Counterpunched, and for other half-way-up-the-hill-ers.

Diana Johnstone:

I found your posting to be highly persuasive in general for most people, whom I'm sure you're happy to serve. Yet your easy-ish dismissal of the inside possibilities (nay, probabilities) seems based on a rather innocent if not wholly ignorant understanding of how things can and often DO work. And in this case, 9/11, a far better explanation is reached beyond the box-cutter story by FIRST knowing possibility, and calculating the most likely probability. Come-on, you've heard this before.

I do not know who pulled-off "9/11", however the popular narrative happily stoked by Official-sounding reports and endless suggestions that it was 'solely the act of an outside aggressor, hell bent on the destruction of our freedoms', strains credulity and ultimately, believability. That's why every article like yours that continues to belie facts in-search of truth, makes me want to puke.

I certainly feel that my freedoms are currently suffering direct and very personal attacks, however old Binny and his boys could NEVER do what this domestic gang has been extraordinarily successful at by playing upon the whipped up fears of my more innocent and less cynical brethren citizenry.

Not to pick apart the body of your article, I'll instead address your notes and see if I can point out a few hiccups in these items which seem to buttress your overall impression of unlikely inside possibilities, and probabilities:

1. The isolated impression of "backlash" you allow for, likewise serves as excellent cover, red-haring or even better.... "cause unto itself" which foil most all other minds at or below a Churchill. Ya, keep that one alive.... it seems to be working great.

2. There would be little need for "SOPs" (I don't know who Cockburn OR his critics think they're fooling) when there are disturbingly too many mercenaries who would happily take the fantastic pay-day for rigging a couple of buildings. Pretending that an "inside" job must be confined to participants ALL inside our governance is just silly. The suspicious "inside" nature of 9/11 does not need to imply any more than a few key players "entrusted" as public servants, but with nothing stopping them from placing a few phone calls to some of their scummier friends back in the repugnantly ugly world of thugs-for-hire. Please drop your feigned naiveté. The world of extra-constitutional sickos is all too real as "out-service contractors" are working Iraq and New Orleans as I write this, and you know it. You know full well there are people who only serve money.

3. A far better rational for getting JFK "out of the way", can not be so easily separated from the vastly more economy-rattling component of his suspicions and building opposition to the Federal Reserve Banking System (a real con of the highest order). This sticky wicket was AGAIN rearing its ugly head throughout the 90's with a massive grass-root opposition just about to enter a full public debate in the latter part of 2001. Well, five years delayed has hardly gotten rid of the question, nor the problem exponentially aggravated by the delay itself.

Means: Vastly improving the extraordinary obstacle of statistical probability, if a few domestic scum-bags helped out, if only just a little. Does "just a little" help you sleep better at night?

Motive: The financial wind-fall is just mind boggling, to say nothing of controlling people, places and things. Binny, again, has been handed his hat in this regard. But if you want to fantasize "heightened awareness, improved security, and economic stability", by all means... I wish you the best. The reality, cold as it is, is that an 'elite' benefit from this set-up, of which you're not and you know it. Binny and ANY army of miscreants are left out in the cold just the same, please stop kidding yourself about this.

Opportunity: Again, kid yourself bast you can... but pulling off 9/11, and burning the constitution after the fact.... is hardly achievable without a bit of "inside" help. Inside, really only applies the the fact that We the People have grown far too trusting in our public servants, they're "inside" in name only. Treason, makes traitors, makes no servant of mine nor yours. It would help out if you stopped fooling yourself that THIS government is truly serving at the benefit of domestic interest, our security is the least of their worries. They just talk a good line, but I for one (and 100 million other free-thinking Americans) can now see this plan as day. Maybe the only real "up-side" to 9/11, as much as it still sucks.

Take care,

Erin S. Myers.

p.s.: Are you another one of those who really thinks I'm more comforted by these "conspiracy theories"? Give me a break. The sooner more people come to terms with our domestic tyranny, instead of being comforted by the fairy-tail of an American government protecting the world from boogymen, the sooner we can kick the bums out and get back to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or maybe you think that's the real fairy-tail? Sad for you).

Bumped you up front.

Hope you don't mind, bro.

It's the war games!

Just like all debunkers, Diana Johnstone does not address the timeline discrepancies or the clincher -- the war games. I haven't seen any debunking articles that seriously address the war games (at least six of them conducted on that morning!). Has anyone else? The Vanity Fair article implied that there was only one exercise planned for that morning, which shows that the article is a cover-up. We need to make the debunkers address the war games.

Nor the molten metal,

Nor the molten metal, free-fall speeds of the towers, the fact they sustained different kinds of damage but fell in the same way, the blown-out lobbies, the small fires, etc. These pieces are starting to all sound the same--they "debunk" a straw man and avoid the important details and facts. I am saying goodbye to Counterpunch and that whole slew of lefty fake "intellectuals." If this is the quality of their thought on the biggest story of our time, well, it's pathetic.

It's the war games!

Just like all debunkers, Diana Johnstone does not address the timeline discrepancies or the clincher -- the war games. I haven't seen any debunking articles that seriously address the war games (at least six of them conducted on that morning!). Has anyone else? The Vanity Fair article implied that there was only one exercise planned for that morning, which shows that the article is a cover-up. We need to make the debunkers address the war games.

yep, we had an event on a

yep, we had an event on a college campus this week, and NOBODY had an answer for the war games and drills.

That IS the smoking gun of government complicity.

There are no answers, they don't want to touch that AT ALL.

sup myers? you did a good

sup myers?
you did a good blog!
do some more!

i also have written to Ms Johnstone

She one of the lead writers in overturning another govt lie: the one about Milosevic beinmg her behavior here is to be pitied.

Ms Johnstone
ive read plenty of your excellent articles on the Balkans war and Milosevic, so i decided to read your article on 9-11.

You write:
'However, I believe it is more intelligent, and more realistic, to acknowledge that Arabs in general are, on the one hand, innocent victims of U.S. and Israeli aggression, and, on the other hand, that some of them (for that very reason) want to strike back at the United States by any means possible.'

Well, at least you are not like Counterpouncher Cockburn with his dismissive and vile namecalling, a sure sign he feels personally threatened in his ideas by the 9-11 Truth movement.
But im afraid that this belief of yours is just that, and is a more subtel version of muslims as terrorists. There is no evidence of muslim involvement at all.
I wish to bring to your attention the fact that Bin Laden has publically denied involvement in 9-11. it may not do any good hes been so demonised:

I assume youve read 1984 and know of Emanuel Goldstein...OBL is his real life counterpart. He serves a very useful function to galvanise the public behind the US govt pro-war 'war on terror', which Robert Dreyfuss in a recent article has denied even exists. He is right.
and Robert sheer writes on OBL as bogeyman:
You may be interested that the FBI has nothing on its website about Bin Laden and 9-11

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”'

Now thats interesting.
I sure youve read of the many anomalies surrounding 9-11...
1. Alleged hijackers turnup alive on sept 12.
2. Fundamentalist muslims whore and drink on sept 10 leave Koran in bar.
3. Passport of Suqami turnsup a few blocks from Ground zero..undamaged.
4. This well coordinated plan suffered some surprising gaffs: luggage left at boston airport, suspects heard arguing at airport parking lot...Ata left his last will and testament in that luggage..why would a muslim hijacker even have this with him, if it was to be destroyed?
5. FBI descended on pentagon gas station within minutes of the attack and confiscated a sec camera video, which they refused to release. repoprts its release recently, but too late...who cansay its not been tampered with...
6. Bush and Cheney refused any independent inquiry into 9-11
7. Evidence destroyed..steel carted off to china, FEMA fraudulent investigations

its a sad comment but useful psychopathological insight, that so many left wing critics of Bush govt should end up endorsing the official conspiracy theory. They refuse to investigate and trust the 'experts', all of whom begin with the naieve idea that 'our govt would never do this sort of thing'.

A trauma has the effect of lowerig the critical intelligence, and pressing bewildered people to crave authority with its power to aid them in their bewildement.
This is what has happened on and since 9-11.
Fortunately, not everyone was so naieve,or stayed pressed to the teat of authority. From Thierry Meyssan (denied entry to US by pentagon for his temerity of thinking for himself) to prof David Ray Griffin (called a 'nutcase' by Cockburn), all of whom have suffered at the hands of the gatekeepers.
Since youve been prepared to go against the flow on Milosevic, its a pity you dont take a closer look at 9-11 and the wealth of evidence that indicates it was done by unknown persons but NOT by Bin Laden and fundamentalist muslims.

The evidence is all there..but many persons of intelligence are prevented from understanding it...Thats sad.

Brian Souter

sent to her email address.

Wow. I don't know if Diana

Wow. I don't know if Diana Johnstone is writing a subtle hit-piece or if she is innocently misinformed of the strength of the evidence for an inside job.

Remember, Diane, just because something is hard to believe doesn't make it false. Take for instance the platypus, at first considered a hoax. No animal would have fur and a beak like duck, so it was thought.

Probabilities and conspiracies

To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and his rule of investigative logic:

"When you eliminate the impossible, everything else, however improbable, must be the truth"

A good one to quote to official line junkies that can't answer all of the impossible events from 9.11.

Diana Johnstone's Disinfo on 9-11

Diana Johnstone's assertions that too many people would have needed to have been involved in a 9-11 government plot, and her statement that
"The United States is not a place where people keep secrets. 'Let it
all hang out' is the national attitude...any one of the alleged
conspirators could have been certain of millions of dollars in
royalties for telling the story" are so naive as to be laughable.

Surely she understands that, if any insider decided to hold a press
conference and announce that 9-11 was a US government covert
operation, the news media would do what they have always done when
secrets that would destroy the Power Elite have threatened to come out
-- they would have imposed a curtain of censorship. The insider's
story would never have seen the light of day, except perhaps on
internet websites where it could easily be denounced as "conspiracy

Indeed, we don't need to wait for someone to squeal in order to see
this phenomenon. We can see it in the media's routine suppression of
facts that discredit the Official Story. Such as that a "pancaking"
building meets resistance as it falls, thus cannot possibly fall at
free fall speed without defying the laws of physics. And let's not
forget that much of the media DID NOT EVEN REPORT that Building 7

Because the power elite now have a total lock on not only the
mainstream corporate media, but also the so-called "alternative press"
for which Ms. Johnstone writes, total blackouts on stories that
seriously threaten Power are the rule. Mainstream book publishers
share the same corporate ownership, and routinely spurn these same
stories. No millions of dollars in royalties would await a 9-11
insider-confessor, but rather blacklisting and perhaps much worse.

And if the truthteller DID manage to get a book published, perhaps by
one of the small independent publishers, he or she would immediately
be dismissed in the media and by Ms. Johnstone's fellow Left
Gatekeepers as someone who invents tales in order to sell books.

And has Ms. Johnstone never imagined that insiders would certainly be
sworn to secrecy, and that violation of that oath would be punishable
by death? One would expect that, for anyone who would dare expose the
key operations of the ruthless Power Elite, those death threats would
probably be not just the death of the squealer, but also the deaths of
the squealer's family. Such terrible threats would seal the mouths of
anyone, effectively, forever. No "let it all hang out, baby"
platitudes would change that.

Though of course "limited hangouts" are common, and seen often in
"leftist" publications. These serve power by giving the illusion that
there is a free press acting as a safeguard against Power. They are
sort of like criticizing Clinton for being an adulterer, while
covering up his far greater crimes. Or, in this case, criticizing Bush
for using 9-11 as an excuse to go to war, when the real magnifying
glass should be trained on all the evidence for Bush's role in
bringing about "9-11."

Ms. Johnstone's naive imaginings might be better described as Left
Gatekeeper disinformation. Like Chomsky, Cockburn, Rothschild,
Berlet, Corn and the others, she is determined to limit the
parameters of acceptable debate among leftist intellectuals to those
topics that do not seriously threaten to topple the Power Elite.

The opening line of her essay, "The spreading popularity of the 9/11
conspiracy hypothesis is a political phenomenon of some significance"
is our clue to what's really going on here. Johnstone, Cockburn,
Rothschild, Chomsky and the other gatekeepers have really been working
overtime lately to try to snuff the 9-11 truth movement. That's our
clue that the Power Elite are really worried about the growing
awareness of the 9-11 Inside Job. And they have called in "the
establishment's last line of defense", i.e., the "leftists" that they
secretly run, to try to stop the coming storm.

Quite a sophisticated game, but we are increasingly aware of it.