Richard Blake calls the 9/11 truth movement a "pathology"

The pathology that is the 9/11 "truth" movement, Part Two

August 15, 10:13 PM · Richard Blake - Denver City Buzz Examiner

As promised, (and Heaven knows why I promised this), I have looked into the 9/11 events for the umpteenth time and looked at just about anything I could on the subject. I am finally totally burned out on the investigation and these last thoughts I will not argue again ad infinitum. If others want to do so that is their right, but really I don't see any point to it. Yes it is personally annoying to suffer personal attacks because of my opinions but it goes with the territory, especially on the internet. I just about fainted the other day when an article I had done for Associated Content actually received a rational and favorable comment.

That comment had to do with my original article on the confrontation with Jones, Malkin and myself at the Denver Mint during the Democratic Convention
That comment supported some of the common sense arguments I had cited against the Grand Conspiracy and adding an additional one. Why, YSC asked, weren't the anthrax attacks that followed 9/11 blamed on Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein and instead blamed on a middle-aged white male. YSC goes on to argue that had those attacks been blamed on Iraq they could have provided a much better pretense for the Iraqi war and had a weapons lab been planted and then "discovered" history and world opinion might well have looked on the Bush Administration quite differently. Certainly a government capable of 9/11 ought to be capable of "finding" WMDs in Iraq.

There are, of course, answers to the common sense arguments, but I have not been able to find any that do not require either a suspension of disbelief or a trip through the looking glass to paraphrase Jim Garrison.

First and perhaps most importantly I never stated that I was against an additional investigation into the 9/11 events other than they would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. I am highly skeptical that any investigation will come to any findings other than the ones reached already and would likely be a waste of time, especially if certain aspects contain to remain classified. The major reason for the redaction of parts of the original 9/11 findings, were we are told, having to do with possible involvement of parts of the Saudi Arabian Royal Family with 9/11.

Of course, it is also possible and indeed likely that there are other items that are classified and many may well have to do with good and reasonable concerns, i.e., specific information that might lead Al Qaeda to one of our agents in their ranks. As a result I hesitate to join those who might demand that the government de-classify those materials. Those demanding information from the government concerning 9/11 and Al Qaeda ought to take the time to consider that publication of their findings might result in their having blood on their hands. In fact it is entirely possible that the government or parts of the government or "unofficial" parts of the government may well have at least had some foreknowledge of the events of 9/11 and had to sit on this knowledge for fear of exposing an agent or agents or other intelligence method. Students of history may be aware that this was the case in WWII when the Allies allowed a British city to be destroyed rather than reveal to the Germans that they had cracked the enigma code.

The best case scenario for Grand Conspirators (self-pronounced "truthers") is that a new investigation would come to the conclusion that the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination years after the Warren Commission came to, i.e., that the event was a conspiracy went beyond the earlier findings. In the case of the re-investigation of the JFK assassination, Congress came to that conclusion based on audiotapes that revealed a fourth gunshot. Does anyone recall, however, indictments that resulted from that new Congressional investigation? And that is the best case scenario.

From what I can gather, according to Grand Conspiracists, the fourth gunshot in this case is arguably, WTC7, or as Jones put in it in his comment to me, how can two planes take down three buildings. The first comment I must make concerning WTC7 is that I fail to understand 1. what part of the conspiracy made it so necessary that WTC7 come down that the government would risk exposure by demolishing it without having a plane hit it, and 2. if a plane was supposed to hit it, what happened to that plane, or missile made up to look like a plane?

In fact, I saw film that clearly showed flaming debris not just falling but pouring onto the roof of WTC7. It would be interesting to know to what extent the contents of the offices at Ground Zero fuel a fire once it has reached a certain temperature. I have no trouble believing that computers and other office equipment and furniture will add both fuel and temperature to a fire that has already reached a certain temperature. Of course, no one has ever tested that hypothesis scientifically and it might be fairly expensive to attempt to replicate the exact conditions at ground zero. However, without some of these answers I don't believe we can clearly know why things happened as they did.

As far as thermite goes here are some links on that issue
Nanothermite still in the research phase.'thermitethermateclaims

Or "the dancing Mossad"

Let me make clear, however, that I am not inviting an infinite debate on either thermite, the Dancing Mossad or WTC7 or any other subject related to the controlled demolition theory. That is not to say that I am more confident that I have explanations for all of the events surrounding 9/11. It seems that the more you study the subject the more your head swims until it seems to become a conundrum much like quantum physics. Some things don't seem to make sense, but not, I believe for the same reasons that most Grand Conspiracists think.

In fact, there has been some evolution in my thinking about 9/11 but at two beliefs are unchanged. The first, that there was no controlled demolition. It now seems to me, however, that Grand Conspiracists are hurting their arguments by holding onto the controlled demolition theory. There are ways to argue that 9/11 goes deeper than the previous investigations have been willing to admit with aguments that a good deal easier to make (more about that later).

The second that, Al Qaeda did 9/11 (maybe not completely alone) but they did do it. Another of the myriad proofs of that is a Washington Post article entitled Transcript: Translation of Bin Laden's Videotaped Message,dated November 1. 2004 OBL translation of tape played on Al Jazeera in which OBL implicates himself in 9/11 attack stating he was inspired by the attack on Lebanese towers by the US and Israel in 1982 and that he had originally thought all of the 9/11 attacks needed to be accomplished in 20 minutes but because of slowness of US response an hour became available:

Interestingly on a website dedicated to debunking 9/11 Grand Conspiracy theories, I came across this link, which in the words of the immortal Charlie Sheen "call me crazy but..."
One of the more interesting entries and one that you would suspect Grand Conspiracists to allude to but for some reason they don't has to with the Safari Club, the intelligence network put together in 1976 by Saudi Arabia, Morocco, France, Egypt and Iran to fill the intelligence vacuum created when US intelligence was crippled by Watergate and its fallout including the Church and Pike Committee hearings. Interesting is that the Safari Club preferred to work with ex-CIA and so-called rogue agents rather than with the "reformed" CIA under Carter. It was alleged that a shadow CIA had been created during that time by George Bush, Sr. and Ted "the ghost" Shackley which was instrumental in the Afghan war against the Soviets.

More interesting? Claims that from 1980-1989 the CIA directly funded Maktab al Khidamat (MAK), bin Laden's charitable front group that funded Arab involvement in the Afghan war. There does seem to be a case that 9/11 might possibly be an inadvertently self-inflicted wound.

In a strict military sense the 9/11 attacks did not achieve a strategic objective and could therefore be properly labeled disastrous for the overall aims of militant Islam. Back in the 60s radicals would label such things 'adventurism.' Much earlier during his conquest of Gaul and Britain Julius Caesar would observe that the strategy of his enemy, the Celts, was not the equal of their tactics. By that Caesar meant that the Celts often fought with tactical brilliance but did not seek to consolidate their gains or have the use of their tactics forward strategic objectives, at least in terms of what is generally acknowledged strategic objectives. No territory was obtained directly or indirectly, although territory was indirectly lost.

So are the 9/11 grand conspiracists barking up the wrong tree? Is the controlled demolition debate a red herring? There is a saying that the majority of good science lies in asking the right questions. In this case, is asking whether or not the collapse of the buildings was due to controlled demolition the wrong question?

Is the controlled demolition debate a red herring to distract from the real issue which is US intelligence involvement with Al Qaeda over the years. Was bin Laden one of "our guys" to the extent that Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega (and the Sumatran Colonels and the Montagnards and Hmong tribesmen, huh, there seems to be a general pattern emerging here) were?

A quick reading of the 9/11 timeline reveals a number of startling facts, including 1. during the Watergate period the CIA was dependent on a coalition of intelligence agencies led by France and Saudi Arabia, 2. The US role in funding Al Qaeda was more direct than is commonly supposed, 3. Bin Laden was an agent of Saudi intelligence, which in turn made him an agent of US intelligence, 4. the most effective and likely powerful arm of US intelligence was and may still be an entirely off the books operation, alluded to as a shadow government.

In other words, you don't need a controlled demolition to raise questions about how deep the 9/11 conspiracy really goes. In fact, the controlled demolition debate may well be a sleight of hand red herring used to deflect the very pertinent questions concerning 9/11.

Could it be that the shadow government's relationship with Al Qaeda is (or at least was) in fact non-adversarial or worse? This would seem to answer a lot of puzzling questions and (important to me and others) not be in conflict with the idea that the passengers on Flight 93, were, in fact, heroic.

In any event, what are the odds that the absolute truth will ever be known about 9/11? What do you think? How long ago was the Kennedy assassination?

Copyright 2009 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Richard Blake is an Examiner from Denver. You can see Richard's articles at: ""

Weak argument.

"Those demanding information from the government concerning 9/11 and Al Qaeda ought to take the time to consider that publication of their findings might result in their having blood on their hands."
As opposed to all the blood on the hands of the guilty conspirators who really organized the 9/11 operation?????
This is just one issue I have with Mr Blake and I haven't even read the whole article.
His comparison with protecting the existence of "Enigma" doesn't make sense since this is well after the fact and it wouldn't be a problem to protect agents and pull them from the field, while the Enigma case was ongoing.
Besides the fact that he is willing to deny justice to all the victims of 9/11 and since on the weak assumption that some agent MAY be compromised.
Now I will read the rest of the article.

It is difficult to read the article.

You have to take a sedative before reading this.