BE -- "death wish for the planet" why the internet?

Tue Mar 8 16:39:54 CST 2016

Thomas Eckhardt said (re. logistics of controlled 9-11 demolition: "Apart
from the logistical difficulties such a task would pose, there would have
to be many people involved."

For me this is another reason vast conspiracy theories are hard to believe:
vast numbers of conspirators are bound to fall apart. Either kill all who
know the conspiracy, or pay them lavishly until they die on their own.

David Morris

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016, Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
wrote:

> So, to take one such reflection as the one Pynchon endorses, for
>> example the Bush People caused the attack, is to miss the point.
>>
>
> Of course. And I, for one, wouldn't argue that this is the case.
>
> A few by no means conclusive observations:
>
> The term "conspiracy theory" is, as usual, misleading with regard to 9/11.
> Quite obviously the debate is about the official or government conspiracy
> theory against competing conspiracy theories. I use the term neutrally: A
> theory has to explain phenomena, and some do this better than others. With
> regard to the September 11 attacks there are open questions that have not
> been satisfactorily answered. Relatedly there are also many "strange
> coincidences" that have not been satisfactorily explained. Except by
> conincidence theories.
>
> There are also good arguments to be made against some of the conspiracy
> theories. For example, as David Morris said, the theory of controlled
> demolition requires the rigging of the buildings with explosives. Apart
> from the logistical difficulties such a task would pose, there would have
> to be many people involved. I find this highly improbable. On the other
> hand, NIST seems to have conceded that WTC7 was in free fall:
>
> One of the more disheartening developments of the years since 2001 has
> been that people who express doubts about the official version of world
> historical events (like 9/11 or the Maidan shootings) and point to
> unanswered questions or even, in the case of the Maidan shootings, to
> scientific analysis, are being called conspiracy theorists in the
> derogatory sense the term has assumed not least due to the efforts of the
> CIA in the aftermath of the JFK assassination. Nobody in the media seems to
> have heard about false flags, Gladio or "Operation Northwoods". These are
> not conspiray theories, these are conspiracy facts. But surely, this has
> all changed...
>
> On to BE:
>
> One source for the conspiracy stuff related to 9/11 in BE is Michael
> Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" (Pynchon could have found the information
> about the Israeli chip only there or, less likely, in Ruppert's online
> magazine "From the Wilderness", as I demonstrated at the link below).
>
> https://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=1312&msg=178509
>
> I assume that Pynchon took the information about the put options on United
> and American Airlines from Ruppert as well. These are discussed in some
> detail on p. 323-324.
>
> The put options are mentioned for the first time immediately before the
> attacks take place. On the very same page the alleged random-number anomaly
> at the parapsychological Global Consciousness Project is alluded to for the
> first time (BE, 315). An explanation follows on p. 341 where the anomaly is
> nicely linked to the possibility that outside forces could have entered
> Deep Archer. The stock market fluctuations are also mentioned once again on
> that page.
>
> For the GCP and the controversy around the anomaly in generated random
> numbers on 9/11, see Wiki:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project
>
> There is lot of other material out there, of course. More information
> about this from people in the know would be appreciated.
>
> I find it interesting that Pynchon mentions the put options and the GCP
> matter together two times, although they are completely different beasts:
> One points to foreknowledge and thus conspiracy, the other to the existence
> of a global consciousness with prophetic gifts. The key word here may be
> "anomaly" not "conspiracy".
>
> The occurrence of both anomalies is not put into question in Pynchon's
> narrative. This, however, does not mean a lot, because Pynchon's narrative
> also supports the "Montauk Project" which is, err, a wacky conspiracy
> theory.
>
> I note that Pynchon does not refer to other "strange coincidences", like
> WTC7 (Wiki: "the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed from
> fire") or the complete and utter failure of the secret services and
> American air defense.
>
> Immediately after the event, a lively discussion on conspiracy theories
> regarding 9/11 begins. It starts with March Kelleher:
>
> "'It's the Reichstag fire,' she greets Maxine." (BE, 317)
>
> No "How are you?", no "Is everything all right?" -- March wastes no time.
>
> She sees 9/11 as an inside job designed to implement fascism in the US --
> a subject that is of central importance for the deep-political strand of VL
> and linked there to continuity of government measures with a view to the
> Iran-Contra-Hearings (see below). From March's POV, there can be no doubt
> that the "Nazis in Washington" aka "Bush and the gang" did it.
>
> I believe that her POV is ironized by the niceties-be-damned
> single-mindedness she displays as well as by the over-the-top rhetoric.
>
> Maxine answers that probably the government was caught by surprise, "more
> like Pearl Harbour," and does generally not give much credence to March's
> theory. She is about to become "March's official doubter." (BE, 323)
>
> The reader may feel reminded of PNAC's wish for a "new Pearl Harbour" --
> which of course does not mean that Perle, Wolfowitz etc. actively planned
> for such an event.
>
> March expands her view on p. 321-322. Her statement is, apart from the
> Reichstag fire interpretation of events, remarkably complex (I seem to
> remember that Monte Davis pointed this out: "But there is always the other
> thing. Our yearning. (...)"), and should be looked at more closely. In any
> case, her POV is not invalidated by the implied author, even if he might be
> mocking her a little elsewhere.
>
> Maxine on the other hand doesn't "know what to believe." (BE, 323 -- Here
> we also find the rather outrageous paragraph about "anti-compassion
> insurance" referring to the story about the Stinger crew and the snipers on
> the rooftops which Pynchon made up but which is real, if once removed from
> reality, because mediated by film, within the narrative.)
>
> On 323 Horst returns to the put options. Maxine meanhwile, at her parents'
> place, begins to voice doubts of her own regarding the camera angle on 9/11.
>
> Which leads to Brooke vehemently attacking her sister:
>
> "Whose side are you on, are you an American or what are you?"
>
> Expressing doubts about the offical version of events makes one
> un-American? We can safely assume that the implied author does not share
> this view.
>
> Then comes Ernie, whom I (mis-)quoted in my previous post (It is "So
> suddenly *here* were all these strange coincidences" not "there".)
>
> A lively discussion, as I said. I would argue that the textual evidence
> sugggests that the implied author seems to think that there are questions
> that have not been satisfactorily answered by the official narrative.
>
> Which is, of course, just what I think...
>
>
> As the discussion started with the internet as an element of COG measures,
> it may be interesting to note that COG measures were actually implemented
> on 9/11:
>
> "Contingency plans for continuity of government measures had been
> implemented." Commission Report, 326.
>
> See also p. 38 of the report and this footnote to the sentence on p. 326:
>
> "The 9/11 crisis tested the US governments plans and capabilities to
> ensure the continuity of constitutional government and the continuity of
> government operations and the continuity of government operations. We did
> not investigate this topic, except as needed in order to understand the
> activities and communicatons of key officials on 9/11."
>
> Which measures? Don't ask.
>
> Compare this famous scene from the Iran-Contra-Hearings, also available on
> youtube:
>
> "[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were
> you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of
> government in the event of a major disaster?
>
> Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?
>
> [Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly
> sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
>
> Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in
> Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by
> that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would
> suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and
> wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was
> and I wanted to get his confirmation.
>
> Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched
> upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements
> can be made for an executive session."
>
> Wiki, "Rex 84"
>
> Lots of loose associations regarding COG, 9/11 and the possibility of
> American fascism in VL and BE, surely. No conspiracy theory endorsed,
> surely. But lots of factual detail as well. North supposedly tracked
> dissidents with PROMIS software. North/Iran-Contra/Rex 84 is an important
> subject in VL. COG measures have been implemented in the course of the
> attacks on September 11.
>
> BE is decidedly not only a novel about family in a time of national
> crisis. It is about the danger of fascism in America.
>
> Which tends to be downplayed. Perhaps understandably so.
>
>
> -
> 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/20160308/a9057332/attachment.html>