9-11 box cutters 11 september utility knives

Tue Nov 26 05:03:51 CST 2013

No, for the case of LIHOP you do not have to make that assumption.

http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=1311&msg=178217&sort=date

Personally I can live with the official version very well. I don't need 
the resentments, and I have no interest in letting the US appear worse 
than it actually is. But to say, like you do, that the belief in LIHOP 
is just loco tells more about your own cognitive rigidity than about 
anything related to 11 September.

26.11.2013 00:03, malignd at aol.com wrote:
> 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  <mailto: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

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l