The "Surely someone would have spilled the beans" argument

Many one of you can help me with this. I'm sure you've had similar experiences (if you're on my side of the looking glass, which I know most or at least some of you are).

Last night I had the opportunity to discuss the JFK assassination and 9/11 with a medical doctor. He had approached me, and was genuinely interested. I really wanted to convince this guy that reason was on my side.

I did ok, although my knowledge on the details of JFK are rusty and I don't talk about these subjects often in German. The hardest question, though, came after we agreed that hundreds of people must have known about 9/11, including people, for example, who had been approached but decided not to participate. Surely somebody would have blown the whistle by now.

This is a familiar argument--the main one espoused by Noam Chomsky, for example--and I kept trying to remember how David Griffin answered it. I know I've heard him do so on some video or other. I did mention the obvious--that people ruthless enough to sacrifice 3 thousand people for a cause (not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed in the ensuing wars) would also be willing and able to bribe or threaten "hundreds" to keep their mouths shut. But I just couldn't make it come out the way it would have if David Griffin said it. I couldn't remember if he had used some convincing analogy. The Manhattan Project (A-bomb)? No, that seems different, and I don't think Griffin used it. Is there a good analogy?

Vermont Voting Results.

Anyone have the Vermont Voting results from today. Specifically on Impeachment and on renewing the investigation into 9/11?

Good question. I'm

Good question. I'm interested in any thoughts about this particular argument...

Good analogy? Gladio, for one!

Also, unless you're willing to believe they advertised the idea to some who refused - which I certainly don't - that leaves you with whistleblowers who, by blowing the whistle, say: "I was in. I'm a traitor. Now hang me!"

I can't bring myself to believe these might prefer the truth to come out over their lives to go on, as that would require a severe conflict of conscience. I think they were tested, unscrupulous, professional murderers - people devoid of moral conflicts of conscience.

Our talking points

Conspiracies can be kept silence.

Thom whe don't know of are still (sound silly, but it is a valid argument)
The more incriminating, the higher the chances of silence
The NSA was a secret nearly 40 years.
We don't know how much co-conspirators excist
The argument it needs thousands of conspirators is itself a conspiracy theory
The need to know-structure (compartisation?) of
The core-conspirators are silence, because they await trials.
Xou can kept them silenced with fear or the bogus "national security" and gag them
The inconvenient knowledge for lesser high-co-conspirators, means, if you come forward, you were harrased, lose your job- escpecially in a climate of fear and suppression
Even if there are confidants, that does not mean they talk openly about it (see 3rd Reich, how many people know about the KZ's, why doesn't came one forward?
We have whistleblowers, but their messages were filtered out by the media- aka Sibel Edmonds and William Rodriguez



the bigger the lie, the less people want to hear it.

It hurts. Common people couldn't imagine. What lays beyond imagination is not thinkable. The common people would never leave their own ethics or think that such evil behaviour is possible.

Someone who doubt the oct can be dismissed as nut.

Announce parts of your plan openly beforehand. If someone points at it, it will work even more in favor to dismiss all doubters as nut.

Create false conspiracy theories, e.g. some that include anti-americanism or anti-semitism. Employ Dis-Info-Artist.


I see you are in Hamburg, but don't accept email. Perhaps you could contact me at ? I do virtually all my communications on 9/11 in English, so I am not au courant on the available literature in German. Maybe you can help me out. I know there are German sites, and though I prefer to work in English, I would like to have some good sources in German to send people (like my doctor friend) to.

Not to forget

"You can keep them silenced with fear or the bogus "national security" and gag them"

if that doesn't work

Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. --George Bernard Shaw

And that certainly is a very real threat - just like the Mafia, these people will kill if you stand in their way and they can't get around you. You can be certain that they keep tabs on each other and others, and someone of influence showing any sign of a threatening conflict of conscience will be scrutinized and if necessary silenced, in whatever way necessary. I mean who here believes Hunter S. Thompson and Dr. David Kelly really committed suicide?

If I think of Sibel Edmonds and

Daniel Hopsicker and their investigations into drugs, Gary Webb comes to my mind.

Shot twice in the head- commited suicide, SURE!

So the claim that why doesn't our government kill the whistleblowers is invalid, too.

PS: I made that point in the GW-Blog: Conspiracy of silence by common criminal past. Just look at the nomination of Robert Gates and Eliot Cohen lately. The same guys over and over again...

absurd, uneducated argument

I hear this all this time and it pisses me off because it's so stupid.

A) There weren't lots of people involved in the 9/11 plot. It was likely around two dozen people in key positions- a couple of key intelligence people to protect the patsies by shutting down all investigations around them, a couple of key people in the Pentagon to orchestrate the war games, a couple of people owning all the major news media, and a couple of sick, twisted f*cks in PNAC to come up with the plan. Add a dozen operatives to rig WTC and there you go... a very small group pulls off 9/11.
B) The extensive history of black ops which have been revealed shows that complicated conspiracies have been kept secret for years or decades- GLADIO, AJAX, PBSUCCSES, NORTHWOODS, MK-ULTRA, MOCKINGBIRD, Gulf of Tonkin and on and on and on...

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.


I believe those who are 'in the know' are a very very small group. We tend to think that hundreds of people planned and executed this. This is doubtful.

I believe that the majority of people involved in wiring the buildings and such were not even Americans. More than a few states, including our own, had good reason for wanting America to take an aggressive stance in the Middle East. A few very smart people in power devised a way to use these people to commit a crime on our soil.

Those who planned this had to know that they could not use Americans to do this. There is no doubt someone would have blown the whistle or at least tried. Al Qaeda was the perfect patsy. Known and feared by us... it would be such an easy sell. The traitors here found out about the plot and helped it along.

Alas, even if someone were to step you think they would be believed? Do you see how people who question 9/11 are treated in the press? They are lambasted as traitors themselves. The "Right" press has done a great job of painting us as 'conspiracy nuts'. Whoever blows the whistle would have to have indisputable evidence... and these people do a great job of confusing even that.

This is the JFK of our time and, I'm afraid, we'll never know what really happened on 9/11 either. Science is on our side...but the politics of it is simply too much..the event and its ramifications are too big. We can continue to fight and spread the word but we must balance that with reality..we may never know.

Agreed, except for

"The traitors here found out about the plot and helped it along. and "we'll never know what really happened on 9/11 either"

There really isn't much to suggest there ever was a plot by genuine islamist terrorists to pull off 9/11, so it's not improbable that it was a synthetic operation entirely.

Why do you think we'll never know what happened? We already have a pretty coherent picture, don't we? To me, it sounds like - hold on, let me quote Erin S. Myers:

Actually, we won before this began.

All we've had to figure out, was whether or not we wanted it.

so, to me it sounds like you're still unsure whether you want it. Whether it's a good idea to blow this thing wide open. Whether the implications might be too terrible.

But then, you'd have to ask yourself: Can it really get much worse than being ridden by corpocratic fascists on a killing spree intent on subduing the world?

Here you go

Great article, G.W. My

Great article, G.W.

My standard response to the question of how many people would have to be involved is "Apparently, no more than twenty: nineteen hijackers under surveillance and a crazed, former CIA asset boogeyman in a cave -- and this, despite numerous advance warnings. But we are asked to believe that if it were a black-op carried out by criminal, highly compartmentalized elements within our own political/military infrastructure, the number is too large to be credible. Anyone see the contradiction here?"

I also believe that the illegal surveillance activities started by this administration prior to 9/11-- and conducted in such brazen fashion ever since -- were intended to accomplish, among other things, these two things: first, to intimidate potential whistleblowers and journalists with the idea that they may be monitored; and second, to actually monitor their communications and intentions.

Even with what little we've been told about this administration, one has to be comatose to fail to see that it has been characterized by totalitarian clamp-downs on federal employees and journalists.  Everyone is an enemy combatant on the administration's Enemies List until proven otherwise -- kinda' like the Nixon White House on meth.

Thanks for all the excellent

Thanks for all the excellent comments so far. I will have plenty to tell my German doctor friend next time.

Here is another one from Bob Johns:

Griffin answered this way :

Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.

This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995.18 Many more examples could be given.

We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats­such as: "Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don't know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nut case angered by your statement." Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward.

More from

You may ask how and when the bombs were planted in the towers. There were plenty of opportunities to plant bombs with low risk of detection. Here are a few examples:
• Ben Fountain, a 42 year old financial analyst who worked in the South Tower, said the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unanswered and unusual drills where sections of both the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were evacuated for "security reasons".
• Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9/11
• Scott Forbes, working for Fiduciary Trust in the 97th floor of the South Tower, reported that there was a 36 hour "power down" in the upper half of the South Tower on September 8–9 to complete a "cabling upgrade," where security systems consequently were shut down and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved. They were informed by Port Authority three weeks prior to this.
Yet another coincidence, a Bush-linked company, Stratesec, handled security for three clients that figured prominently in the attack - United Airlines; Dulles International Airport where AA FL 77 was hijacked; and the World Trade Center itself. The President’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in Stratesec, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11.

More from

The people who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 did something so unbelievable that most people would not believe they did it, even if presented with conclusive evidence of their guilt. As a result, they also carried it off, and the evidence be damned.

In the end, there is always the comment by those who would discredit the research and the evidence that has been uncovered. The defenders of the official version of 9/11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant challenge by the champions of denial. How naïve they are.

At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9/11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. It may well be that whistle blowers fear the consequences of exposing the truth about 9/11, not to themselves, but to the nation.

It is highly probable that they believe that their testimony would lead to the end of the United States of America as a viable power.

In this worst case scenario, the good people in our government and in our intelligence community may really fear that America would never ever regain its credibility in the world, and would never again be respected or trusted. They may envision a terrible time when the United States would relinquish its leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes. If this is so, can anyone blame them for not coming forward to expose what they know?

A deep love of country might easily create a dilemma for those who know the truth. What would happen at that unimaginable moment when a ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9/11? Would the nation recover? Could the nation heal after such a huge betrayal of the trust that has been cultivated and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation?

The people who were involved in 9/11 know that there is more at stake than their exposure. They already have the blind loyalty of those Americans who would refuse to believe they could possibly have been involved. . But deep in their corrupted souls they also have another ace in the hole. They are counting on the protection of those who fear for the stability of the nation. They are convinced of their own invincibility and really believe that they will never be held accountable. But they also believe that no one of credibility will step forward to expose them.

Bob J.
Guam U.S.A.


Beyond the fear of retribution there is this:

Due to compartmentalization, people who may have information which would be beneficial to the puzzle but they do not have the whole puzzle.
Wthout the full story they are just hanging themselves out to dry.

There are very few who have enough of the puzzle to make their efforts worth while.

It is up to us to piece this together so that we can find those who have the necessary parts of this plot so to tricle up to those in the know. Those who if not responsible are guilty of complicity.

Unless these people manage to get together and organize themselves then it is up to us to bring them together. This would only require access to the same documentation that was available to the 911 Commission coupled with supena powers.

There are many reasons for these people to remain silent What we need is an obvious overwhelming majority in this country to be in the know. When people are informed and willing to make themselves known.... then the people we need to talk would be far more likely to make themselves known.

Or we need a venue for these people to speak where they know that they will be protected. People that can be trusted. We can not or have not provided that. There is power in fear.
Look at the people they are dealing with.
And as said above.... they may feel that if this is revealed that our country may lose respect in this world and never recover.

I think that if we do exactly what we should do then the world should give us the utmost respect.

and that all starts with taking those responsible to the gallows!
Together in Truth! might be the place where all the pieces of that ugly puzzle be exposed. One can only hope...

Fat Man and Little Boy

The Manhattan Project is what immediately comes to mind. On Alex Jones' show, Guy Smith, the producer of the BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary, was asking the same question as your medical doctor friend, suggesting that too many people would have to be involved in order for 9/11 to have been an inside job. He also said that the Manhattan Project was an interesting analogy but an overall bad one because it was in some way different from 9/11, which involved the death of 3,000 or so Americans. In my opinion, the Manhattan Project was worse because of its predicted and eventual scope. Firstly, most of the people involved probably did not know the full extent of the project yet they participated anyway. If you watch the movie Fat Man and Little Boy, you realize only a small group understood what would actually be the end-use of the two weapons they were designing. And the idea of dropping such weapons on a populated city should have been a more horrifying prospect than would have been the idea of exploding two tall buildings (or three), yet, as we are now aware, Fat Man and Little Boy without question became a reality. Secondly, when the first trail detonation occurred in New Mexico no one knew for certain if it would be safe. I read somewhere that some even speculated that the atmosphere could ignite and consume the earth in a fiery ball of flame. Even though I may have this last point slightly off, the fact remains that the orchestrators of the Manhattan Project were not sure what would happen to them and more significantly the planet if they detonated an atomic bomb. And yet they did it anyway. So yes, the people involved in 9/11 were likely capable of anything. Furthermore, if a fully-knowledgeable group like Oppenheimer's could create two atomic bombs and eventually use them, then someone on our soil could have been responsible for and successfully pulled off 9/11.

Specific, named individuals

I would go into the few instances we are reasonably sure about where "supervisors" blocked valid investigations. Two men in FBI, Mike Maltbie and David Frasca were responsible for blocking mos t of the terrorist investigations. That's because counterterrorism is highly centralized and field agents have to go through there in order to get permission to open criminal investigations. That permission was not forthcoming in 2001. See my list of 70 Facts for some gut wrenching info.

Then we know that Cheney was in command of exercises by Bush's order in May 2001. So when all these war games happen at the same time on the same day, we know Cheney had a hand in scheduling them. When they drew all those fighters up and away from the Northeast sector, we know Cheney approved these games, and that they were covered up after the fact. No open questions about them were aired at the 9/11 hearings.

If we're going to talk about demolition, the main suspects are an Israeli MOSSAD team who included demolition experts. The warehouse cover they used had traces of explosives, as well as anthrax. Israelis are not going to confess to attacking America. For what reason?

The idea of mass murderers confessing is dubious. They could be pursued by another American regime and executed (or even by this one).

As I said before, we have proven that the investigation was flawed, and so we demand a legitimate one. Start with that, not with the arguments they want you to start with.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Not to worry . . .

In my experience that happens when the a blog is edited. As far as I know, only a moderator can repost an edited blog.

German medical doctor

I like your site, John. If I were German, instead of an American living here, I would translate those 70 points into German, and all of Griffin as well. I don't know why he hasn't been translated.

The doctor guy wasn't against me, he was asking for confirmation. Lots of Germans of his generation are in a sense more "patriotic" than Americans. They are still "grateful" for being liberated from Hitler. It's a whole new point of view.