18-04-2009, 01:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 18-04-2009, 03:01 PM by Charles Drago.)
It isn't that speculation is inherently inappropriate in our work. In point of fact, application of the invaluable resource known as imagination is a critical component in all investigations -- criminal and otherwise.
The point here is simple: Rumsfeld was right.
There are "known knowns" -- and in the JFK case, we know that conspirators killed the president. As I've written and said so often, anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Yet in countless instances, overwhelming proof of conspiracy is dismissed by application of the "someone would have talked" or "Earl Warren wouldn't lie" sophistries -- among so many others.
As if the "two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead" bromide can heal the posterior head wound of exit!
As if Warren's personal integrity can elevate the T-3 entrance wound!
Accordingly, and again for emphasis, the "how" question must be argumentatively segregated from the "who" and "why" queries if we are to have even the slightest chances to define and effect justice in the wake of the world-historic tragedy in Dallas.
So far, so bad.
Back to Rummy: In this case there are plenty of "known unknowns" -- things we know that we don't know to the degree of metaphysical certitude. Yet. Examples: the identities of the sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics.
But our knowledge of the "how" of the assassination permits us both to reverse-engineer the event and to apply a process of elimination of suspects, which in turn lead us ever closer to the "who" and, by extension, the "why" answers.
These processes are equally valid for the investigations of 9-11.
Either nano-thermitic material is present in WTC remains, or it isn't.
If it is, then simple logic demands that we acknowledge that it was brought to and applied at the sites.
At that point, having answered the "how" question, we can reverse-engineer the event, eliminate scenarios and suspects, and move ever closer to answering the "who" and "why" questions.
The point here is simple: Rumsfeld was right.
There are "known knowns" -- and in the JFK case, we know that conspirators killed the president. As I've written and said so often, anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Yet in countless instances, overwhelming proof of conspiracy is dismissed by application of the "someone would have talked" or "Earl Warren wouldn't lie" sophistries -- among so many others.
As if the "two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead" bromide can heal the posterior head wound of exit!
As if Warren's personal integrity can elevate the T-3 entrance wound!
Accordingly, and again for emphasis, the "how" question must be argumentatively segregated from the "who" and "why" queries if we are to have even the slightest chances to define and effect justice in the wake of the world-historic tragedy in Dallas.
So far, so bad.
Back to Rummy: In this case there are plenty of "known unknowns" -- things we know that we don't know to the degree of metaphysical certitude. Yet. Examples: the identities of the sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics.
But our knowledge of the "how" of the assassination permits us both to reverse-engineer the event and to apply a process of elimination of suspects, which in turn lead us ever closer to the "who" and, by extension, the "why" answers.
These processes are equally valid for the investigations of 9-11.
Either nano-thermitic material is present in WTC remains, or it isn't.
If it is, then simple logic demands that we acknowledge that it was brought to and applied at the sites.
At that point, having answered the "how" question, we can reverse-engineer the event, eliminate scenarios and suspects, and move ever closer to answering the "who" and "why" questions.