9-11 box cutters 11 september utility knives

[malignd at aol.com]

To quote Mr. Morris:



To insist that the truth remains hidden, you'd have to assume that everyone 
who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them - the CIA, the 
Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American 
Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific 
organisations, peer-reviewed journals, news organisations, the airlines, and 
local law enforcement agencies in three states - was incompetent, deceived or 
part of the cover-up.
Where do you stand on the idea that "the government" has been hiding evidence of UFOs for hte last fifty years?  Just wondering ... 

To insist that the truth remains hidden, you'd have to assume that everyone 
who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them - the CIA, the 
Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American 
Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific 
organisations, peer-reviewed journals, news organisations, the airlines, and 
local law enforcement agencies in three states - was incompetent, deceived or 
part of the cover-up.





-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 am
Subject: Re: 9-11 box cutters 11 september utility knives


To believe that a group who fabricated lies to murder over half a million Iraqis  
and in so doing sacrificed over 5000 soldiers and left many thousands wounded 
all in order to seize control of their oil would balk at killing some Americans 
to get what they want is to think that Americans are different than humans 
through most of history.   

This whole proposition is nothing more than the idea that anyone who thinks 
airplane engines  and wings disappear when they hit buildings is uncritical. Or 
that anyone who dares to question a media and political leadership notorious for 
lying is uncritical.  

The official inquiriies into 9-11 i are not, as suggested  in the article, 
unanimous,  in fact a commission chairman resigned in protest that and there are 
several instances where whistleblowers like Colleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds 
were punished and those they exposed were promoted. That kind of example is 
bound to  skew the results. 

It is not as though we live in a time of outstanding courage in challenging the 
lies of authoritarian systems. This is clear from  thousands of NSA people who 
dared not speak out like Snowden did .

The language of "these people" and "the rest of us" is the language of 
demagoguery .  His argument  is straw man and nothing but straw man.

I think your own arguments so far are lazy and have nothing to do with the 
substantive facts. It may be very possible that you haven't really looked at the 
evidence presented by the truthers to even know what you are refuting. I see no 
evidence that you have. It is understandable. One only has so much time and I 
find this stuff as tedious as anyone, but I am curious and can't dismiss so 
easily the facts which disagree with the commission narrative.  

So far only one person on the list has referred me to articles of the nature I 
requested, articles that are  fact based examinations of truther concerns. That 
was Mike Bailey. Rather I get  reactionary put-downs based on  false or 
convenient assumptions about my motives( I don't by any means believe in some 
all powerful elite). 
So even though Pynchon, in BE does suggest some sinister possibilities along the 
lines of insider foreknowledge,  almost no one on the p-list wants to even think 
about, hear about, or talk about it in anything but a very reactionary  and 
fundamentally ad hominem way.  
On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Markekohut wrote:

> A post as clearly thorough as Orwell would want. Thanks. 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:09 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24626-inside-the-minds-of-the-jfk-conspiracy-theorists.html
>> 
>> To believe that the US government planned or deliberately allowed the 9/11 
attacks, you'd have to posit that President Bush intentionally sacrificed 3,000 
Americans. To believe that explosives, not planes, brought down the buildings, 
you'd have to imagine an operation large enough to plant the devices without 
anyone getting caught.
>> To insist that the truth remains hidden, you'd have to assume that everyone 
who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them - the CIA, the 
Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American 
Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific 
organisations, peer-reviewed journals, news organisations, the airlines, and 
local law enforcement agencies in three states - was incompetent, deceived or 
part of the cover-up.
>> 
>> And yet, as Slate's Jeremy Stahl points out, millions of Americans hold these 
beliefs. In a Zogby poll taken six years ago, only 64 per cent of US adults 
agreed that the attacks "caught US intelligence and military forces off guard". 
More than 30 per cent chose a different conclusion: that "certain elements in 
the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed 
for various political, military, and economic motives", or that these government 
elements "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks".
>> 
>> How can this be? How can so many people, in the name of scepticism, promote 
so many absurdities?
>> 
>> The answer is that people who suspect conspiracies aren't really sceptics. 
Like the rest of us, they're selective doubters. They favour a world view, which 
they uncritically defend. But their worldview isn't about God, values, freedom, 
or equality. It's about the omnipotence of elites.
>> 

-
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/20131125/64a2a244/attachment.html>