Saturday, September 11, 2010, the date of ' meeting held in Milan from David Icke Meetup to which Paul and Attivissimo io partecipavamo come relatori sugli attentati avvenuti sul suolo statunitense nove anni fa, il gioco al massacro che qualcuno forse auspicava non c’è stato. Il fatto che io non condivida molte delle sue posizioni su svariati argomenti e non ne abbia stima a causa di certi suoi atteggiamenti spesso inutilmente arroganti e presuntuosi, tipici di chi è convinto di avere la Verità in tasca, non significa che egli non meriti quel rispetto che per mia natura porto nei confronti di chiunque faccia altrettanto. Il confronto, fatto salvo uno spiacevole episodio di intemperanza, è stato pacato e produttivo, anche se non mi è affatto piaciuto il tono inquisitorio e la maleducazione con cui venivo interrotto mentre argomentavo le mie risposte ad alcuni infervorati Attivissimo young sympathizers.
Assuming that with time available to me I could never fully explain the many anomalies resulting in these nine years of investigations into attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon and on United Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, nor steer them in a geopolitical context, I merely stated the amount and variety of associations and committees that seek to open a new investigation into the tragic events, and to provide some element of reflection, in my opinion deserving of further study.
Attivissimo was very detailed in sua esposizione e addirittura stupito che ancora si stesse a discutere di certe cose: è tutto lì, nel sacro testo, il Rapporto della Commissione sui fatti dell’11 settembre. Basta leggere. Date retta agli esperti, loro sanno di cosa parlano, voi a quanto pare no. Se vi dicono che è assolutamente normale che due grattacieli di centodieci piani crollino quasi a velocità di caduta libera sulle proprie fondamenta un’ora dopo essere stati colpiti da un aereo, e un terzo faccia la stessa cosa senza nemmeno essere stato colpito direttamente, non date retta al vostro buonsenso: credeteci. È nel rapporto del NIST. Io invece mi stupisco che lui ancora invochi una richiesta di fede in un rapporto “sbufalato” dal grande David Ray Griffin with his September 11 Commission Report. Omissions and distortions , let alone that of NIST, dismantled piece by piece by Mark H. Gaffney ( Dead on Arrival - The NIST 9 / 11 Report On The World Trade Center Collapse ). Ah, yes: the point is that they are not professional experts, do not have the necessary technical skills and therefore are not entitled to an explanation nor a refutation, as far as reasonable, convincing and detailed it is. In short, it's just a matter of certification, and all the arguments, the elements, facts and researchers who have not the Blue Sticker have no dignity to reply. But today, to make their voices heard are thousands of professionals from various fields (pilots, air traffic controllers, engineers, architects, professors, lawyers, doctors, soldiers, intelligence agents, politicians, artists, and so on and and so forth ...), supported by a minority of people in diverse and constantly growing. We truly believe that they are all (including myself) fall prey to a collective delusion?
I personally think that the question of jurisdiction is totally misleading, and it is the story to teach us: to take but one example, were the leading experts of their time to declare that "heavier than air flying machines are impossible" (Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895), that "The flying machines will eventually be faster, will be used in sport, but you can not conceive of as commercial carriers" (Octave Chanute, aviation pioneer, 1904); that "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value" (Marshal Ferdinand Foch, French commander of Allied Forces during the last months of World War I, 1918), that "Land and orbit around the Moon has so many problems for mankind than science could be used for another 200 years to overcome " ( Science Digest, August 1948) or even that "Everything that can be invented has been invented" (Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the Patent U.S., 1899). Paradoxically, the invention of the airplane it should not be engineers plurilaureati but two ingenious bicycle, Wilbur and Orville Wright, and an interest of their first flights were not at all the major newspapers of the time, but the Virginian Pilot , an unknown local newspaper. If we want to do the opposite example, the question arises how can the genius Nikola Tesla, who received the highest scientific recognition of the time and to whom we owe the most important technological developments of the last century, has been virtually erased from the books of history and collective memory, except to find a certain notoriety in recent years due to the so called press "alternative". I could fill pages with notions of this kind, but the concept is clear: they are often not academic qualifications to make history, but if anything the opposite.
I do not really like the term "conspiracy" (which ironically is well suited to some supporters of Attivissimo who fantasize about smoky communication strategies put in by myself at the conference to gain undeserved credibility ... too easy to talk about normal education and availability of a comparison!) as it is a cauldron that contains everything and its opposite, perfect label to buckle when you want to de-legitimize leaving anyone with a vision of reality and not approved of events and a deviant by the paradigms set by the review system. For example, sometimes have been associated with "those who do not believe that the man went to the moon," although he never wrote or said anything to that effect, I am convinced that man on the moon has been there all right , although not in the manner provided by the official version. If rejected in toto that the events of 11 September 2001, simply because of its obvious absurdity, and the countless contradictions and anomalies that may often have an explanation if taken individually, but certainly not collectively, if only for a simple statistical calculation (assuming that in the meantime, the statistic is not ... become a review). As I have already had occasion to remark elsewhere, my approach and that of Attivissimo are diametrically opposed: his is characterized by a reductionist scientism that seeks to break down everything in explicable factors rationally analyze every tree and does not see the forest . Mine is of a more holistic, comprehensive, professional deformation due to the fact that direct For years, the magazine NEXUS, which in Latin means "link". Hence the quotation of "parallel convergences" in the title: Despite the considerable openness to public debate, there will tend to move in front of the group of supporters of the official version and the skeptics (a psychological mechanism by Nikola Duper magnificently exposed during his excellent report, unfortunately missed by Attivissimo). And this also applies here the "perfect metaphor" of epistolary correspondence Gossage-Vardebedian (read it, it really worth it). This However, there is nothing to hold a public meeting again with more time available to speakers and descriptions on some specific points, perhaps the classic ten, chosen by myself and counterarguments by Paul Attivissimo: keeping the audience decide what will be the most compelling arguments and everyone can form their opinions freely. We consider that on Saturday as a first exploratory approach for further opportunities to meet and share, rather than confrontation and de-legitimization: while we have shown that this is possible, and I think a really great result. It is worth what they once said an essay: "The answer is only the point at which you tired of thinking. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment