 
> >>> couldn't be done covertly..  Which leaves us with the explanation that a 
> covert 
> >>> plan by the most powerful secretive forces could not do this but 12 alcohol 
> >>> abusing foreigners who showed no aptitude for flight and some of whom were 
> on 
> >>> FBI lists could.
> >>> 
> >>> I have a real hard time with that.  As for perfect narratives, that is not 
> the 
> >>> question. Credible physics concerning what is known is the question.  Did 
> Allah 
> >>> suspend the conservation of mass?
> >>> 
> >>> Slate magazine is a pathetic joke.
> >>> 
> >>> On Nov 18, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Monte Davis wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> RR> Life measured in such a detailed way will always bring to the surface 
> much
> >>> that doesnt make sense
> >>>> 
> >>>> I vehemently agree. What makes people believe that it must be possible to
> >>> reconstruct a 100% accurate, closed, consistent narrative of any but the 
> >>> simplest historical moment? (And in "historical" I include last week.) 
> >>>> 
> >>>> In practice, the effort to do so *always* requires the selective -- or
> >>> tendentious -- exclusion of some dots that someone else will always insist 
> >>> *must* be connected. See, e.g., Fred Kaplan on JFK assassination theories: 
> >>> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/11/john_f_kennedy_conspiracy_theories_debunked_why_the_magic_bullet_and_grassy.html
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM, rich <
> >>> richard.romeo at gmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> 9/11 in essence in my mind is a massive intelligence failure. conspiracies
> >>> abound because people cant believe we didnt connect the dots or when we did 
> we 
> >>> didnt share info or didn't deem it important enough. these bozos should have 
> 
> >>> been caught but they weren't. 
> >>>> I dont understand this 'I question the official narrative'--what narrative?
> >>> all those endless taps into each and every discrepancy or nuance of that day 
> and 
> >>> the days leading up to it. Life measured in such a detailed way will always 
> >>> bring to the surface much that doesnt make sense or others imbued with a 
> >>> significance important to the observer. an horrific event heightens this to 
> >>> unimaginable levels.
> >>>> I also just have to laugh about talk of knives and cowards. sure it takes
> >>> cour
> >> 
> >> -
> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20131123/a3a63291/attachment.html>

More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list