9-11 box cutters 11 september utility knives

[Joseph Tracy]

Mark
 I am sorry if I am responding to something that isn't there. Perhaps you can try to understand how I feel from the different things that have been said to me. I am trying very hard to talk about questions I think are legitimate in a neutral way and getting no response on those questions, The response seems to me to amount to all truthers are  ...( fill in some form of generality that is distinctly unflattering). When I say reactionary I mean defensive and at least a little unkind accompanied by a theoretic difference that characterizes me or truthers rather than the questions.  

I don't think people on the p-list who disagree are caught in some delusion. I understand the reluctance. I am not saying the truther case is proved by any means. I am simply trying to show the reasons why truther questions might make some sense both politically, morally, and technically.

Since this started i have read some debunking material that is strong and some that is shrill and trivial.  I still am in serious doubt about what is truly plausible.

I am not interested in winning a debate here. I really am not. I hope rather that the theory of an inside job is dead wrong and that we are looking at incompetence and covering the ass.  

I wish that there were no hugely successful conspiracies and that all such concerns were just human paranoia, but I look at what was done secretly in the 3rd reich, I look at Vietnam and Iraq , I look at Chile or Greece or Venezuela or Brazil. I see the long trail of of imperial madness and capitalist madness and colonial madness and organized crime and I think it wise to be skeptical.

On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Mark Kohut wrote:

> You are also wrong in your overgeneralized characterization of the plist members who differ with you and how they differ.  I, for one, resent it and have just deleted a longer post.
>  
> "reactionary" arguments?.....a politicization akin to Fox News'...
>  
> I
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Nov 25, 2013, at 3:32 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> 
> > 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

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