Madrid Bombings Redux - What Really Happened

yoyos

The Force is Strong With This One
I had a question about something in this article. I'll first give the quote:

"At the peak of Madrid rush hour on the morning of Thursday 11th March 2004, ten explosions occurred aboard four commuter trains killing 191 people and injuring 2050. The attacks occurred exactly 911 days after the 9/11 attacks and were seen by prosecutor Olga Sánchez as evidence of orthodox Jewish Kabbalistic symbolism in the timing of the attacks."

I might have done something wrong, hope not, but I'm open to understanding my mistakes. When I counted the number of days from (and including) september 12, 2001 to march 11, 2004, I arrived at the number 912. what did i do wrong?
 
Pretty simple: obviously, the other person who was seeing some kind of symbolism in the "timing" was not including the day of the attacks: March 11, but was only counting the days between the attacks. After all, you didn't count Sept 11, so why did you count Mar. 11?
 
The issue of the ownership of the Bank of Spain piqued my curiosity.

The Bank of Spain (Banco de Espanya - www dot bde dot es) belongs to the Spanish State (more or less equivalent to the US Federal Govt). It was nationalized in 1962 according to the law "Decreto-Ley 18/1962, de 7 de junio (BOE de 13 de junio de 1962)" which is quoted (in spanish) http://tinyurl.com/2zfztg (site of the BDE). This law refers to another law, "Ley 2/1962, de 14 de abril" (PDF in Spanish http://tinyurl.com/2d94w6), which reorganizes the bancary and credit institutions of Spain. Reading the pertinent part (Disposicion Final Primera) of this last law looks (!) like Franco shot himself in the foot. It roughly says that
a) "100% of the stocks of the BDE will be bought from their previous owners at their average stock-exchange-quoted price plus 5%. The prices will be averaged averaging between the dates of 01.JAN.1957 - 31.DEC.1962."
b) "Of the first placement of debt titles (Govt Bonds), the previous stock holders/owners will be given preferential rights to buy these titles in an amount equal to what they were paid off due to the nationalization of the bank".

So, Franco nationalized the institution but the debt remained in private hands, what essentially subverted the reason of nationalizing it in first place, and paid whoever were the previous owners a penalty of 5% of the national debt (and thus increasing it by that amount), plus, of course, the Spanish Govt had to go into debts to pay for the stocks of the BDE. That makes the question of ownership of the BDE today essentially moot. Important would be IMHO who *controls* the institution. Hints may be found in the people in management listed at the BDE site and exploring their (previous) affiliations (World Bank ...). Last but not least, since the King names the head of the Bank (from a proposal made by the Govt), to ask who has the Kings ear is certainly of interest.

Another hint may be in the history of the Bank. (Again, from perusing the BDE site) It was founded on June 2, 1782 under royal licence of King Carlos III. Its main inspirator and first director was the French banker Francisco Cabarrús, with private capital but under royal protection.

As for the rest, congratulations Joe. Best concise article on the subject i've read until now.

P.S. Re original ownership of the BDE
from http://platea dot pntic dot mec dot es slash ~jruiz2/ast98/art27 dot htm (spanish, fragment translated by me):
"At the foundation of the bank, the King subscribed to 1000 stocks, the Prince of Asturias 500, and the administrators of the estate of the expulsed Jesuits another 2000".

Francisco Cabarrus seems also be an interesting figure, linked to the French Revolution. His daughter was the SO of Barras and he himself an illuminist (or "of illuminated education"), according to what i've dug up until now.
 
I can see how there are 911 days inbetween the attack of sept. 11, 2001 and march 11, 2004. However, the reason a red flag was raised for me was because of the way the author of the article worded the explanation. Specifically:

"The attacks occurred exactly 911 days after the 9/11 attacks"



If the attacks occured exactly 911 days AFTER 9/11, then the madrid bombings would have occured on march 10, 2004...not the 11th. If the significance of the attacks lies in the number of days one attack happened AFTER another, then that significance (in my eyes) is different than the significance in the number of days BETWEEN attacks. If the author intended to portray the latter significance, then why didn't they? Was it a mistake? Was the author using unverified third party information? What do you think the reader should do to deal with such a discrepency?
 
Well, knowing how loosely people use the language, and that many, if not most, English speakers aren't concerned with such precision, I would say that it was most likely that: loose language.
 
yoyos said:
I can see how there are 911 days inbetween the attack of sept. 11, 2001 and march 11, 2004. However, the reason a red flag was raised for me was because of the way the author of the article worded the explanation. Specifically:

"The attacks occurred exactly 911 days after the 9/11 attacks"



If the attacks occured exactly 911 days AFTER 9/11, then the madrid bombings would have occured on march 10, 2004...not the 11th. If the significance of the attacks lies in the number of days one attack happened AFTER another, then that significance (in my eyes) is different than the significance in the number of days BETWEEN attacks. If the author intended to portray the latter significance, then why didn't they? Was it a mistake? Was the author using unverified third party information? What do you think the reader should do to deal with such a discrepency?
I would think the reader should stop engaging in legalistic nitpicking and exaggerating the significance to the reader of this particular loose usage of language. I also find it hard to believe that you think that the significance is in the "after" or "between" when obviously the significance is in the number 911, the number of days between the attacks.

It seems reasonable enough to suggest that the 9/11 days between the two attacks either constitutes a very strange coincidence or the perpetrators deliberately planned it that way. In any case, it was a minor point in the overall article.

Joe
 
Thanks for the advice and clarification Laura and Joe! Also, thanks for making the changes in the article that eliminates confusion.

I apologize for my "legalistic nitpicking". I don't think I'll ever stop doing this, though (after saying this statement I hope my apology remains sincere). I hope my "nitpicking" is not a sign of some kind of deviant behavior or something...but I have been lied to and tricked so many times in my life that I've lost the ability to trust any information. I think I pretty much question everything, especially myself (just to make sure I know what I am doing). My entire childhood experience consisted of living with a step-father who seemed to go to work everyday, but never brought home any money and consequently I was witness to the arguments that ensued between him and my mom. The number of lies that I was subject to was a daily reality for me. I don't find it surprising why I am the way I am.

It is my personal belief that my "nitpicking" protects me from being deceived and taken advantage of by another person or even myself. Therefore, I sincerely apologize for my "nitpicking", yet I will continue to do this for the sake of understanding the truthful perception of reality.

After all isn't that what this group is all about? I actually find it hard to believe that, Joe, you wouldn't be more supportive of my observations. I understand, now, that the difference between 911 days after and 911 days between was a minor point in the overall article. However, your signature reads: "The foulest damage to our political life comes not from the 'secrets' which they hide from us, but from the little bits of half-truth and disinformation which they do tell us. These are already pre-digested, and then are sicked up as little gobbits of authorised spew." Please forgive me for attempting to address a half-truth, disinformation, "loose language", whatever you want to call it. I was confused and needed clarity. Thank you again for providing that clarity...it is after all, much appreciated!
 
yoyos said:
After all isn't that what this group is all about? I actually find it hard to believe that, Joe, you wouldn't be more supportive of my observations. I understand, now, that the difference between 911 days after and 911 days between was a minor point in the overall article. However, your signature reads: "The foulest damage to our political life comes not from the 'secrets' which they hide from us, but from the little bits of half-truth and disinformation which they do tell us. These are already pre-digested, and then are sicked up as little gobbits of authorised spew."
Boy, you really have no control over it do you? You apologize all over yourself for this obsessive behavior and then jump right back into it full steam. There isn't a lot of 'support' for your observation, because it is erroneous - there were 911 days between the two attacks - it is not a complicated concept, yet you are stuck on it with some sort of mental super glue -- straining at gnats and swallowing elephants.
 
yoyos said:
After all isn't that what this group is all about? I actually find it hard to believe that, Joe, you wouldn't be more supportive of my observations. I understand, now, that the difference between 911 days after and 911 days between was a minor point in the overall article. However, your signature reads: "The foulest damage to our political life comes not from the 'secrets' which they hide from us, but from the little bits of half-truth and disinformation which they do tell us. These are already pre-digested, and then are sicked up as little gobbits of authorised spew." Please forgive me for attempting to address a half-truth, disinformation, "loose language", whatever you want to call it. I was confused and needed clarity. Thank you again for providing that clarity...it is after all, much appreciated!
Well I would have hoped that since you trust us enough to interact on our forum and read our page, you would not compare Signs editorials to "the establishment sheets"!

:-)

Joe
 
Regarding legalistic "nit-picking," Gurdjieff talks about it in an interesting way as mis-use of sex center energy.

Gurdjieff in ISOTM said:
"Speaking in general, there are only two correct ways of expending sexual energy— normal sexual life and transmutation. All inventions in this sphere are very dangerous.

"People have tried abstinence from times beyond memory. Sometimes, very rarely, it has led to something but in most cases what is called abstinence is simply exchanging normal sensations for abnormal, because the abnormal are more easily hidden.

"But it is not about this that I wish to speak. You must understand where lies the chief evil and what makes for slavery. It is not in sex itself but in the abuse of sex.

"But what the abuse of sex means is again misunderstood. People usually take this to be either excess or perversion. But these are comparatively innocent forms of abuse of sex. And it is necessary to know the human machine very well in order to grasp what abuse of sex in the real meaning of these words is.

"It means the wrong work of centers in relation to sex, that is, the action of the sex center through other centers, and the action of other centers through the sex center; or, to be still more precise, the functioning of the sex center with energy borrowed from other centers and the functioning of other centers with energy borrowed from the sex center."

"Can sex be regarded as an independent center?" asked one of those present.

"It can," said G. "At the same time if all the lower story is taken as one whole, then sex can be regarded as the neutralizing part of the moving center."

"With what 'hydrogen' does the sex center work?" asked another.

This question had interested us for a long time but we had not previously been able to answer it. And G., when he had been asked before, had never given a direct reply.

"The sex center works with 'hydrogen' 12," he said on this occasion, "that is to say, it ought to work with it. This is si 12. But the fact is that it very rarely works with its proper hydrogen. Abnormalities in the working of the sex center require special study.

"In the first place it must be noted that normally in the sex center as well as in the higher emotional and the higher thinking centers, there is no negative side. In all the other centers except the higher ones, in the thinking, in the emotional, in the moving, in the instinctive, in all of them there are, so to speak, two halves—the positive and the negative; affirmation and negation, or 'yes' and 'no,' in the thinking center, pleasant and unpleasant sensations in the moving and instinctive centers. There is no such division in the sex center. There are no positive and negative sides in it. There are no unpleasant sensations or unpleasant feelings in it; there is either a pleasant sensation, a pleasant feeling, or there is nothing, an absence of any sensation, complete indifference.

"But in consequence of the wrong work of centers it often happens that the sex center unites with the negative part of the emotional center or with the negative part of the instinctive center. And then, stimulation of a certain kind of the sex center, or even any stimulation at all of the sex center, calls forth unpleasant feelings and unpleasant sensations.

"People who experience unpleasant feelings and sensations which have been evoked in them through ideas and imagination connected with sex are inclined to regard them as a great virtue or as something original; in actual fact it is simply disease.

"Everything connected with sex should be either pleasant or indifferent. Unpleasant feelings and sensations all come from the emotional center or the instinctive center.

"This is the 'abuse of sex.'

"It is necessary, further, to remember that the sex center works with 'hydrogen' 12. This means that it is stronger and quicker than all other centers. Sex, in fact, governs all other centers.

"The only thing in ordinary circumstances, that is, when man has neither consciousness nor will, that holds the sex center in submission is 'buffers.' 'Buffers' can entirely bring it to nought, that is, they can stop its normal manifestation. But they cannot destroy its energy. The energy remains and passes over to other centers, finding expression for itself through them; in other words, the other centers rob the sex center of the energy which it does not use itself.

"The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for.

"The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or politics—it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories.

"The emotional center preaches Christianity, abstinence, asceticism, or the fear and horror of sin, hell, the torment of sinners, eternal fire, all this with the energy of the sex center. ...

"Or on the other hand it works up revolutions, robs, bums, kills, again with the same energy.

"The moving center occupies itself with sport, creates various records, climbs mountains, jumps, fences, wrestles, fights, and so on.

"In all these instances, that is, in the work of the thinking center as well as in the work of the emotional and the moving centers, when they work with the energy of the sex center, there is always one general characteristic and this is a certain particular vehemence and, together with it, the uselessness of the work in question.

"Neither the thinking nor the emotional nor the moving centers can ever create anything useful with the energy of the sex center. This is an example of the 'abuse of sex.'

"But this is only one aspect of it. Another aspect consists in the fact that, when the energy of the sex center is plundered by the other centers and spent on useless work, it has nothing left for itself and has to steal the energy of other centers which is much lower and coarser than its own. And yet the sex center is very important for the general activity, and particularly for the inner growth of the organism, because, working with 'hydrogen' 12, it can receive a very fine food of impressions, such as none of the ordinary centers can receive. The fine food of impressions is very important for the manufacture of the higher 'hydrogens.' But when the sex center works with energy that is not its own, that is, with the comparatively low 'hydrogens' 48 and 24, its impressions become much coarser and it ceases to play the role in the organism which it could play.

"At the same time union with, and the use of its energy by, the thinking center creates far too great an imagination on the subject of sex, and in addition a tendency to be satisfied with this imagination. Union with the emotional center creates sentimentality or, on the contrary, jealousy, cruelty. This is again a picture of the 'abuse of sex.'"


"What must be done to struggle against the 'abuse of sex'?" asked somebody present.

G. laughed.

"I was just waiting for that question," he said. "But you already ought to understand that it is just as impossible to explain to a man who has not yet begun to work on himself and does not know the structure of the machine what the 'abuse of sex' means, as it is to say what must be done to avoid these abuses.

"Right work on oneself begins with the creation of a permanent center of gravity. When a permanent center of gravity has been created everything else begins to be disposed and distributed in subordination to it.

"The question comes to this: From what and how can a permanent center of gravity be created?

"And to this may be replied that only a man's attitude to the work, to school, his valuation of the work, and his realization of the mechanicalness and aimlessness of everything else can create in him a permanent center of gravity.

"The role of the sex center in creating a general equilibrium and a permanent center of gravity can be very big. According to its energy, that is to say, if it uses its own energy, the sex center stands on a level with the higher emotional center. And all the other centers are subordinate to it. Therefore it would be a great thing if it worked with its own energy. This alone would indicate a comparatively very high level of being. And in this case, that is, if the sex center worked with its own energy and in its own place, all other centers could work correctly in their places and with their own energies."
 
Back
Top Bottom