Excerpts from "ZERO" follow-up debate in Russia

Via 911video.de;

Part 1

Part 2

More Deep State Doublethink

This Ruskie is just trying to give the US govt a way out. The truth, of which he is most certainly aware, is just the opposite of what he is saying: NO ONE other than the US govt would have been capable of doing 9/11. The fact that it happened is the best evidence (and quite sufficient) that it was an inside job. "Inside job" does NOT mean that global drug lords or some other insidious network of bad guys infiltrated the govt and subverted it in order for 9/11 to happen. We keep getting different versions of this, but it is all either denial or--as I think in the case of this Russian who certainly knows better--purposeful face-saving. It is absolutely absurd to entertain this idea that "dark forces" are manipulating the government. This is a preposterous logical error (read my "Deep State Doublethink" in my blog), but it will not go away because of the denial and/or complicity factor. I'll sum it up again in one sentence: Even if the "deep state" (to use Peter Scott's term for the various characterizations of the oh-so-complicated and ever shifting mysterious evil forces) could have pulled off 9/11, if there WERE another, "public state" (as Scott and presumably this Russian and others believe), this "public state" would have long since done what it was supposed to do and would have solved the crime. The fact that this has NOT happened (in fact, just the opposite has happened) proves that there IS no "good guy" public state left. So it is just absurd to persist in these foolish (and debilitating) illusions about "evil forces" controlling the government. The evil forces ARE the govt. Simple as that. No Russian has a problem understanding that. They have plenty of experience living under an "evil" government. Why has no one proposed that "evil forces" controlled the good guys in the former Soviet government? This would be as absurd as such theories are now in reference to the USA. It does not make you a traitor or "anti-American" to come to this conclusion, just a realist--and in fact a true patriot. Let's get the country back!


So long as this is not state policy, e.g., there is no "Office of 9/11 Planning," then you have to posit the notion of a faction within the government as forming the whole or part of this effort.

And not to sound corny, but I don't want notions that "the government did it" to broadbush all of the decent people within the military and intelligence who had no involvement with this and have worked to prevent or lessen some of the worst crimes of this administration.

What is interesting to me is how the Russians approach this, which is how I think many people outside North America, Western Europe, and Japan will do so. They are intensely interested in who actually did it. I am ready to put off that question a little until more evidence is in, but they don't want to wait. LOL

I think the total evidence for Israeli involvement is almost as solid as evidence of U.S. govt involvement. There also seems to be links with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even Turkey. The part about drug money may have been really important as well.

I'm happy to state this is all conjecture, and I am more interested in honestly evaluating all evidence and bringing new information to light than pointing a firm finger at this stage of the game. But seekers in many nations abroad are likely to be more haunted by the "who" than many of us are right now.

Edit: Btw, Michael, I don't know if I'm representing your position clearly. Please let me know if I'm not. I like your website! :-)

Thanks. To be honest,

Thanks. To be honest, sometimes I think what I'm saying is just too simple to make an impression. But I keep running up against the same arguments, several of which you mention, and they bother me because I think they do miss the point I'm trying to make. On the other hand, if I don't really have a point at all, I want to know. That's what we're here for, right?

Office of Planning? Surely you know that the CIA used to have Directorates of Plans, then Operations, Offices of Special Operations, Counterintelligence, Covert Action, and all kinds of crap, and though the labels change the same things are still going on. They have never been particularly shy about calling a spade a spade. They are an institutional conspiracy that is part of the government (the "public state"), and they do not deny it. They are more than one person planning and doing illegal things, so they are conspiracies.

As for all the innocent people working for the govt, of course. Do you think every Chinese Communist or Soviet bureaucrat is/was evil? No, of course not. That doesn't stop you (or others) from calling the govt evil, does it? This is my point. It's not complicated. Just a matter of perspective--but an important one, I feel.

This Ruskie, as I said, is not typical. He is part of the elite, and probably working for the Americans. He is providing a face-saving argument for the perps, saying essentially, "Oh, the devil (Deep State) made me do it (or did it without my knowledge or control)." It is the Americans themselves who refuse to accept responsibility by constantly trying to wriggle out of the fundamental recognition that THEIR govt did it. THEIR (my, since I am also an American) govt is no better than the Chinese or Soviet governments. This is my entire point. Once we recognize and face this fact, we will be in a better position to do something about it. The longer we avoid facing this fact by looking for "deep state" evil forces that have "control" of our red, white and blue, in which we want desperately to maintain our quasi-religious faith (see David Griffin on this), the longer it will take to restore some semblance of the (fictional) govt we have been propagandized to believe in (and not a bad thing to believe in, I feel).

Obviously not EVERYONE working for the US govt was involved. Nobody has ever even implied this. Why even say it? I was a clerk-typist in 1963; does that mean I am guilty for the Vietnam war? Similarly, no one has ever suggested, as far as I know, that other govts are innocent in the 9/11 story. But the overwhelming fact, and the fact that people (mostly but not only Americans) are desperate to ignore, is that the US govt is the only logical main perpetrator of the crime(s) and cover-up. Looking for scapegoats elsewhere, as I keep saying, is worse than a waste of time; it is either denial or complicity.

I keep coming back to the analogy with China or the Soviet Union. Just imagine people trying to make these elaborate excuses for their misdeeds. That would be laughable. It is equally laughable, once you extricate yourself from the propaganda mold, to imagine that "evil forces" are manipulating Uncle Sam. UNCLE SAM IS GUILTY AS HELL! When enough of us can say this, we will have a chance of creating (or re-creating, for the historical romantics among us) the Uncle Sam that we THINK we have or once had, or would like to have.


I think I understand where you are coming from. You are making a systemic argument, which I largely agree with, but the form in which you write it I think would be more applicable for an event like the war in Iraq than a covert operation like 9/11, which

- likely involved private individuals outside of the govt
- likely involved people within other govts
- almost certainly did not act within any type of official govt oversight and accounting on any level
- performed actions to which 99% of the members of govt would be opposed
- was done for causes and concerns relating more to private interests than affairs of state

And so forth.

"But the overwhelming fact, and the fact that people (mostly but not only Americans) are desperate to ignore, is that the US govt is the only logical main perpetrator of the crime(s) and cover-up."

As for the "desperate to ignore" part, you are projecting a lot here. I am not sure how thesis A would be better or worse than thesis B in most people's minds. I would say the vast majority of people in 9/11 Truth are very conscious of a whole laundry list of crimes which the American govt has been openly involved or directly complicit in. Certainly many, many people on the left like Chomsky and in the antiwar movement would happily catalogue the crimes of the U.S. government, but will shrink from the notion of a deep state that performs covert crimes that will not be properly ascribed in the NY Times.

As for the "logical main perpretator," I still don't understand your point. Most of us want to get past some type of "the government did it" viewpoint and actually look at how these operations function.

"Looking for scapegoats elsewhere, as I keep saying, is worse than a waste of time; it is either denial or complicity."

I'm sorry, but this is too true-believerish for me. 9/11 remains an open historical question, one that is very relevant to the world in which we live now. I don't know who did it, although we have some evidence of govt complicity/involvement and overwhelming evidence of govt coverup. We also have some evidence pointing in other directions, such as factions related to Israel, a nation with an extremely close relationship to the U.S. govt. As for OBL and the hijackers, we don't know just what their involvement is, but their mere presence brings in the issue of Saudi Arabia. There are also some intriguing links with Pakistan.

I'd be more open to a softer version of your thesis, but I don't know how relevant it would be to this particular audience, who I think understand your point implicitly.

Never underestimate "compartmetalization...nor...

...the profit motive.

It seems to me that most of the control structures of the intel and military "systems and organizations" are designed to keep "information fences" between them. This is the perfect environment in which to be able to secretly, and legally [with "patriotic duty"] to manuever...activities, changes, and plans that appear to accmplish one thing, but actually accomplishes the opposite or something nefarious. Compartmentalization alows this to happen WITHOUT NOTICE to most observers...except to the few folks who have laid these plans down in the first place in order to accomplish something that remains known only within their own compartment. Plausible Deniability...FULLY AGREED!

I feel that Mr. Morrissey may be a bit naive about the variety of forces at work "behnd the scenes" and completely undetectable that are affecting our governance, our military actions, and of course, the major financial systems and institutions throughout the world. The political "pupeteering" and the control of politicians is the simplest of all of the ingrediants to be put into place...so that's never a problem.

The few common denominators for me are...the few massive financial systems and institutions...the desire for militaries to expand militaries across the world [thus ensuring their survival or dominance]...and the small state of Israel which simply would not exist without its deep involvement with, and influence upon the US military and several major financial systems and organizations throughout the world. Israel realizes that it has their entire country to loose because it is being propped up by the USofA, and that's why they may be found to be playing such an equal role as the Military and financil players noted. This is very easily understandible and easy to be sympathetic towards.

In the end the big game is the control and influence of money, militarism and power for the survival of these larger organizations. If these self serving organizations DON'T control this...somebody else WILL....sometimes its pretty simple math.

And that one might think that all of this is accomplished by groups that are readily visible, exposed or know to the average citizen is naive. Most likely, only a very, very small number of people may actually have a handle upon the identity of ALL the compartmentalized and self serving organizations within all countries that dig their tunnels into such organizations and countries.

Clearly there are "deep governments" and "deep organizations"...and I suspect that there are even "deeper governments" and "deeper organizations" than even those. And optimistically, with the massive information highway that we have access to, and eventually, some whislteblowers who will tell of their stories, perhaps not even knowing of the organizations and systems that they may expose, sooner or later we WILL connect a majority of the dots and espose most of these organizations, compartments, initiatives, organizations and countries.

THIS...is the gift that the 9/11 Truth Movement has ushered into the information and exposure age...and its influences are just beginning to become realized.

The numbers of good human beings versus the numbers of nefarious human beings favors the "good side"...and in masive numbers. THIS...is why the HI PERPS work so hard to compromise and control the media...why they deliberately dumb down people...why they misinform citizens...and why they utilize "psy-ops" to control human's perceptions of events.

But, once we accept these facts and processes noted above, then we can effectively look past them and continue to dig into the deep governments and organizations, and perhaps even into the deeper governments and organizations.

Its a chess game, and we are pretty good players...and getting better every day.

The HI PERPS' greatest fear...an informed electorate that votes accurately...and we are on the way!

Love, Peace and Progress with:


...just for starters...

Robin Hordon

General Ivashov isn't blowing smoke about the drug barons.

The KLA and "Al Qaeda" are interwoven with the Opium trade in Afghanistan;

This past year saw yet another record Opium crop in Afghanistan;

Iraq is now becoming an Opium exporter;

Although Hopsicker believes Atta & Co. were bona fide terrorists,he does admirable work sniffing out Atta's drug connections and 'coincidences';

"We uncovered the most damning fact yet unearthed about the 9/11 attack, that during the same month Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi arrived at his Venice, FL flight school, the flight school owner's Lear jet was seized by DEA agents who found 43 pounds of heroin aboard.

Imagine what the result would have been if Bob Woodward had reported this fact.

The 'Israeli DEA Groups' spent a lot of time infiltrating DEA offices across the country, while at the same time showing up in the same towns as the alleged hijackers. Coincidence?;

Peter Dale Scott wrote a good piece on the general lay of The Global Drug Meta-Group;

The False Dilemmas of 9/11 Theories

"...by suppressing awareness of the role of drug-trafficking in our society, we give drug traffickers a de facto franchise to exert political influence without criticism or opposition. An example of this is the discussion of 9/11 in America, which usually fails to consider the meta-group among the list of possible suspects.

I have tried to suggest in this paper that in fact the meta-group had both motive – to restore the Afghan opium harvest and increase instability and chaos along the trade routes through Central Asia – and opportunity – to utilize its contacts with both al-Zawahiri in al Qaeda and the CIA in Washington. It is furthermore the best candidate to explain one of the more difficult anomalies (or indeed paradoxes) of the clues surrounding 9/11: that many of the clues lead in the direction of Saudi Arabia, but some lead also in a very different direction, towards Israel.

Here it is worth quoting again the well-informed remark of a Washington insider about the meta-group's predecessor, BCCI: "Who else could wire something together to Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, and the U.S.?" The current meta-group fills the same bill, for it unites supporters of Muslim Salafism (Saidov) with at least one Israeli citizen (Kosman)....

My personal suggestion to 9/11 researchers is that they focus on the connections of the meta-group's firm Far West, Ltd. – in particular those which lead to Khashoggi, Berezovskii, Halliburton and Dick Cheney, and Diligence, Joe Allbaugh, and Neil Bush...

Drugs, Nukes, Turkey, Israel, Sibel Edmonds;

Plausible Denial.


If we focus on the myriad connections (the spider web) we will get nowhere slowly. My point is that this is the govt's job. That's why we (think we) have a govt. What we need to do is very simple, but not easy: force the govt to do its job. Studying the "deep state" is not the way to accomplish this; it is an protracted exercise in denial.

Let's try an analogy. Daddy rapes you every day. But there are sooooooo many reasons for it. He is a good guy on the outside, and you basically luv 'em cause he's your dad and also has his good side, but unfortunately he also has this deep dark side. He is a very, very complicated man.

What do you do?

Mommy is also a parent,

but she is another branch of the government. She doesn't want to know and she shuts her eyes. She knows that this is something you don't talk about, if you don't like to end the marriage.
People in the government are mostly married to their carreers. That's why they are in the government, not in the peace movement.
There can be secrecy without dark forces. Hitler did not tell everybody details about the final solution. But there was no dark force behind him.
Norman Mineta's testemony makes clear that not the entire government was in the know about the operation.
There is lot of evidence and some of it is apparently contradictionary. Perhaps many knew that something was going to happen, but not exactly what.
I don't doubt that the Bush-brothers (George, Jeb, Marwin) were part and parcel of it. And Cheney of course.
I don't like to much deep state-thinking either, but everybody should reed Peter Dale Scott because he knows a lot.
Propaganda Due was a secret organisation in the 1970ties of Italy. Today there is no need for it, because there is no opposition, except Antonio Di Pietro and some other stubborn resisters. The left is not speaking the truth about Berlusconi and the origin of his fortune. There is no left left, because they are all married to their carreers. There is an Italian word for this fenomena, the left dealing with the right: inciucio. They all earn their money. It is all George Bush and Lloyd Bentsen, as Pete Brewton has showed us.
I don't think Sibel Edmonds lies. So there must have been international connections. How could they get all these warnings if not a lot of people knew something? And the put options?
We all know that 9/11 must have been an inside job. We are not in the position of knowing all the details. We can prove inside job by two certain things: Foreknowledge of WTC7 (BBC, CNN etc.) and Norman Mineta.
In fact we don't need more proves. And all this speculation leads us nowhere. As Kevin Ryan has said, we need less speculation and more facts. As Vincent Salandria said, they want us to study. The cow dies waiting for the grass to grow.
And now we have Paulson and another fraud. I don't know more to say. Perhaps I should keep silent.

Mommy's dead

or so confused and compromised that she is nothing but another one of Big Daddy's slaves. The analogy breaks down here, of course, but "Mommy" is the great majority of innocent and blissfully ignorant and fearful government employees who do not dare even think anti-Daddy thoughts.

The analogy with China and the Soviet Union is better. Don't you think that there were/are plenty of "good guys" working for those governements? What, in heaven's name, does that have to do with it? There were good guys in Hitler's armies, too. Come on.

Parlando dei italiani, Italians have a much healthier view of govt than we Americans do. They have no problem seeing themselves as proud Italians, and their govt(s) as the scum of the earth. This is the attitude we need--just get our heads out of our the semi-religious clouds that equate "patriotism" with supporting whatever bastards rule (by hook or mostly crook) at the moment.

I'm not saying Sibel Edmonds lies, for heaven's sakes!. Of course there are international connections! All I'm saying is, No. 1 is the US govt, and by that I mean the US govt as it is structured, not some evanescent "deep state," with equal and separate--and thus equally GUILTY--powers of legislation, execution, and adjudication. More in next post...

Michael, where are you going with this?

I don't understand your placing the blame on the "government", i.e. the system itself. Specific people must have committed specific crimes, and a full investigation would reveal everything, hopefully. Granted, there are problems with the system that allowed the 9/11 plotters to defeat US intelligence, law enforcement and defense procedures, and there are problems with the system that have allowed a coverup to be perpetrated thru the government, media and educational system, but how much reform are you suggesting is needed?

Are you suggesting a Constitutional Amendment creating a much different system of government is needed to get truth and justice for 9/11 and prevent future attacks?

What kind of government system do you propose?

In 2000 the US govt was sued and in 2004 every member of Congress incl. Kucinich and Ron Paul were sued over their participation in Congress' failure to call the mandatory Article V Convention for proposing Amendments to the Constitution; 567 applications have been submitted, from all 50 states.

According to the statements of many in the government on 9/11, it seems they thought the US was under a terror attack, and many may have genuinely believed this, and even still do- however, many others have blown the whistle, Sibel Edmonds has said many others are ready to testify, and pehaps many others are keeping quiet, for fear or profit.
What roles do you think specific people in the US govt played in the attack's success?

What role do you think the 9/11 Commission played in covering up what happened?

What roles do you think corporate america and military-industrial complex played in 9/11 and the subsequent exploitation and coverup?

Do you think that an Executive, Congress and Court staffed by people loyal to the Constitution, truth, justice and the public interest will give the People truth and justice for 9/11 and prevent future attacks?

Do you think if enough of the People are educated and politicized that we can act as an effective check and balance on abuse of power?


Where I'm going

Ok, this is getting to the nitty gritty, I guess, because it shows how difficult it is for people to face the simple fact that our govt is evil (again, see David Griffin on this), in the same sense that the Chinese and Soviet govts were/are evil (and to a greater or lesser extent every other govt on earth throughout history). The "system" itself? Have you heard me denounce any principles that are SUPPOSEDLY what our country was founded on? Democracy, due process, the Constitution, etc. That's the "system," and I see nothing wrong with it. The problem is that the govt has failed utterly to live up to the "system" that we supposedly believe in.

What is "the govt"? The executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. They have all failed, utterly, and treasonously (need I expatiate?). The CIA (just to take one example) does not belong in this "system"; it has no relation whatsoever to the principles this country was founded on. Does this make it any clearer?

What to do? Now that's a hell of a question. I do not believe in violence. All I'm saying at the moment--and it is obviously receiving a lot of resistance so it is well worth saying--is that the FIRST thing to do is stop looking for scapegoats (Israel, global drug lords, the Deep State, etc. etc.) and put the blame where it belongs. Just look at your own reactions for a second. Your knee-jerk reaction is to accuse me of being against "the system." Can't you see that this is nothing but your own denial (self-defense) "system" trying to protect you from the perceived threat of recognizing that it is not "the system" but the bums in office (with very few exceptions) that are at fault and need to be ousted?

full investigation

whatever the number is, a limited number of people were involved in the active planning and operation for 9/11, or were in a position to do something to stop or expose the attack plot and knowingly did nothing, or even obstructed action by others that might have interfered with 9/11 success. These people may have committed crimes, including treason and mass murder. In addition, a possibly far larger number knew a massive terrorist attack was going to happen and did not share the info with authorities or the public, but did make move to protect themselves and their interests, and profit from the attacks and aftermath; these people may have committed crimes as well, such as insider trading and treason, even mass murder or accessory to, depending on what they knew when. Further, Congress, FBI/DOJ, NIST, 9/11 Commission, etc. all have failed to conduct a proper and thorough investigation of 9/11. In addition to US persons and agencies responsible for making or allowing 9/11, credible reports indicate people in the governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and Turkey had foreknowledge and some may have participated in planning, funding and operations for 9/11, including through the drug and nuclear black markets; all these people should be exposed and held accountable as well. A full investigation is needed to identify all involved parties, and exactly who knew and did or didn't do what when, and what should the consequences be, and what reforms are needed to make sure our govt works for the public and is transparent and accountable, staffed with loyal servants of the Constitution.


michael's post

i'd love to look at ur website michael. where is it?

My website

No investigation will take place,

as long as the big fishes are running the empire. Michael is right, if I understand him right; there is next to no democracy left. We are not dealing with a democracy, but with a corruptocracy (possible word?). It is a rigged game.
The big owners of the country will never permit any investigation about 9/11.
Why no impeachment? Why don't the elected "democrats" defend the constitution? Because they don't care much more about it than Caligula's horse did.
It is obvious and up in our face.
(One short reply to Michael about the Italians: How can Berlusconi win the election again and again if "the people" realize the facts? The problem there and everywhere is "la scomparsa dei fatti" (one of Marco Travaglio's latest books), i.e. the disappearance of the facts. Most Americans probably smell that the whole game is rotten, too. But they are ignorant about the facts.)
The problem is that nobody knows what to do. I don't either. But we have to keep non-violent! Give them no excuse to violent repression! Beware of agents provocateurs!
I am not so sure if Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is repesenting a kind of change I can endorse. That is not my point here: No, my point is that he is disliked by the empire and still able to oppose it, by popular support. So the power of the empire is not absolute. Change is possible.

No disagreement

Yes, loosenuke and Felix, I agree with what both of you have said here. I guess I have made my point, too, and it's not a profound or subtle one, just the opposite, really--which may be why I keep having difficulty making it. What I object to is the scapegoating (caused by denial and/or complicity) that lead a whole bunch of people, including this Russian guy (complicity), well-intentioned people like Peter Scott (denial), and sickos whose names I won't mention but who are numerous (e.g., the Jews did it!), to avoid the overwhelmingly obvious fact that it is the govt of the USA--and not some evil "network" hidden within it--that is 100% responsible for 9/11, JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, the current Wall Street meltdown, etc. The best model for how the govt actually works in my opinion is laid out in William Pepper's "Act of State." Note that he does not call this "Act of Shadowy Mysterious Global Drug and Banking Outlaw Deep State." The "State" is the USG, of which the FBI, the CIA, and the military are obviously part.The head of this state is the president, and his powers are supposed to be balanced by the judicial system and the Congress. This is the state that killed MLK and is responsible for all of the other crimes (and more), and this is the state that must be forced to work the way it is supposed to work (according to our public documents and schooling).

It is not our task to continue the research indefinitely. Enough has been done. Pepper did MLK and that's enough. Griffin (as representative of many others) has done 9/11, and that's enough. Salandria (and Fonzi and many others) have done JFK and that's enough. Even the Bug(liosi) has done his part (forgetting JFK) with Election Theft 2000 and the Prosecution of Bush for War Crimes, and that's enough. Much and many can be added to this list, and there is only one rational conclusion: Basta!

This is why it irritates me when instead of facing this simple conclusion people continue to allow themselves to veer off into every possible direction AWAY from it. That is exactly what they are doing when they start talking about anything and anyone other than the people inhabiting our governmental offices in Washington. I am not saying these govt employees and elected officials "did it." Some of them did it, but ALL of them have the responsibility to FIX it. That is their job. They have the power, the money, and the mandate from us to do it. We cannot do it. We can only try to force them to do it, and that is exactly where we should be putting all of our energies. We should not waste one more second researching or speculating about secret forces. We should spend all our time grabbing congresswimps and all other elected or non-elected government officials by the throat (metaphorically, of course) and shaking them until they do what we want them to do, namely their job, which includes solving crimes like 9/11, JFK, etc., and make things right.

There are plenty of ways to do this, and plenty of people are doing it. Chomsky, Alex Jones, David Griffin, Bugliosi, Paul Craig Roberts, etc., etc. are all doing great work. I support them all. I am only saying we need to stay focussed on what we can actually do and forget about dancing Israelis and Mafiosi and Bilderbergers and Bohemian Grove and BCCI and arms and drug-running bankers and "renegade" intelligence agents. Of course all this slime exists, but there is simply no way to get to it as long as the govt protects them. The only way to do it is to shake our congresswimps et al. until they start doing their frigging jobs.

As for Italians, I don't mean to laud their sense of civic responsibility, since they are better known for their me ne fregismo, and I am hardly an expert, but maybe that too has something to do with what I said, which is that they seem to be better able to separate their sense of identity as Italians from "patriotism" in the perverted sense that we Americans (by force of propaganda a la Bill O'Reilly) have acquired (having forgotten Thoreau et al.). I do like to see them come to fisticuffs in parliament occasionally. Maybe we could use a little of that. Jeez, watching our congresswimps on C-Span, you wonder how most of them managed to get out of high school. They can't even talk, much less fight. We need to yell at them more. Much more. Maybe then they'll start yelling at each other and things will start changing.

9/11 Russian State TV September 2008 Part 3

9/11 Russian State TV September 2008 Part 3

Thanks. Let us know if there

Thanks. Let us know if there is a Part 4. The journalist was ok. It was the military guy yapping about drug lords and other extra-USG forces who was plainly lying (because he has to know better). In any case it's great that the film was shown and that there was a discussion at all.

The journalist said what I have been saying all along, which is that the best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job was that it happened. Which is to say (as he implied), only the USG could have done it. NOT drug lords, Mafiosi, Blackwater, etc. This is obviously much too simple a conclusion (see discussion above) for those who would rather speculate about the spider web than look the spider in the face.

As the journalist also said, it's all a matter of belief. Some simply cannot and will never believe that the USG could have done such a thing. It had to be some "renegade" elements, some "compartmentalized" networks, blah blah blah. If the same thing had happened in Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or any other designated enemy ("evil") state, there wouldn't be a moment of hesitation: the govt did it. As long as it is some other govt, there's no problem, but if Uncle Sam stands accused, there just has to be some extremely complicated and inherently inconclusive pseudo-explanation that will keep us investigating forever instead of hitting the streets (still an option, the last I heard, but not the only one).

No matter how sophisticated people try to appear, this is the bedrock blindness that obviously some just cannot overcome. If they are not willing to believe something, they won't, no matter what. They have to have somebody else, like a "Deep State," to blame it on.

The Occam's Razor of 9/11

I'm a bit surprised by the resistance with which your fundamental argument has been received here. Well, to be honest, I'm not all that surprised. I've seen a fair amount of ideologically emphatic assertions and criticisms thrown about at this site, which, at the very least, hinder our achieving some kind of consensus for how best to inform the most people possible with simply the evidence known so far of what did and/or did not happen on 9/11, and thereby serve a common interest in pursuit of 9/11 Truth. But democracy is messy, and if nothing else, this site does reflect vital democratic impulses.

When you write that, "the best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job [is] that it happened," I feel encouraged. This strikes me as the Occam's razor for all the disparate and so far unproven theories of exactly "whodunnit". For all the temperate and well-argued words you've expended in stating your beliefs, these few words are, for now, persuasive and profound. Indeed Americans have created a Frankenstein: our own labyrinthine government—a complex military-industrial-corporate Monster, fully capable of orchestrating and executing the events of 9/11, while means and opportunity remain all that are needed to commit a crime of whatever scope and for whatever purpose. American government is a monster grown quite beyond Good and Evil, and it is capable of anything except possibly doing away with itself.

"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon

Occam's Razor

Yes, thanks, I'd sort of forgotten about old Occam, but that is the first thing that should be said, and it makes the point. Like you, I'm surprised but not really by the resistance to it. One can never overestimate the power of wishful thinking and denial.

There seem to be lots of looking glasses along this way, and once you get on the other side of one it's almost impossible to understand people on the other side. Witness the rejection of Bugliosi because he's on "our" side on Selection 2000 and Bush for Murder, but not on JFK. (I have to struggle with that myself.)

I've felt a little foolish hammering away at this here I guess because my own wishful thinking led me to think that for 9/11 truthers it would be a foregone conclusion that "inside job" means the govt did it, period. But obviously it is not. The discussion has brought that out pretty clearly. Even here, just stating the obvious has forced me to say that yes, of course I still believe in "the system" (it is our current leaders who do not), yes I believe other forces (countries, intelligence agencies, drug cartels, bankers, etc., etc.) are involved, no I do not think every govt employee was involved, yes I also believe that some govt employees are on "our" side, and yes, I even believe some politicians are on "our" side, and so on. I have even felt compelled to ensure everyone that I am not a traitor but a true-blue American and a patriot (in the Thoreavian sense, which is the only defensible one). I guess I would even pledge allegiance to the flag if I had to, since the flag is for me (and I assume for everyone) a symbol of the principles ("system") of govt we were taught in school, and not a symbol for the perverts and maniacs running it at any particular moment. All of this because I want to make the simple and overwhelmingly obvious statement that "inside job" means the govt did it.

And now it will start again: What do you mean by "the govt"? Not everyone in the govt! Not the "system"! Not the institutions themselves! So not "the govt." It was the Deep State! The bad guys. Dancing Israelis. Drug lords. Renegade CIA baddies. Bilderbergers. Illuminati. Bohemian Grovers. Skull and Bonesers. Jews. International bankers. The British royal family (LaRouche). We need more research, more research, more research! Blah and blah and blah.

No, excuse me, the "govt" means what it means--the FBI, the CIA, the military, Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, and so on, and everybody who works for them. They did it. They are guilty, these institutions and their employees, in direct proportion to the level of power and responsibility they hold in those institutions, guilty of committing crimes and/or guilty of not doing anything about them.

Ok, I guess I've shot my wad. The discussion has been useful.


"No, excuse me, the "govt" means what it means--the FBI, the CIA, the military, Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, and so on, and everybody who works for them. They did it. They are guilty, these institutions and their employees, in direct proportion to the level of power and responsibility they hold in those institutions, guilty of committing crimes and/or guilty of not doing anything about them."

So that would make, say, then Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle and the justices on the Supreme Court more guilty than the lower-level operatives who were actually involved with this on a hands-on level.

If you are encountering resistance to your ideas, perhaps it is because they are balderdash.

I am done with this.

You got it

Exactly. That is what the word "responsibility" means, not only in government but in the private sector as well--logically, morally, and legally.



Good analysis

Quite true in that if it were Russia or China, people wouldn't care about making slight distinctions. "They farmed it out to some thugs. So what? They (the state) did it."

IMO, the MO adds to the confusion. For example, the bizarre failure of officials to conceal their apparent complicity.

rhetoric vs. description

Michael Morrisey,

Your confusion here is a confusion over the use of words. You are simply arguing for the right to engage in a particular type of rhetoric which uses the words "government" and "evil" for effect. Rhetoric is judged by its effectiveness as rhetoric, that is, by its persuasiveness. Judged by that standard I personally don't think it is very good rhetoric, but for some it might be. It's at least arguable.

Judged by its descriptive accuracy, it is certainly not arguable. It adds nothing--and explains nothing--to say that this was done by the "government." Bearcat's critique is valid, but let me expand it a little.

"Government" is an abstraction. The clerk at the post office is the "government." Dick Cheney is the "government." Cynthia McKinney was the "government." DCI Tenet was the "government." The FBI agents who tried to unravel the Moussaoui link were the "government" and the FBI agents who tried to stop them were the "government." To lump them all in one category and call them all the "evil government" responsible for 911 is more than just imprecise, it is dangerous. Very much like the person who argues that drinking gasoline must be good for you because it's "organic," it invites either foolish action (drinking gasoline) or foolish inaction (not eating organic fruit) by those who don't identify the semantic confusion at the root of the statement.

I don't have time to deal with all the evidence for the involvement of non-US factions in the event and the confusion in calling them "the government" since they were involved.

Suffice it to say to anyone new to the 911 Truth movement who might happen to read this that we have our disagreements and confusions like any other little group of several million people.

The official story is still a lie. Look into it.

- omniadeo

You don't get it

"The government" is not an abstraction. We are not talking about government generally here but the US govt. The US govt, as we learn in high school, is a hierarchical organization made up of offices, agencies and institutions with precisely defined responsibilities and powers. The postal worker does not have the responsible or power to investigate 9/11. Neither does the soldier in the field. Tom Daschle (mentioned in previous post) did, and even had a personal reason to investigate the anthrax attacks. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), he did nothing. Cynthia McKinney was in a position to do something, and she did. A couple of others could be mentioned positively, but that's about it. That leaves a lot of people in Congress, not to mention the other branches and agencies of the govt, who have been in a position to do things they have failed to do. This is hardly an "abstraction." All you need is an organizational chart of the US govt.

The "rhetoric" comes in when you and others want to say that just because the people at the heads of these govt institutions (starting with the president) and the great majority of all those working under them in the hierarchy have done nothing to solve the crimes and everything to cover them up, this doesn't mean the "institutions" are at fault, which is exactly the same thing as saying the people in charge of those institutions are not at fault.

I wonder if you are as generous with Bear Stearns, for example. I suppose it's not clear whether or not they committed any crimes, but whatever it is they did or didn't do, a lot of people lost a lot of money. If you were one of the latter, would you insist that "Bear Stearns" is only an "abstraction"? Would you call it "rhetoric" when they are excused of screwing up big time? Would you insist that more investigation take place in order to pin down who exactly was at fault? (Surely there were international connections, drug lords, and dancing Israelis joining up with Bilderbergers at Bohemian Grove to plan it all.) Or would you just take the company organization chart, start at the top, and call out the names of the accused? Is this "abstraction"? Is this "rhetoric"?

You "don't have time to deal with all the evidence for the involvement of non-US factions in the event and the confusion in calling them "the government" since they were involved." How about finding the time (about 1 second) to deal with all the evidence for the involvement of the US govt in the event, and even more importantly in the cover-up ever since, and the clarity of calling this spade a spade (which is all I'm arguing for). Have you actually read any of David Griffin's books? "Look into it," indeed. Do you think he has not looked into it? My conclusions are no different from his.

signing off

Bear Stearns is definitely an abstraction. It is a name given to a great many specific actions by concrete individuals. The proof of this is simple: It existed one day and didn't exist the next, while almost nothing changed in the concrete. Money is also an abstraction. In the concrete it is only paper.

If you want to criticize the specific actions and inactions of specific individuals like Dashcle, I am all for it. But you may want to keep in mind that when McKinney spoke up she lost her seat. Daschle lost his without even speaking up. We may admire those who are willing to give up power when they speak up, but let's not kid ourselves: there is no way to stay part of the "government" or "media" for long and speak the truth on these subjects. That is a fact.

I have been working with the subject of US black ops and their coverups for 40 years with many painful experiences along the way trying to get people to listen. DRG is fairly new to the subject. (I have a feeling you are too.) He has done some good work, and I admire him, but he is by no means infallible and often shows a great deal of naivete, in my opinion, especially when it comes to understanding both the way that "Deep Politics" works and the way to approach people who are still emotionally resistant to the facts. (He is a very sophisticated philosopher and does know the difference between the abstract and the concrete I am sure.)

Members of the US Government were definitely involved in the event, but not the woman at the Post Office.

Good luck. I see some hard times a head.
- omniadeo

We have government officials

We have government officials directly involved in the chain of events that made 9/11 possible:

George Tenet. Cofer Black. Rich B. Tom Wilshire. Tom Pickard. Dale Watson. Michael Rolince. Rod Middleton. Dave Frasca. Condoleezza Rice. Etc.

1) If the Deep State is so powerful that it can control the public state, then the Deep State is the real government. Why make a distinction between the two when such a distinction only serves to give the public a false hope?

2) Where is the good faith from the public state officials? I haven't seen any. They have hidden behind national security. They refuse to answer to the public. They advocate for torture. They refuse to be honest about al Qaeda. Why do these officials deserve the benefit of the doubt? We are talking about a horrific mass murder. Where is the respect for the people who suffered tragic deaths? If officials can't do their jobs (regardless of the risks) then they should quit. Power without accountability is pathetic.


They should quit, but of course they won't, so we have to kick them out. Omniado wants to treat them with kid gloves. Why? Of course they are cowards and have to watch their step. So what? Does that mean we have to be the same? Is it our job to save their skins? Is that the support we give to brave souls like McKinney? How can we expect congresswimps to be brave if we don't support them when they are?

Omniado says Bear Stearns is an abstraction. Likewise I guess Lehman Bros, Washington Mutual, etc. Too bad he's "signing off," because I'd sorely like him to explain this. All these "abstractions," heading the list the USG, are sure causing a lot of concrete death and havoc. But of course he cannot explain it because it is an absolutely silly statement.


Well said, Noise. Brava. What's really odd about the opposition to Mr. Morrissey's line of reasoning is that numerous videos are routinely posted at 9/11 Blogger by Truthers armed with video cameras accosting members of our government and demanding answers. Yet what answers do the people of our government have to offer? Lies, obfuscation, no answers at all.

"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon

Great things on Michael's page...

and something I dislike.
I will encourage everybody to study Michael's series: "The Logical Reconstruction of Reality"
However I don't get the essay "The Academic Fallacy". It seems that you take "no-planers" seriously, Michael. Do I misunderstand?
Perhaps this is changing topic, but if there is something that works against us, it is all kind of silly theories that are only designed to make us look ridiculous. Please check out Victoria Ashley's essay Discrediting By Association:
I 100 percent agree with Michael that US Gov. is behind 911. Period. We are dealing with power abuse, not conspiracy (by subversive forces). (The conspiracy theory about the Reichtags-fire is that the (subversive) communists did it. The power abuse theory is that the nazis did it. Today we are told that (subversive) muslims did 9/11, whereas we know that the government did it. (I write "know" because of Norman Mineta's testemony, which cannot be explained away.)
But I think it is egually important to be aware of the COINTELPRO-people. These people agents provocateurs, and they are joining us for one purpose: making us look silly. (And perhaps wasting our time discussing with them.)


for the kind words, and re the Academic Fallacy, I wrote that when it seemed important to get Steve Jones et al. and Morgan Reynolds et al. to debate reasonably, and I was frustrated at not being able to do so. Yes, I took the no-planers seriously for a while (which doesn't mean I agreed with them), mainly because of Morgan Reynolds--although I didn't like the tone of his coterie. (Rick Rajter, for example, was one of the people in the original 9/11 Scholars forum run by Steve Jones who insisted that discussion of the Holocaust had a place on the forum, and I was one of exactly TWO people in that forum who objected. The topic was finally banned when I got Jim Fetzer to intervene personally. This did not speak well for either Rick Rajter or that forum.) I actually meant to make fun of both sides in that essay, and I guess I've developed a chip on my shoulder concerning academics in general, especially after my experience with Noam Chomsky. Now that I'm retired from the hallowed halls myself, I guess I would not express myself quite as candidly as I did then.

As for the issue itself, my attitude is the same as David Griffin's: I'm an agnostic. We have enough to argue about without it (see above discussion).

E grazie per la lettura!

Agnostic about the no-plane and other theories?

or about whether these people are agents provocateurs or not?

Once Vincent Salandria detected an agent,

at Jim Garrison's office. Salandria did that with next to no effort, just by applying common sense. Jim Garrison could of course have replied that "we have enough to argue about" already, that he preferred to remain agnostic, so everybody could stand together, but he realized that Salandria was right.
It is not much more difficult than that.
When they apply false flag terrorism, they do of course apply false flag activism as well.
If the owner of a beer-garden tolerates all kind of guests, even bullies, by the end that beer-garden will only be for the bullies; no one else will come there. The big tent strategy works the same way.
You say grazie per la lettura. I hope you really read it, understand it, internalize it: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html
I think you should remove from your home page those of your own essays you don't agree with anymore. It will make it more easy to link to your page, you know. There is so much good stuff at your page – hertzlichen Dank für das Lesen! – therefore a pity that you are messing up the image of it by including dubious things, linde gesagt.

I get the picture

By "lettura" I meant my stuff, since you were kind enough to read some of it, but now I have read the essay you linked, and I see better where you're coming from.

I see the point about drawing lines around the discussion, but may I remind you that some people have said the same about the Pentagon hit almost from the beginning (that "no Flight 77" was disinfo), and I am glad that Griffin still sees plenty of reason to doubt the govt story on that so we don't have to ban discussion of it.

On re-reading my "Academic Fallacy," I can see that it may have caused some offense unnecessarily, and it was not really constructive. So I will take your advice, with thanks (not just for the implied offer to link!), and remove it.


Cheers Michael,

then we agree!
«I see the point about drawing lines around the discussion» – of course you do, as you are proposing it above!
Banning the discussion: When main stream media in my country, Norway, is telling us something about the truth movement, it is always no planers and other "theories" that are very difficult to understand by common sense. They never tell the things that most of the truth movement find convincing. I don't think this is coincidential.

Agnostic means in doubt about the veracity. Then it is no point promoting it. I don't see any "no plane-theory" in Griffin's book, and in Debunking 9/11 Debunking he admits that the Pentagon-issue is controversial in the truth movement. Griffin's main source there is Russell Pickering at pentagonresearch.com.
So after reading Debunking 9/11 Debunking, I decided to check out the page (http://www.pentagonresearch.com):
«Thank you for visiting Pentagon Research. The site has been taken down for up to 6 months starting on 2-19-07. The influx of new information, the need to update and personal reasons have led to this decision. Rather than have inaccurate data, I would prefer to pursue a new format and update after considering how to present the current state of the Pentagon investigation. I appreciate your understanding and support. In the mean time, I consider Jim Hoffman a responsible researcher and will link you to his site. 9-11 REVIEW»
Link to: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

We should not promote doubt, confusion and doublethink. You (and me) are not agnostic about the guilt of the US government.
Salandria: «I’m afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.» So we should learn from Salandria's bitter experience, thus promote the sure proofs, the obvious, the blatantly obvious reasons for inside job, reasons we are profoundly sure about and can stand firmly by.
(Caveat for those who will misunderstand: That doesn't mean that we should stop studying things we are uncertain about, of course. And not narrowing our scope, either. I don't think 9/11 is only about 9/11. By all means, I don't think it is wrong to study drug running operations of CIA and other criminality of elites. Learning how things work in society is always good. And now the financial crisis: it is a very important issue.)
Once more: Please excuse my language/writing errors. English is not my mothertongue. Thanks!