From: Ira Brodsky (ibrodsky@ix5.ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 1996 - 12:11:43 MST
Michael Lorrey wrote:
>We know for one that this particular White House is capable of covering
>up ANYTHING that will preserve its power. We also know that multiple
>government agencies which work under the blanket of secrecy everyday do
>know how to keep a secret (SR-71 for ten years, the Stealth Fighter for
>more than ten years, as well as some things you have no idea about yet).
There is a difference between be willing and being able. The White House
may be willing to cover up anything ...but can they cast a spell on
hundreds of investigators? Are there no political rivalries within the
U.S. government to get in their way? If things are so monolithic, why
doesn't Clinton just declare himself Emperor For Life?
>In addition, something you may not know anything about Ira, is that on
>Naval vessels, there are very few, if any portholes. ANything happening
>in one section of the ship, due to its armoring, and the noise of
>internal machinery, would be drowned out, and those individuals
>involved, the vast number of whome are of low rank, know that if they
>are given an order to shut up over something that gets classfied, they
>will easily die if they open their mouths. I know this due to my own
>experiences in the US Military. The phrase "we take care of our own" has
>many meanings, some of which are pretty insidious.
You are right about naval vessels. My experience with the U.S. Military,
however, is somewhat different.
And, I see other revelations coming out of the military almost daily. If
people are willing to circumvent the system to reveal sex scandels, I would
think some would do the same for mass murder.
>> just don't think they could pull it off if they tried. Gov't employees
>> aren't that competent.
>
>US military personnel are not your regular government employees.
That's true, but we are talking about the military *plus* other government
agencies. I am hardly convinced that Bill Clinton loves, respects, and
would protect the U.S. military. In fact, I can see a motivation for
Clinton to nail the military.
>The facts are that mechanical failure of the sort necessary to have the
>failure that occured in that plane by itself has been determined to be
>fantastically unlikely. It is also a fact that they have only found bomb
>traces on sections of the plane where ordinances had been stored for
>shipment during Operation Desert Storm. THe traces they found were no
>where near that beleived needed to induce the blast the plane
>experienced. What is left?
>
>The fact that it is Navy vessels collecting the debris is like letting a
>crime suspect examine and collect the evidence at a crime scene.
That could be. But it contradicts your theory that only a small part of
the destroyer crew ever knew. This would mean several ships are now in on
it.
>> ***Skeptics will trust those who are retrieving and examining the actual
>> physical evidence before they trust those who insist they already know what
>> "really happened" because they have pieced it together from select media
>> reports.***
>>
>Skeptics of what?
Skeptics are people who demand truth and proof. That's your definition --
and I agree with it.
The issue here isn't whether you are skeptical and I am not. To me, the
issue is that some people are suggesting that since the government
sometimes lies (which it does), it always lies (which it does not).
I don't say you are wrong to doubt the official investigation, I say I am
also not wrong to doubt the conspiracy theories. The fact is, the
conspiracy theories are based on selective reading of what are at bottom
just more press reports.
So it comes down to what we know and don't know. We know 100+ people
believe they saw a missile. We know eyewitnesses at night can be
unreliable. However, even if we decide they really did see a missile --
which I do not consider unreasonable -- I have heard no "facts" that prove
it was fired by a US Navy ship.
You can't argue *both* that the US Navy can keep anything quiet they want
*and* that you or others know it was the Navy -- unless there is objective
proof like photographs of the ship firing the missile, US Navy missile
debris washed ashore, or whatever. Otherwise, how did you find out what
they are so good at concealing?
I recognize the US Navy missile theory is in many ways more attractive and
exciting. Arguments like "here's what really happened" and "you are being
lied to" and "we know the true story because we have pieced it together"
are not based in fact, however.
We know that terrorists have been targeting US passenger planes. We know
there have been some Islamic fundamentalists arrested and convicted in the
New York City area who have vowed to take revenge. So I lean towards the
terrorist theory.
But I am not mad at anyone for leaning in other directions. For me, this
isn't about which theory wins or loses, this is about finding out what
really happened.
Ira Brodsky
Datacomm Research Company
Wilmette, Illinois
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:50 MST