I Came Out to My MIT Classmates as a “Conspiracy Theorist”
ANGLO AMERICA, 12 Jun 2023
Madhava Setty | An Insult to Intuition - TRANSCEND Media Service
I decided to drop some truth-bombs at my college reunion last week. Here’s what happened…
7 Jun 2023 – Last weekend, our class of 1988 held our 35th reunion. I didn’t attend the activities but I was happy to be invited to a small get-together hosted by one of my classmates at his “home” in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in greater Boston.
I use the term “home” loosely. It was more of a palace sited on a spectacular parcel at the summit of one of the few large hills around these parts.
There were five of us MIT grads there. I found my old pals at the rear of the house, sipping champagne on an expansive stone patio adjacent to an addition that housed a few Italian sports cars.
(Names have been changed to protect identities).
Carlos, our host, was more than gracious. He poured me a glass of bubbly, pointing out the label. Dom Perignon ‘88, in honor of the year of our graduation. We all touched glasses and exchanged a few pleasantries.
Most of us majored in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering. My career shift into medicine six years after graduation caught some of them by surprise.
Carlos had already started a software company before he even matriculated with us. He started other companies and sold them in the intervening years. Doug was one of the first employees at Google. He had cashed out years ago and was starting another tech company in Northern California. Pete was also in tech in San Jose.
The lone non-Engineer/Computer Scientist was my friend Andrew, a spine surgeon and partner in a successful orthopedic group in Utah. We’d been in touch infrequently but regularly over the last three and a half decades.
“So what are you doing now, Madhava?”
I had already decided I was going to be up front with these folks. I wanted to know how these educated and highly successful classmates of mine would respond to some unabashed truth-telling.
I was speaking with people who sat through the same classes I did. We often took pride in the idea that we didn’t learn what to think at MIT, we learned how to think. How would they respond to some unconventional ideas about the world?
“I have spent the last couple of years challenging the CDC’s position on Covid-19 while trying to educate my colleagues in medicine about the potential danger of the mRNA vaccines.”
Nobody spoke.
Doug broke the silence. “I thought they have been proven to be safe and effective.”
Some nodded.
“Not in my estimation”, I responded.
I went through the basics. The high incidence of serious adverse events in the trials, the large number of injuries potentially caused by jabs as reported in VAERS, the CDC’s refusal to investigate any of them, the corruption of data sets coming from our agencies of public health, the conflicts of interest among our regulators, etc., etc.
“So, why do doctors recommend them to everyone?”
I let them know that most doctors don’t read the studies and fewer still have any capacity to critique the methodologies and conclusions of published papers. They just take their cues from the CDC. Andrew, the surgeon, backed me up.
We spent the next hour talking about agency capture, the bias in published literature and the establishment’s immediate and harsh retaliation upon any physician that bucks the narrative. Everyone there was aware of this. None, for some reason, believed that this had any bearing on the situation at hand.
They needed to see the data. No surprise there. I didn’t want to ruin the afternoon with such a morbid topic at a celebration so I relented. Temporarily…
Over dinner served with a bottle of Mouton Rothschild ‘85, someone asked me why I started to question the pandemic response so early on. I dropped another conversation stopper:
“Our approach seemed absurd from the beginning. The suppression of early treatment on unsubstantiated grounds, the CDC’s ridiculous position that vaccine-mediated immunity would exceed natural immunity before a vaccine had even been tested. When the news started proclaiming this as “science”, I became very skeptical. I learned to never trust the media after examining what really happened on 9/11.”
Though shocked, to their credit they were willing to hear what I had to say on the topic.
“Buildings don’t ‘fall’ like that–accelerating through the path of greatest resistance, falling upon their own footprint while leaving very little on the ground except an enormous blanket of pulverized concrete that covered lower Manhattan. Those buildings didn’t collapse. They disintegrated in front of our eyes. They were demolished. The fact that NIST [National Institute for Standards and Technology] did not examine the dust for explosive residues though over a hundred NYC firefighters went on public record saying they saw, heard and felt explosions throughout the buildings prior to their collapse points to a cover up.”
I continued:
“This is stuff we learned in 8.01 [8.01 is freshman level physics at MIT]. How can the top of a building crush the bottom part without getting crushed itself? We are talking about Newton’s third law of motion. If we were told that Al Qaeda loaded the buildings with explosives AND flew planes into them I would shrug my shoulders and walk away. Though it seems preposterous that they would be able to do this, at least it wouldn’t violate laws of motion. They are asking us to believe the impossible with their story.”
They were willing to indulge me a bit further. I pulled this video up on my phone. This is a slow motion video of the North Tower exploding, it is narrated by David Chandler, a physics teacher and member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/10-north-tower-exploding
To me, this is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence available. There are no third parties involved in the procurement of the video. It is uncontested footage of one of the twin towers coming down.
They watched it and listened to Chandler describe what can be seen: squibbs (localized expulsions of gas seen in demolitions), large portions of the facade being thrown laterally and upward, the conspicuous absence of the upper portion of the building that was supposed to be crushing the bottom part, explosive ejections appearing in wide areas of the building simultaneously. Moreover, the building is collapsing symmetrically, an impossibility if the structure sustained asymmetric damage.
Doug said that he didn’t see anything that Chandler did. It was simply collapsing under its own weight. He also thought the building was collapsing asymmetrically, not symmetrically.
That’s when the outcome of this experiment in truth telling was sealed. We may disagree about the length of time the steel frame was exposed to burning jet fuel or how compromised the building was prior to the collapse sequence, however if two people look at the same picture and one sees an apple and the other an orange they will ultimately have to agree to disagree.
Please take a minute to watch the video above. Is the collapse symmetrical (leave your comment)?
What do you see when you regard the photo below? Is this a building that is collapsing under its own weight? Or is it being blown to smithereens by highly energetic explosives? Yes, your eyes can deceive, but what does it look like? What does your intuition tell you?
Imagine a building that is being blown up from the top down. What would it look like?
What would it take for you to dismiss the possibility of a demolition? A decree from the 9/11 Commission? Or would you demand to know how explosives were ruled out?
Our authorities, in this case NIST, tells us that it is falling under its own weight due to damage sustained from a plane collision at several floors. How do they know there weren’t explosives too? Why did they choose not to look for them and settle the case definitively in the interest of public safety? They are the National Institute of Standards and Technology after all. These are the people we trust to literally set the standards for how science is supposed to be conducted.
NIST claims that it was unnecessary to test for explosives in the dust because nobody was witness to explosions. Nobody, except for the 118 firefighters that claim that they were.
Carlos dismissed the demolition argument out of hand. “Do you have any idea how many people would have to keep their mouths shut about this?”
Interestingly it was Andrew, the surgeon, who pointed out the essence of the problem, “It’s extremely unlikely that so many people would stay quiet, but Madhava is saying the official explanation is impossible given the laws of motion. We should be able to understand the difference between implausible and impossible.”
But Carlos closed the discussion matter-of-factly: “I might have been able to entertain your demolition hypothesis, but earlier you were questioning the FDA and the CDC. Now you don’t believe the scientists at NIST.”
Carlos was politely explaining his issue with my analysis. The common factor in both of these outrageous “conspiracy theories” was me.
I didn’t wish to escalate the conversation. Yes, I was the one who was skeptical of both official stories. But there were other obvious commonalities, namely our government and the media. Is our so-called free press doing their job and holding our government accountable, or are they in cahoots?
Just a few days ago a new story broke. One that should be at the front page of every news journal around the world. Another highly credible military insider has supposedly come forward with proof that our government has been in possession of craft and technology of non-human origin. Our authorities have been, he alleges, reverse engineering the technology on these craft for decades. If true, this is arguably the biggest story in the history of humankind.
Most will agree that life is not exclusive to our tiny planet, but extraterrestrial intelligence on the Earth? Why did they come so far? More importantly, how did they get here?
Whatever powers their craft (if there are any) does not involve fossil fuel or solar power. Something that should be of some interest to our species (as well as those who run and profit from industries that sell us the means to run our planet).
As we panic about carbon emissions, handcuff farmers and tear up the ground in search of lithium and cobalt to build batteries to run our electric cars that ultimately derive most of their power from coal-based plants, have our governments been keeping potentially clean and limitless energy sources behind hanger doors? Is this the reason why this has been kept secret?
How is this story going to be handled? How are we to decide whether this person’s claims are legitimate?
When are we going to realize that we have abdicated our power to separate fact from fiction to a media coalition that is not serving the public interest?
___________________________________________________
Madhava Setty – I am a board certified anesthesiologist, electrical engineer, author and wannabe standup comic.
Tags: 9/11, Bullying, Cold War II, Conspiracy Theories, Hegemony, Imperialism, Staged Terrorism, State Terrorism, USA, War of Terror, War on Terror
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Bravo. Missing for me is why there is no methdology that enables fruitful processing of the participants in that dialogue, the arguments made, shifts in perspective, etc. The account is great but what where are the methodological insights and how might they apply to other interactions — whether more provocative, or less so?
My hope is that in the not too distant future such a dialogue will be recorded and analysed by ChatGPT-style AI apps — able to map the discourse as it evolves. A kind of 21st century minute-writing. And potentially with meta-commentary into which people can variously tune via headphones — whether biased from one perspective or another. What kind of meta-commentary channels would participants want to have available: political, psychological, sociological, etc?