"Yet Another Problem With the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories"

Is this really "another" problem with the "conspiracy theories?" He's using the same tired talking points used by anti-truthers for years. He actually argues that everyone in the intelligence apparatus would know the whole picture. Also notice the whole "I have personally known people in the alphabet agencies and they're not evil" b.s. He just can't seem to accept that Disney-loving, apple pie eating, baseball watching white Americans of Euro descent could be so evil. Yet he has no trouble imagining that 19 Arabs could pull off such an attack.


I was reading Karen Fish's poll when I realized one of the problems with these theories.

Let me preface this by saying, for those of you who do not know, that I lean rather strongly to the official government explanation of 9/11. I acknowledge some real deficiencies with that explanation, and I do not regard people who believe in the conspiracy theories as dumb or the tinfoil hat set (crazy). I simply view the conspiracy theories as several orders of magnitude worse and more deficient than the official explanation.

I was reading Karen Fish's poll and the comments and I realized another issue with the conspiracy theories. For 9/11 to have been an act by our government, it would mean the entire US Intelligence Apparatus would have to be involved. That means CIA, NSA, Military Intelligence, etc. It would also be hard not to have the FBI involved. If this were a conspiracy, an FBI investigation would lead to too many unanswered questions. If the FBI is involved, that would mean the entire justice department were involved. But lets concentrate on just the intelligence agencies for now.

I realize that much of the progressive left views anyone in an intelligence agency as evil and corrupt, but I know better. I knew people in Air Force intelligence when I was a blue suiter and they were not evil or corrupt. In the CIA, we have the example of Valerie Plame as a whistleblower completely willing to do what is necessary to ensure the truth emerged about the decisionmaking to go to war in Iraq. There are a LOT of good and principled people in the intelligence agencies. But you dont even have to believe that.

To believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you would have to believe ALL, and I mean ALL of the people in these agencies would have to be in on it.

This is too bizarre of an idea to even contemplate. But it gets worse.

If we look to examples in the past of intelligence agencies that were corrupt and evil, such as the STASI and German SS, and then imagine what the STASI and SS would do in the aftermath of such an act, you see incongruencies with what we have now. I'll explain what I mean.

If you lived in East Germany during the reign of the STASI, or in Germany during the Nazi era, if you voiced an idea that was subversive to the government, you had a good chance of ending up in a prison or camp. If it was a REALLY dangerous idea/comment in the view of the government, you would likely end up dead or "disappeared". Latin American intelligence agencies serving corrupt governments had a tendency to "disappear" people who were considered subversive. For even suggesting that people who believe in the 9/11 theories to not be crazy, as I have, would probably have been enough.

So, those of you saying that the government and intelligence agencies were behind 9/11, how do you account that the government would do this, and leave all of us around to discuss it afterwards without any harassment or worse? You are arguing that these agencies have no problem with killing thousands of Americans and deceiving all of the rest. Why have they stopped there? I dont know how you account for that.

Put yourself into the mind of the leader of an intelligence agency that was part of a corrupt government that has perpetrated something like 9/11. Why would you not disappear M, Walter Whitten, Rob Kall, and any other people trying to spread the word about this. None of us have any real visibility. There would be no media outcry if any or all of us suddenly disappeared. Why, in the opinion of those of you who believe these theories, have they not "dissappeared" us?

An OEN Editor, Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.

Let's start with the CIA.

Too many strawmen to burn in one sitting. But as far as the sanctity of the CIA... here's the CIA, as described by ex-CIA agents and officers;

"The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting "intelligence" justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence, even in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapons capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target of its lies."

-Ralph McGehee, "Deadly Deceits" frontispiece. Ocean Press, 2002.

The CIA is expected to lie, even (especially?) under oath. I assume the same parameters apply to the other "intelligence" agencies. The tone was set for this type of activity by none other than Allen Dulles during his testimony before the Warren Commission;

(From Paul Hoch's chapter in The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond, A Guide to Cover-Ups and Investigations.)

The Commission members clearly understood the worthlessness of a categorical denial from an intelligence agency. As a matter of policy, they were told, the CIA would lie to protect an informant or agent, unless otherwise instructed by the President:

REP. [HALE] BOGGS: Let's say [U-2 pilot Gary] Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?

MR. [ALLEN W.] DULLES [FORMER CIA DIRECTOR]: Yes, but he wouldn't tell.

THE CHAIRMAN [EARL WARREN]: Wouldn't tell it under oath?

MR. DULLES: I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.


MR. DULLES: He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but wouldn't tell it any other way. [sic]

MR. [JOHN J.] McCOY: Wouldn't he tell it to his own chief?

MR. DULLES: He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't ... I would tell the President of the United States anything, yes, I am under his control. He is my boss. I wouldn't necessarily tell anybody else, unless the President authorized me to do it. We had that come up at times.

Scott, Peter Dale; Hoch, Paul; Stetler, Russell. 1976. The Assassinations. New York: Vintage Books. p.137

(Does anybody reading the above statement from none other than Allen Dulles really think that intelligence assets give a shit about using their real names? Why should they care? They are authorized to lie under oath, deny that they are agents or assets, and so is their recruiter, who might not even tell his higher up that so-and-so is an asset. Judge ye not by anonymous handle. Judge by action.)

With the tone set by an agency stalwart like Dulles, Richard Helms took this advice to heart in 1977. John Stockwell describes his less than positive experience with the CIA in his book, "In Search of Enemies";

"...What about the oath of secrecy I signed when I first joined the CIA in 1964? I cannot be bound to it for four reasons: First, my oath was illegally, fraudulently obtained. My CIA recruiters lied to me about the clandestine services as they swore me in. They insisted the CIA functioned to gather intelligence. It did not kill, use drugs, or damage people's lives, they assured me. These lies were perpetuated in the following year of training courses. It was not until the disclosures of the Church and Pike Committees in 1975 that I learned the full, shocking truth about my employers...

...the congressional committees disclosed CIA activities which had previously been concealed, which I could not rationalize...

...There were other disclosures which appalled me: kinky, slightly depraved, drug/sex experiments involving unwitting Americans, who were secretly filmed by the CIA for later viewing by pseudo-scientists of the CIA's Technical Services Division.

For years I had defended the CIA to my parents and to our friends. "Take it from me, a CIA insider," I had always sworn, "the CIA simply does not assassinate or use drugs..."

But worse was to come. A few short months after the CIA's shameful performance in Vietnam, of which I was a part, I was assigned to a managerial position in the CIA's covert Angola program. Under the leadership of the CIA director we lied to Congress and to the 40 Committee, which supervised the CIA's Angola program. We entered into joint activities with South Africa. And we actively propagandized the American public, with cruel results - Americans, misguided by our agents' propaganda, went to fight in Angola in suicidal circumstances... Our secrecy was designed to keep the American people from knowing what we were doing - we fully expected an outcry should they find us out.

The CIA's oath of secrecy has been desecrated in recent years, not by authors - Philip Agee, Joe Smith, Victor Marchetti, and Frank Snepp - but by the CIA directors who led the CIA into scandalous, absurd operations...

Their cynicism about the oath, and their arrogance toward the United States' constitutional process, were exposed in 1977, when former director Richard Helms was convicted of perjury for lying to a Senate committee about an operation in Chile... After receiving a suspended sentence, Helms stood with his attorney before television cameras, while the latter gloated that Helms would wear the conviction as a "badge of honor". Helms was proud of having lied to the Senate to protect a questionable CIA operation..." - pp. 9-11, Norton hardback.

In the Turner (!) production, "Secrets of the CIA" several ex-CIA agents and assets tell it like it is;

"The CIA is a state-sponsored terrorist association... You don't look at people as human beings, they're nothing but pieces of material." - Verne Lyon, ex-CIA deep cover asset.

Mr. Leser is living proof that a sucker is born every minute.

A little more from Stockwell...

From the same book;

"...our secret little drama of Angola was played before a splashy backdrop of disclosures made by the Church Committee. The former deputy director of plans (operations), Richard Bissell, testified that feasibility studies of how to assassinate Patrice Lumumba had been made in 1961. Sid Gottlieb, the CIA chief of the Office of Technical Services had hand-carried poison to Kinshasa for the Lumumba operation. Gottlied himself testified that, years later, the CIA director, Richard Helms had ordered him to destroy all records of the tests he had run of specific poisons to be used in killing Lumumba. The CIA's Chile operation was further exposed; its relationship with the Chileans who killed General Schneider was admitted. Under intense pressure, Colby disclosed CIA control of large supplies of deadly poison gases, which President Nixon had ordered destroyed some months earlier. Director Colby also testified about the CIA's development of exotic weapons, the press was permitted to photograph Colby showing the committee an electric pistol which fired dissolving poison pellets. The agency also admitted, in a more bizarre vein, that it had conducted drug experiments on hundreds of unwitting American citizens by hiring prostitutes to lure them into apartments, feed them drugs and seduce them,so their activities could be filmed secretly for later viewing by pseudoscientists of the CIA's Office of Technical Services." pp. 172-173

The Commenters over at OpEdNews are doing a masterful job

The Commenters over at OpEdNews are doing a masterful job

Let's forget all the evidence.

This guy's not to bright is he? He hasn't done his homework or he's a gatekeeper.

The statement "All the people would have to be in on it" is an assumption. As a matter of fact he makes alot of assumptions!