05-01-2012, 05:08 AM
ANOUSHKA SHANKAR
Breathing under water (9:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_HT-d8W1...re=related
[U]***
[/U]
Jeffrey, like many who play around with the analysis of state crimes against democracy (and other forms of government -- budding, fixed, seemingly secure behinds its redoubts -- pun intended), you are chattering among the leaves of the tree, thus in full agreement with Salandria's insight that it is in the minutiae where the argument gets prolonged and bogs down. Your arguments seem logical enough, but you missed my point (and, more importantly, Margulis') that your logical error exists much higher on the logic/decision/science/evidence tree).
The issue may be reduced (but perhaps I am taking liberties, or in error) to the statement about the preposterousness of the very idea inside the official story, or the officially released evidence, or the officially sanctioned explanations. There is little reason to examine the logic and science behind the official story because it, in itself, is illogical..., that the hypotheses put forth in its defense (or, if you insist, against its detractors) tentatively and then assuredly and then changingly..., and then with multiple explanations, pathways, and other forms of cognitive infiltration. Now we have the many leaves to get lost in, unable to see the target, like Salandria hinted.
And, as Salandria stated, it was plainly obvious to anyone not wearing layer of scales on their eyes, or blinders around them, what occurred in Dealey Plaza.
It is equally plainly obvious what happened on that "severe clear" day.
As hinted, the severe clarity available to airborne pilots did little to assist them when their flying acuity was built on instrumentation clouded by drills, to say nothing of the obvious-but-rarely-spoken-of presence of Doomsday coordinating aircraft etc., or encased in multiple command structures -- including, according to recent reports, clandestine systems in control of individuals outside the command structure.
I sincerely hope that you get to the bottom of the question as to how precisely it was that all those buildings came down. I'll wager a tenth of a derivative and a draught of your favorite that is was because maintenance contracts hadn't been let by the ole management team of the WTC when they needed to insure the re-application of copious amounts of Elmer's Glue.
Either way, you've lost, because:
all else aside, the logic and the totality inherent in vast amounts of the informational evidence (as opposed, perhaps, to the less reliable visual evidence or, more importantly, the physical evidence the vast amount of suppressed, destroyed, hidden, masked, secreted away, or put beyond legal reach) and which far outweighs all else seems to make moot any criticism of the now-deceased Margulis' logic, scientific credentials (and thus her ability to think scientifically and logically), lack of research, etc.
Her essential point is perhaps -- I have not conducted a seance -- that no one can claim to have investigated the event logically, scientifically or legally in the absence of the physical evidence, that what is or could be then commonly known heavily predicates against the official stories, and that the bulk of the evidence is withheld by the government (or its direct or indirect agents).
What should one begin investigating
if one does not have access to the physical evidence?
Breathing under water (9:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_HT-d8W1...re=related
[U]***
[/U]
Jeffrey, like many who play around with the analysis of state crimes against democracy (and other forms of government -- budding, fixed, seemingly secure behinds its redoubts -- pun intended), you are chattering among the leaves of the tree, thus in full agreement with Salandria's insight that it is in the minutiae where the argument gets prolonged and bogs down. Your arguments seem logical enough, but you missed my point (and, more importantly, Margulis') that your logical error exists much higher on the logic/decision/science/evidence tree).
The issue may be reduced (but perhaps I am taking liberties, or in error) to the statement about the preposterousness of the very idea inside the official story, or the officially released evidence, or the officially sanctioned explanations. There is little reason to examine the logic and science behind the official story because it, in itself, is illogical..., that the hypotheses put forth in its defense (or, if you insist, against its detractors) tentatively and then assuredly and then changingly..., and then with multiple explanations, pathways, and other forms of cognitive infiltration. Now we have the many leaves to get lost in, unable to see the target, like Salandria hinted.
And, as Salandria stated, it was plainly obvious to anyone not wearing layer of scales on their eyes, or blinders around them, what occurred in Dealey Plaza.
It is equally plainly obvious what happened on that "severe clear" day.
As hinted, the severe clarity available to airborne pilots did little to assist them when their flying acuity was built on instrumentation clouded by drills, to say nothing of the obvious-but-rarely-spoken-of presence of Doomsday coordinating aircraft etc., or encased in multiple command structures -- including, according to recent reports, clandestine systems in control of individuals outside the command structure.
I sincerely hope that you get to the bottom of the question as to how precisely it was that all those buildings came down. I'll wager a tenth of a derivative and a draught of your favorite that is was because maintenance contracts hadn't been let by the ole management team of the WTC when they needed to insure the re-application of copious amounts of Elmer's Glue.
Either way, you've lost, because:
all else aside, the logic and the totality inherent in vast amounts of the informational evidence (as opposed, perhaps, to the less reliable visual evidence or, more importantly, the physical evidence the vast amount of suppressed, destroyed, hidden, masked, secreted away, or put beyond legal reach) and which far outweighs all else seems to make moot any criticism of the now-deceased Margulis' logic, scientific credentials (and thus her ability to think scientifically and logically), lack of research, etc.
Her essential point is perhaps -- I have not conducted a seance -- that no one can claim to have investigated the event logically, scientifically or legally in the absence of the physical evidence, that what is or could be then commonly known heavily predicates against the official stories, and that the bulk of the evidence is withheld by the government (or its direct or indirect agents).
What should one begin investigating
if one does not have access to the physical evidence?
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"