Late Night Grab Bag - Random 9/11 Mentions This Week

It seems the wind of doubt surrounding 9/11 is starting to swell more and more. As such it is pretty common to come across all sorts of articles mentioning 9/11, those articles end up in something like this, a late night grab bag.

Cui Bono Revisited

Cui Bono is not the rock musician who fashions himself mankind’s ambassador to the governments of the world. It is, rather, the question asked when an official was murdered in ancient Rome: "who benefited"? It is the question gullible minds have long forgotten to ask themselves following politically-motivated atrocities.

The state saves us the difficulties associated with asking and exploring such a question. Following the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, as well as the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, the political establishment locked most Americans into one explanation: "terrorists." It is amazing that, for all the criticism heaped upon so-called "intelligence agencies" for their "failure" to anticipate 9/11, federal officials were able to identify the alleged perpetrators of these crimes - complete with photographs of same - within hours after the attacks!

The state doesn’t want disquieting questions to be asked. In fact, it urges the public to "remain calm," and not be distressed by destructive events. The state will explain it all in terms that serve its ends, with no need for minds to be sidetracked by "cui bono" inquiries into other possible causal factors. Thus, one of President Bush’s first acts, following 9/11, was to remind people what their minds had already been conditioned to reject, namely, "conspiracy" explanations. That he immediately spouted conspiratorial theories of his own (e.g., "axis of evil," Al-Qaeda, Islamic terrorism) did not register, in the minds of most, as just one more of this man’s glaring contradictions.

I subscribe to the sentiments of a friend who said "I am not interested in conspiracy theories; I am interested in the facts of conspiracies!" Those who deny, outright, the existence of conspiracies, have a difficult time explaining the events of 9/11. Was there some kind of "harmonic convergence" that brought the nineteen hijackers onto these planes without any concerted intentions on their parts? Was it nothing more than fate - what Middle Easterners would call "kismet" - that brought these total strangers together that morning to bring about the unplanned orchestration of these deadly and destructive acts? Intelligent minds would reject such an explanation, leaving us to find causation in a conspiracy.

But Mr. Bush - and all the mind-setters in academia and the media - warns us to resist temptations to look to conspiracies for causation; that those who seek such inquiries are "paranoid" and probable hate-mongers. On the other hand, it is quite acceptable to embrace conspiracies identified by the state. We are to listen only to the booming voice of "the Great Oz," and to "pay no attention to that man behind the screen."

The question becomes, then, not whether conspiracies exist, but who has conspired to bring about massive acts of death and destruction? A beginning point is to ask the question instinctively posed by Romans: "cui bono?" Who has benefited from these various acts? Such an inquiry does not necessarily provide one with the correct answer but, like police investigators who focus upon the spouse of a murder victim as the initial suspect, it is a rational way to begin.
This is an opportune time for intelligent men and women to begin formulating their own questions, rather than continuing to internalize answers fed to them by those with an interest in conditioning their minds. Such an inquiry ought to include the possibility that some of these events might be the product of provocateuring (i.e., the political establishment engineering attacks in order to arouse public sentiment on behalf of expanded police powers and a war agenda). The very existence of the word admits of its historic role in matters political. The burning of the German Reichstag facilitated Hitler’s rise to power, while Roosevelt’s conscious efforts to bring about the bombing of Pearl Harbor made it possible for him to overcome public opposition to entering the war.

Those who might be inclined to consider such a possible explanation for 9/11 are invited to read David Ray Griffin’s book The New Pearl Harbor, in which he invites such an inquiry. To raise such a possibility as a question to be examined is not to make an accusation, but only to follow the "cui bono" question to embrace all who might have so benefited. If we are to understand the vicious nature of our world, we must follow wherever the evidence leads us; we must not foreclose any inquiry by political fiat.

Don't blame Muslims without proof: sheik

Sheik Omran, head of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah mosque in Brunswick, also rejected allegations Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks in America, saying he believed the US Government itself carried out the atrocity.

"That is absolutely what I believe it is," Sheik Omran told the Herald Sun. "It could be (to initiate a war) against Islam; it could be against Muslim countries, just to give them a free hand to do whatever they want."

Sheik Omran said elements within the US Government had arranged for the attacks on New York and Washington to give it licence for its imperialist agenda, in the same way the US pushed for a war with Cuba in the 1960s.

He said documents existed that showed the September 11 killings of almost 3000 people was "an inside job".

Western governments should not make accusations against Muslims about the London or New York attacks without proof, he said.

Virtual Fascism or the State of Terror

For a good period of time I had gone along, starting my practice in neuropsychology (I worked in hospitals for a long time and the venture into private practice consumed me) and paying little attention to the neocon threat. I hated Bush et. al. but had little time to look at what he/they were doing. I had believed the govt. line on 9/11. But a very few months ago, I came across a reference to ‘Peak Oil’ on the web. My exploration of that, and then of 9/11, and then on the PNAC and Wolfowitz’s agenda, so to speak. My awareness of the role Iraq plays in the ‘plan’. My awareness of the psychological manipulation of the people in Britain and the US (I am a psychologist, after all).
In attempting therefore to answer the question posed by my despondent correspondent, I can only say that there is an ‘inverse square law’ operating that goes something like this; the progress of constructing the total state is inversely proportional to our withdrawal from the political process. Therefore, the answer is obvious though by no means easy - without participating in the political process, no matter in what form, the construction of the virtual fascist state is inevitable, made possible only by our acquiescence and failure to act in time.

9-11 opened the doors to the United States to militarily invade the Middle East

Attack on the World Trade Center Twin Towers: In the "Reconstructing the Defenses of the United States: for the new century" project, the Bush administration's neo-conservative group led by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Libby and other members of the reactionary "Project for the New American Century," affirmed that the transformation of US military capacity requires a massive increase in the military expenditure ... which could only take place after "a catastrophic and catalytic event ... a new Pearl Harbor."

And indeed, the 9-11 attack opened the doors to the United States to militarily invade the Middle East

9/11 and the mob

Cantor Fitzgerald’s New York office, on the 101st-105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 685 employees in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks–more than any other employer. Its e-Speed electronic bond-trading network lost 125 souls.

Happily for the disciples of "Kyoto Mo" (Canadian Maurice Strong), who argues that global climate change is driven by anthropogenic gases emitted by inhabitants of the Anglosphere, a six-member eSpeed carbon-credit trading team escaped death. Their annual one-day fishing trip had to be cancelled about 8 a.m. on the fateful morning of September 11, due to alleged bad weather over the Atlantic. Can anyone confirm the weather? New York looked pretty sunny.

Hearing that the Twin Towers had been hit, the six lucky fishers hightailed it to New Jersey, to what Joseph Noviello, executive vice president said of Rochelle Park, N.J., "where we had duplicates of everything that was destroyed at our offices in the world Trade Center."

Not only did the six execs happen to have a WTC duplicate to turn to, but by napping on the floor, including one who grabbed shuteye by resting his head on an overturned coffee cup, they got an electronic trading operation up and running within two days of the tragic events.

Venice author questions 9/11 findings in controversial book

The reporter had asked Hopsicker, a 53-year-old local conspiracy theorist and self-published author, why people should believe the things he writes.

Why should they believe him when he writes that Mohamed Atta, the terrorist who flew the first plane into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, and one of three hijackers who lived in Venice, was a cocaine-bingeing sex fiend?

Why should they believe that the whole ordeal -- everything from the flight school where the hijackers trained until the day they crashed commercial airliners into the Twin Towers and Pentagon -- was a CIA conspiracy?
John Patten, who runs a local news Web site,, reviewed the book, calling it a "must-read for all Americans."

On, reviews of "Welcome to Terrorland," vary. Some praise it as "an important and thoroughly entertaining read" and "a true work of investigative reporting," while others denounce it as laughable and unconvincing.

By the way, while I quote alot of the links I post, I don't post the whole thing, so be sure to check out the links for the full articles.

I just read the Hopsicker

I just read the Hopsicker piece - and while I haven't read his book and can't comment on what's in it - this is a terrible piece of journalism.

It mentions everything except the allegations in the book! We learn certain people don't like whats in it, we learn Hopsicker is a 'conspiracy theorist', we are led to believe he gets money from an unknown source (hello, conspiracy theory anyone...?), that he mnakes films and writes, we are led by insinuation to believe he has a 'creative imagination' - but not once do we learn what the book is even about, other than the "sweeping, grandiose statement" that he thinks, somehow, without explanation or context (from the Herald-Tribune), that the CIA/FBI was involved. Now where are those tinfoil hats?

What a pile of shit - but then, what does one expect from the bought and paid for schmedia?