Re: my own 9/11 conspiracy theory

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 10:23:19 MST

42@jrmolloy> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dossy wrote:
> On 2002.01.08, J. R. Molloy <> wrote:
> > From: "Dossy" <>
> > > The fact that I present a controversial and unpopular worldview,
> > > you feel is going to make people (especially those who are
> > > intelligent and respectable, as you say) feel negatively towards
> > > Extropians as a whole?
> >
> > No, the fact that you presented a ludicrous and wildly irrational conspiracy
> > theory, prompts reasonable people to either repudiate or ignore you.
> You know, many called what I presented "ludicrous" or "sick" or
> "wildly irrational" ... yet nobody's been able to really give
> reasons why other than lots of poo-pooing.
> I say that while unattractive and however improbable my conspiracy theory
> is, it coincides with the recorded history and track record of the
> United States government.

The problem in your logical framework is to make the leap of saying
"This group (the US gov't) allegedly committed these acts and made these
plans 40 years ago, so its rather obvious that they most likely set this
situation up."

Even if such plans were made during the Kennedy Administration (which
there is significant testimony against), this means absolutely NOTHING.
Do you know why? Because the US government, since the end of WWII, has
consistently and continuously made plans for almost ANY turn of events
and contingencies that you can possibly imagine, from a resurgence of
the Nazi regieme to the dominance of the Soviet Union, all the way to
nuclear war and invasion by aliens from outer space. The fact that ONE
of these plans, allegedly devised 40 years ago, bears a resemblence to
recent events is to be no surprise. Many events in the last 60 years
have in fact resembled various scenario plans devised by the government.
Many plans devised and gamed out on computers have resulted in such
unacceptable results (i.e. nuclear war being unwinnable) that defense
planners have pushed for an end to deployment of nuclear weapons as
military devices.

I think that the fact that recent events may have been previously
scenarioed in war gaming is a good reason why the US has been able to
respond so decisively in the past 4 months.

> Back in World War I, we let a passenger ship (the Lusitania) get
> sunk. It was carrying munitions, and people were unaware of it:
> "The Lusitania was a luxury liner that had been built in part with
> government money and obliged to serve the country in time of war. In
> addition to passengers, the Lusitania was carrying munitions. When it
> arrived in British waters a German submarine sank it, and 1,198 people
> died, including 128 Americans. In Britain and the United States,
> people were outraged. American newspapers stated as fact that no war
> material had been aboard the Lusitania. The secondary explosion of
> munitions on board was erroneously described as a second torpedo.
> Newspaper editors described submarine warfare as cruel and barbaric --
> too barbaric ever to be employed by Americans."
> Wow, the media tried to cover it up even back then. Surprised?

I fail to see how you can make the leap of logic that because the
Lusitania was carrying munitions, and that the media covered up this
fact after it was sunk, that this somehow means that the allies "let" it
get sunk. This is rather representative of your lack of logical
faculties in general.

> We sent countless people to Indochina to be slaughtered. We
> called it "the Vietnam war", right? I'd like to read this
> book sometime:

The Vietnam War happened, which is no big secret in the world. I find it
rather indicitavely hyperbolic of you to say that we 'sent countless
people to Indochina to be slaughtered'. In fact, we know exactly how
many Americans were killed, just over 50,000, so the number wasn't
"countless". We counted them quite well, thanks.

What, btw, does all this have to do with your paranoid delusions?

> Who here has heard of Watergate? We're not even sure what it really
> was all about, but it was of high enough significance to cause
> Nixon to resign. That's gotta be one big skeleton in that closet.

We know very well what it was about, thanks. Nixon was paranoid about
collusion between the McGovern campaign and media reporters and
publishers (not undeserved) and wanted to investigate the possibilities
of financial ties between them (there was, at the time, no law requiring
that politicians disclose campaign contributors) to prove that the
so-called "5th Estate" was in fact a bought and paid for propaganda
organ of the Democratic Party. He had some over-zealous lieutenants (G
Gordon Liddy, et al) break into DNC headquarters to find information
about such ties, as well as any other dirt that was on paper there
(including, it seems, a scheme by which the DNC supplied prostitutes to
wealthy male contributors). They got caught, Nixon tried to cover it up,
and got exposed as trying to cover it up when a White House staffer told
Woodward and Bernstein (sp?) of the Washington Post about a list of the
members of the black ops crew and that there were audio tapes of Oval
Office conversations.

> What about the "war on drugs"? I'm surprised nobody has called our
> occupation in Afghanistan part of the "war on drugs":
> Perhaps we're bitter because the heroin money from Afghanistan
> ran out, after what we gave them in aid against the Soviets,
> so we're sending in our muscle to "collect what's owed to us"?

The Afghanistan situation has far more to do with oil politics than
heroin politics.

> We sell armaments and train militia in other countries just so we
> can go there and expend our military budget. Sound unreasonable?
> Our government does it.

Our government does it, as do many other countries. It's a done thing.
As President Carter learned, the world doesn't magically get better when
the US starts acting more puritanical. We play the dirty game because
many far less moral and ethical countries do so for the purpose of
damaging the US, and we are stupid to not fight back.

> 1915. 1969-1970. 1968-1974. 1979. It goes on ...
> While we all strive for physical and intellectual evolution, what
> makes you think that politicans have changed much in the past 200
> years?

What makes you think that the US is acting ANY worse than most other

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:33 MST