Ah, ha, at last, a post of substance that merits consideration and rebuttal. Thanks for posting that up, Myriad. Now, let's examine it, shall we:
I submit that this devotion to secrecy by the MIC is strong evidence against DEW's having been used on 9/11.
That proposition is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. It may be true that DEW and especially the type used on 9/11 has not been put on display often, but "seldom" is not the same as "never." In fact, there is at least one other candidate event that has come to my attention. In 2004, there was an event in North Korea that was never fully explained. A train mysteriously exploded there that resulted in a degree of devastation that was never explained, and barely even revealed.
That event was a candidate for the type of DEW used to destory the WTC.
So, the point here is that the security of the secrecy of the kind of DEW used on 9/11 is equally explained by its infrequent use as it is by the proposition that it can never be used. After all, Myriad, the public has only a very short capacity of memory of events, right? Accordingly, infrequent use and use when only absolutely necessary can have the same effect of guarding of secrecy as can no use at all.
One other factor here, and there are many other factors worthy of consideration, is that weapons with hideously destructive capacity also have to be used infrequently simply for safety's sake. One can imagine that only a very, very few people have necessary security clearance to activate the kind of DEW used on 9/11. More frequent use could require more people to have the capability to operate the gizmos. Put it this way, we wouldn't want, say, some rogue Lt.Col. doing a Dr. Strangelove imitation on us, would we?
Recently, the 1960's classic movie "Fail Safe" aired on the free movie channel. That movie and Dr. Strangelove were similar. Fail Safe might actually be a better and more accurate metaphor for the concern for guarding the secrecy of and limiting the use of the kind of DEW involved in 9/11.
Here's a rhetorical query for you, Myriad: Can such weaponry destroy planet Earth if activated long enough and powerfully enough? I quickly add here that I do not know and am not suggesting that DEW have the capacity of, say, the 'death ray' in the movies.
The ultimate problem here is that because of MIC secrecy, we simply do not know.
The best way to hide the existence and specific capabilities of a weapon system is to not use it. Using the system and then covering up afterward is an inferior plan when the goal is secrecy.
I agree. However, the exception proves the rule. I also think that were it not for the calling of public attention to the proof that DEW destroyed the WTC on 9/11, that the weapon(s) might have already been used for other purposes. One candidate event that fits that description is the wanton destruction of Iran's nuclear plant at Beswhar.
It has been rumored for years that an attack on that facility would occur, yet, it still stands. I here submit that the best way to destory it would be with the same weapon used to destroy the WTC. But, if that were to happen, the telltale signs would be too apparent. And, tying this back into the suspected use in North Korea, Iran is not nearly as isolated as is North Korea and use on a train in the former country is not the same as use on a well known, iconic, nuclear plant in the latter country.
So, Myriad, it appears our thought pattern here does have some overlap. You say "never" and I say "seldom."
Would the mighty MIC choose an inferior plan when a superior one was available?
OK, good rhetorical inquiry, one supposes. However, I do question whether your attempt to defend the MIC by suggesting it is not as powerful as I (and before me and more effectively than me, Eisenhower) claimed it to be is appropriate. You should not defend the MIC, given what has transpired in the USA, including the false flag op of 9/11, the endless wars and war crimes since then and the bankrupting of the country. Those are serious events, Myriad.
Of course not. The MIC, by not using directed energy weapons on 9/11 in any way whatsoever, made certain that the secrecy of the DEW capabilities would not be compromised.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Your conclusion does not follow, as I have explained. However, your thought process certainly adds to the quality of the discussion and I, for one, am grateful for it.
Respectfully,
jammonius
