States of Denial

Bob Woodward's best-selling State of Denial dooms the official 9/11 narrative
by Justin Raimondo

Bob Woodward's revelation that Condoleezza Rice was warned by George Tenet and two other top CIA officials, on July 10, 2001, that a terrorist attack on the U.S. was imminent continues to reverberate – auguring potentially devastating consequences for the Bush White House. While Rice initially denied it, her spokesman confirmed that a meeting took place on that date, although Rice continues to plead a memory lapse. And as the news that Rice wasn't the only one privy to this briefing leaks out, a veritable epidemic of amnesia seems to be breaking out in Washington.

Less than two months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped taking commercial domestic flights, and started chartering government jets for all his travels. Now why was that? In the wake of the attacks, so-called "conspiracy theorists" immediately glommed on to this information and hailed it as evidence that 9/11 was "an inside job." Now we know that the conspiracy theorists were on to something, although not exactly what they imagined.

According to a report in the McClatchy newspapers, within a week of Rice's brushoff of the CIA's alarum,

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaeda strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Although Ashcroft is telling the media "that it was 'disappointing' that he never received the briefing, either," Rice's office, besides confirming she'd been briefed "on or around July 10," also confirmed passing it on to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. Both were presented with an explicit warning – described by one CIA officer present as "a 10 on a scale of 1-to-10" – "by July 17." A week or so later, as CBS reported at the time, Ashcroft's office announced that he would henceforth abjure traveling on commercial airlines. A week earlier his office had leased a jet, and the authorities were explaining his decision in terms of a "threat" that went unspecified:

"'There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines,' an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected, or who made it."

Ashcroft himself explicitly denied any knowledge of imminent danger:

"'I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes,' Ashcroft said.

"Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, 'Frankly, I don't. That's the answer.'"

Ashcroft was lying then, and he's lying now when he denies receiving Tenet's warning. He knew everything about the threat and who had made it. The McClatchy report describes the Tenet briefing as a PowerPoint presentation that "connected the dots" and urgently predicted al-Qaeda would strike soon. Woodward writes that Tenet and Black tried to impress upon Rice that "al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly within the United States itself."

Tenet and Black were given "the brush-off," as Woodward puts it, but as the CIA duo's dire premonition of what Tenet called "the big one" was communicated to Bush's inner circle, one doubts that only Ashcroft took precautions. While the rest of us peons went about our lives in ignorant bliss, the warlords of Washington ducked and covered.

What is illuminating about this developing story is that it reveals the essential context in which 9/11 occurred, and how it contradicts the "it-came-out-of-the-sheer-blue-sky" explanation that frames the official narrative. The Tenet briefing, of course, never made it into the report of the 9/11 Commission. Both Richard Ben-Veniste, a top Democratic member of the bipartisan Commission, and Philip Zelikow, the author of the Commission's report, met with Tenet and saw the same PowerPoint presentation viewed by Rice, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. According to the McClatchy report,

"Tenet outlined to commission members Ben-Veniste and Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters. The State Department confirmed that the briefing materials were 'made available to the 9/11 Commission, and Director Tenet was asked about this meeting when interviewed by the 9/11 Commission.'"

Tenet, however, tells a different story. Citing multiple sources within the intelligence community, the McClatchy piece avers that

"Tenet raised the matter with the panel himself, displayed slides from the PowerPoint presentation, and offered to testify on the matter in public.

"Ben-Veniste confirmed to McClatchy Newspapers that Tenet outlined for the 9/11 commission the July 10 briefing to Rice in secret testimony in January 2004. He referred questions about why the commission omitted any mention of the briefing in its report to Zelikow, the report's main author. Zelikow didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers."

Surely Zelikow has some explaining to do, but this yawning gap in the official narrative isn't so inexplicable given his ideological background. A strong supporter of the neoconservative foreign policy agenda, Zelikow is very close to Rice, having co-authored a book with her. She had him rewrite the original National Security Strategy authored by Richard Haass, to emphasize the neocon commitment to the principle of brazen aggression, otherwise known as "preemption."

Zelikow's closeness to the administration was immediately seized on by the families of 9/11 victims as a gigantic conflict of interest. A serious academic, he is also a bit of an odd duck who has been unusually candid about what he calls the real "unspoken" agenda behind the Bush's administration's rush to war with Iraq: the "defense" of Israel. Unlike others who have made this same observation, however, he has not been accused of hatching "conspiracy theories" or smeared as "anti-Semitic." In a piece he co-authored for Foreign Affairs in the winter of 1998, Zelikow wrote of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that, if it had succeeded on a larger scale,

"The resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."

Having anticipated well in advance the judgment of negligence, incompetence, and worse pronounced on this administration, Zelikow did his best to cover up the evidence. It wasn't good enough, however, and the official story is rapidly unraveling. The question now is, what did they know, who knew, and when did they know it?

The level of "chatter" picked up by our intelligence agencies prior to 9/11 kept Tenet up at night and energized him enough to go charging into Condi Rice's office, without notice, with a warning so urgent it couldn't wait a moment longer. Yet he and his fellow CIA officers ran up against a brick wall of, at best, indifference on the part of Condi, as well as Rumsfeld's outright obstructionism. Rumsfeld is said to have disdained the idea that a serious plot was afoot. Woodward writes:

"Tenet has been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Rumsfeld has questioned all the NSA intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses. Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts. They concluded they were genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30 a TOP SECRET senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined, 'Bin Laden Threats Are Real.'"

Incompetence on this scale is hard to imagine. Aside from the pigheadedness we have come to know and loathe in Rumsfeld and our commander in chief, and the tendency of government officials – and any sort of bureaucracy – to move slowly and uncertainly, preoccupied by questions of turf and intramural politics, there is perhaps another and more troubling explanation for why we didn't catch on to what was happening.

Yes, the administration was indeed distracted from real threats, focused as they were on the nonexistent "threat" from Iraq. However, these factors alone do not fully explain how, with all the "noise" emanating from intelligence sources – relayed directly and urgently to the White House by Tenet and others – they managed to miss the rising flood tide of indications that something wicked this way comes. The long trail of "errors" and "intelligence failures" smacks just as much of willful blindness as it does of monumental incompetence. An element of deliberate obstruction, on some level, of Tenet's lonely crusade to get the administration to do something, makes a certain amount of sense: after all, the sheer mass of evidence that something was afoot suggests a considerable effort to downplay or suppress it. There were forces working against Tenet, Black, and the CIA – but who were they, and what were their motives?

What all this suggests is that the U.S. government had been successfully infiltrated on some level. And it wasn't some obscure "conspiracy theorist" but New York Times columnist William Safire, who, two days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, first reported al-Qaeda's success in penetrating the most closely-guarded secrets of the U.S. government:

"A threatening message received by the Secret Service was relayed to the agents with the president that 'Air Force One is next.' According to the high official, American code words were used showing a knowledge of procedures that made the threat credible.

"(I have a second, on-the-record source about that: Karl Rove, the president's senior adviser, tells me: 'When the president said "I don't want some tinhorn terrorists keeping me out of Washington," the Secret Service informed him that the threat contained language that was evidence that the terrorists had knowledge of his procedures and whereabouts. In light of the specific and credible threat, it was decided to get airborne with a fighter escort.')"

Although the White House later backtracked and tried to claim that no such threat was made, I'd go with the first story simply because such an elaborate lie seems unlikely – especially one that makes them look bad. And if al-Qaeda could gain access to super-secret code words and acquire specific knowledge of the security procedures attending the president as well as his exact whereabouts, then surely they had penetrated the U.S. government in some way, shape, or form – perhaps with the aid of a cooperative foreign intelligence agency. At any rate, in this context it is not unreasonable to posit a fifth column operating inside the U.S. government, feeding vital information to the terrorists – and fiercely obstructing Tenet and the CIA from gaining the favorable attention of our addled president and his inner circle.

In this sense, then, it could be said that 9/11 was an "inside job," not because the WTC was felled by "controlled demolition," as the wackos assert, and not because we bombed ourselves on 9/11, but because the plot couldn't have succeeded without some form of outside assistance. Whether this was from a foreign intelligence agency, al-Qaeda spies placed deep inside the national security bureaucracy, or perhaps both, is a matter of pure speculation, but it seems to me that, when it comes to 9/11, the whole question of foreknowledge is now becoming a vitally important question.

This opens up a fascinating investigative trail that leads directly to all sorts of interesting reports – in particular this four-part report from Carl Cameron of Fox News – just as credible as Woodward's journalism, that bear some looking into. has been in the lead on this issue from Day One, and I have even written a short book on the subject of which intelligence agencies were likely to have stumbled across the 9/11 terrorist plot in the making – and might have been sympathetic to the conspirators' aims, if not their motives. This is the great unexplored aspect of the biggest terrorist attack in our history. When the report by the joint Senate and House Intelligence Committees on intelligence-gathering efforts was released in highly redacted form, Sen. Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee, told PBS' Gwen Ifill:

"Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States."

Sure, the Bush administration was in a state of denial when it came to realistically assessing the terrorist threat, and they are in a similar state when it comes to the effect our foreign policy – specifically the Iraq war – has on our fight to eradicate that threat. The real problem, however, is that we are all enmeshed in multiple states of denial, blocked from going down certain paths of investigation by taboos against "conspiracism" and "revisionism" that preclude all but a highly sanitized – and unsatisfactory – version of the 9/11 story.

Yet "revisionism" is inherent in the study of history, or, indeed, the study of anything: as we do not have perfect knowledge, we are constantly revising and updating our views in light of new information. Revisionism is the opposite of dogmatism, which carves the "accepted" version in stone even before all the facts are in.

In any event, the cause of 9/11 revisionism, which I have touted in the past, has been given a major boost by Woodward's chronicle of the pre-attack struggle between the intelligence professionals who tried to prevent disaster and those politicians and apparatchiks who stood in their way. He has given us plenty of fresh clues as to where the bodies are buried, and the debunking of the "official" story proceeds apace.


I used to read Raimondo

I used to read Raimondo religiously. Now I can't stand the guy. His attitude toward 9/11 Truth can be summed up from the following sentence I clipped from his above article:

"In this sense, then, it could be said that 9/11 was an "inside job," not because the WTC was felled by "controlled demolition," as the wackos assert, and not because we bombed ourselves on 9/11, but because the plot couldn't have succeeded without some form of outside assistance."

Yes, Justin thinks we are "wackos," because we believe the WTC buildings were controlled demolitions. Having read him for some time, I think I know where he is coming from. Justin Raimondo is a gay man, and quite often uses his space to advertise that fact. As a gay man, he apparently is at war with Islam and its unflinching proscription of his lifestyle.

Raimondo recently wrote a long empassioned column about a young gay Muslim man from North Africa who had to flee his homeland one step ahead of the police, due to his gay lifestyle.

Anyway, the gay Muslim man ended up living in Justin's house, and Justin dedicated a column in trying to raise money for him. The point is that Justin hates traditionalist Islam, therefore for Justin, Osama bin Laden must exist and be out there planning "another" attack against us. Since Islam is anti-gay, it must be the evil force behind 9/11.

It's too bad someone as talented as Justin Raimondo can't prevent his emotions from controlling the logical side of his thinking. As far as I am concerned Justin Raimondo is worthless to the 9/11 truth movement. His writings should not be posted on this site, and we should boycott his writings on


Take the k out of Wacko and you've got Waco which is real close to Crawford. It is pretty wacko how them buildings fell at the speed of gravity. Guess Newton was a waco also. Burn the witches

I emailed him, thanking him

I emailed him, thanking him for calling me and many other Finns wacos for being unable to believe that a 47-storey skyscraper could have totally collapsed in under 7 seconds as a result of something else than CD.


Those guys new something was going to happen because someone amongst them was going to be doing the perpatrating. Too bad we don't have a real government that would do a real investigation.

State of 9/11 Denial

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Conspiracy Theories: What's Really Going on There?

I’ve been reading a really interesting book: Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in the United States, by historian Robert Allen Goldberg (Yale U. Press, 2001). I’m trying to figure out what these seemingly mad ideas are so powerful, and so popular. What the Hell is going on there?

Conspiracy theories have popped up many times in history, Goldberg tells us. You might think that it all began with the Jewish plot to take over the (nineteenth century) world, but what about the Antichrist, and the grand-daddy of them all, Satan and all his devils? And in the eighteenth century there was the Adam Weishaupt and the fabulous Bavarian Illuminati. But recent decades do seem to represent something new in history: conspiracy theories have been multiplying like mad. Among them are: JFK was killed by a conspiracy that did not include Oswald (or in which he was “just a patsy”), ditto for RFK/Sirhan and MLK/James Earl Ray. The Oklahoma City bombing was perpetrated by the government – with Timothy MacVeigh as the patsy! The Moon landing took place on a Hollywood sound stage. Marilyn Monroe was murdered, Elvis’s death was faked so he could avoid publicity, Princess Di’s death was faked so she could get away from the paparazzi. Vince Foster was murdered because he knew too much. Then there are Roswell and Area 51. In fact, JFK was killed because, like Foster, he knew too much, but in his case it was about – UFOs! The Elian who was sent back to Cuba was a ringer. And of course, every time a reduction in the supply of petroleum results in an increase in the price of gas at the pump, it isn’t because of some abstruse, hard to understand “law” of supply and demand, it’s because of a conspiracy of oil companies fixing the prices. And, since Golderberg's book was written, the dawn of what may turn out to be the Golden Age of conspiracist lunacy. The WTC towers and the pentagon were hit by cruise missiles, cleverly disguised as passenger planes (which were somehow spirited away and disappeared). Light and telephone poles next to the Pentagon that seem to have been sheared off by a large passenger plane were actually stage props. The cellphone messages from United 93 were fakes concocted by actors. And on it goes.

What do all these ideas have in common? Goldberg points out that they all weave together disparate facts into a consistent, unified structure. They also promise one power: to find the behind-the scenes cause of things feels very empowering.

Also, as Goldberg points out, conspiracists tend overwhelmingly to be male. Joe MacCarthy, Robert Welch, Mark Lane, Louis Farrakhan, Oliver Stone, Fetzer and Barrett. The leading Roswell nut-cases and Area 51 wack-jobs – all men. Conspiracism is a testosterone-rich environment. I would add that this can be partially explained by the fact that conspiracist thinking is a power-grabbing fantasy. This is something that men seem to be more interested in than women.

I would also add, though, that both these functions are filled by real theories. Boyle’s law and the law of supply and demand integrate diverse phenomena and promise to empower us through understanding. But I maintain that conspiracy “theories” are not real theories. What is the difference?

For one thing, real theories mean work. It takes work to understand them. They are abstract, difficult. They always use often use a highly specialized conceptual aparatus, and math symbols that only those who have spent long, boring hours of study can understand. And even after you understand them, they assign you more work. The law of supply and demand means that, if you don’t like gradually rising gas prices, you have to get off your butt and find more sources of fuel. (Damn! That could take years! Let’s just sit here and hate the oil companies some more!)

Of course, once you realize that everything is the fault of Big Oil or the Jews, there is nothing at all that you can do about it. But that is actually liberating: Nothing to do! You’re off the hook! The power rush was from the insight itself, realizing what the real cause was. You’ve penetrated the Veil of Maya. Actually gaining and using real power – that’s just more work!

There is one more huge difference between conspiracism and real theory. Conspiracies make good stories, as Goldberg reminds us. Think how many movies depict conspiracies, from Birth of a Nation through Meet John Doe and and The Manchurian Candidate and Seven Days in May to dozens of current offerings. By contrast, a real theory is a cold minuet of bloodless abstractions. No story there.

In addition, I would point out that a conspiracy theory appeals to a common and pervasive human emotion: namely, hatred. Conspiracies have the two characteristics that separate the Hateful from all other things: they are powerful, and they are very, very bad. If your dominant emotion is a haunting, free floating hatred, and you need something to fasten it to and justify it, try a conspiracy theory! If might be just what you were looking for!

So conspiracy theories are the sort of theory that would naturally appeal to someone who is intellectually lazy, prefers instant gratification, thinks in terms of concrete images instead of abstractions and mathematical symbols, and needs to feel more powerful; someone who is troubled by nasty emotions that do not seem to be appropriate responses to the world that they actually see around them.

So my explanation has to be that conspiracism is so popular because there are a lot of people like that -- or there is a lot of that in people!

There are conspiracy

There are conspiracy theories about a variety of things. Some are true others are not, like the 911 conspiracy theory that 19 Muslim cokeheads did 911 directed from a cave in Afghanistan.

Conspiracies are a reality in the real world. You have to be in a state of serious denial to be so blind that you can't see it.

This person obviously read a

This person obviously read a book which has broken down the psychological profiles of all people who are willing to put in the time and research to find the many connecting points which lead the "wacko" 9/11 Truthers to believe that elements within our own government are capable of pulling off and operation of this scale.

People who have found the greatest tool invented in this century...the internet... to research as well as communicate with each other. To keep tabs on the actions of our government. To find more information and to share it and our commentary on those subjects.

The connections to these attacks can be seen over and over. Many things that have even been admitted. People who make excuses and chalk these connections and failures up to "Coincidence" need to have a book written about they can understand themselves.

Are we the ones that need to be diagnosed and analyzed? What is the true purpose of writings such as this? Validation.... Validation for the people who can not make the connections.... Validations for the people who are not willing to put in the time and the research.... Validation for the people who want to believe that our country is in the hands of people who have their best interest in mind....

The time for excuses has passed. Trust and Ignorance have led this country to this point.

Where we go from this point is in our hands. We control our own destiny and there isn't a pschoanalytical book that can change the path that we as Americans need to take from this point forward.

Be strong and perservere Truthers. We already know that a good percentage of this country are looking for support for their excuses. I can point them to thousands of books that will divert their attention away from the things they need to see...they infest the shelves of every major bookstore as their opinions control your airwaves and seep into the minds of the people.

but it is TRUTH that can not be changed as long as we are the ones who carry the torch.

as we walk the path that in the end will save this country .....and the world.

you can call me crazy all you want but I know the TRUTH!!

Everyone Agrees that 9/11 was a Conspiracy

So far as conspiracies go, they are ubiquitous. Everyone is in agreement that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy. But those who are genuinely knowledgeable and care about the truth reject fallacious conspiracy theories, such as the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks.

More than four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government.

Needless to say, all of these government mass-slaughters were conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken

9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory

"Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission. "

This is what I submitted to the blog owner

As a Finn, I read your article with great interest, because we Finns are no strangers to historical conspiracies. For example, it has for long been recognized as a fact by historians the world over that the famous Mainila shots fired in 1939 against the Soviet troops near the Finnish border -- an incident that caused the Soviet Union to declare war against Finland -- were actually fired by a specially assigned group within the Soviet army to provide a pretext for invasion, which followed within a few days of the false flag operation.

Historically proven conspiracies, of course, are not a rare occurrence. Let me just give another example of a case where sacrificing one's own countymen was not considered an impediment to power-political goals.

The BBC documentary "Dead in the Water" analyzes the fate of the American intelligence ship "USS Liberty" during the Six Day War in 1967. The Israeli army attacked this ship, 14 miles off the coast of Israel in international waters, with fighters and torpedo boats while jamming its radio frequencies. During the prolonged attack, dozens of sailors died, but the ship refused to sink. The nearby U.S. Sixth Fleet had sent two groups of fighter aircarft to defend the vessel, but they were amazingly recalled by the White House. Rear Admiral Geiss from the Sixth Fleet called the White House to confirm the recall of the air support, and president Johnson reportedly said to him "I want that G-damn ship going to the bottom. No help. Recall the wings." The attack ended only when a Russian spyship appeared on the scene to witness the aggression, and USS Liberty was able to escape. Had USS Liberty sunk, the United States would have immediately attacked Egypt, on which the sinking of it would have been blamed. See
(beginning at 13:10; this excellent documentary also discusses several other historical conspiracies, including Operation Gladio in the Cold War Europe, in which intelligence agencies were involved in the killing of a large number of women, children and men in several European countries in attempts to discredit the Left)

Sometimes an event is ackowledged as a conspiracy fairly soon after the fact. For example, the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, established in 1976 to investigate the John F. Kennedy assassination, in its 1979 final report concluded that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a result of a probable conspiracy.

So, conspiracies are real, and they are numerous in human societies. Considering the "human condition", it would, of course, be strange if this were not the case. It is therefore pertinent to inquire into existing conspiracy theories with an open and critical mind and with a view to determining which of them may turn out to be the historical conspiracies of the future.

More secret US Government Conspiracies.....

How is this list (for starters), next time sheeple contend there are no government conspiracies, or that whistleblowers would come forward if there were....

The Tuskeegee Syphillis Study (Intentionally giving unknowing Black Men VD without their knowledge). From the '20s to the 70's.

Watergate was a conspiracy (and another conspiracy to it cover-up).

Iran Contra was a conspiracy (and another conspiracy to it cover-up).

Heavy CIA involvement in US illegal drug trafficking (a side note: anyone seen the numbers for heroin production out of Afghanistan since the we deposed the Taliban, which had virtually eliminated it? 92% of the world's heroin comes out of that country) is a conspiracy.

Our government can't keep secrets? The NSA, which had more employees and more money budgeted than the CIA and FBI combined, was a secret from the American people from the late 40's to the 80's.

The documented historical False-Flag Terrorist incidents mentioned in Alex Jones' "Terrorstorm" are all conpiracies.

I'm sure all of you out there can come up with many more examples.

That "9/11 was an Inside Job" will be exposed, like the examples above, I have no doubt. My only question is whether it will be in time to matter (as far as saving our Constitutional Republic and prosecuting the perpetrators & those that knowingly profited from it). That part is up to us.


A couple of my favorites are the Lincoln assassination and the 1933 plot against FDR, in which financiers including Prescott Bush planned a coup to install a fascist government in the US.

Yeah, that's a great one...

The 1933 "Business Plot"...forgot about that one & it's one of the best does deserve a higher profile in our collective historical memory....

Smedley Butler ("War is a Racket"), truly a great American Patriot....not many like him around these days...


I mailed this to Raimondo, no response so far:

1) You accept on faith that Tenet is innocent, and Black as well (clearing the entire CIA of 9/11).

You neglect to mention how CIA hid from FBI investigators that the San Diego cell had arrived in Amerca, after they were monitored at a high level "Al Qaeda" meeting in Malaysia.

Cofer Black (CIA) speaks of the "gun to her head" as in pressure on Condoleezza Rice. That same "gun" could easily have been at Tenet's head, and he had to pretend to care. Or, conversely, Black could be lying and Tenet could have been the source of the pressure. We do not know.

2) The Air Force One escapade was explained as simply a miscommunication while using the codeword. It is not strong evidence of anything.

3) Stronger evidence is what happened days later: the Genoa G-8 summit ringed with anti-aircraft batteries / Bush moved from a high rise hotel;


What happened several days previously, the Joint Chiefs rewrote the "Air Piracy (Hijacking)" procedures that mandated the Secretary of Defense give explicit "approval" before launching any escort fighter aircraft. Further, Rumsfeld NEVER gave any "approval" on September 11th, never claimed to , and claimed he was never informed of incoming planes during the entire attack.

3) You cannot prove or disprove controlled demolition in NYC on 9-11. So don't pretend you can by dismissing proponents as "wackos." That is disengenuous, and vile ad hominem argument, not worthy of your publication.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at: