Friday, September 11, 2009


Raimondo reminds readers to question the official story of 9/11. The 19 hijackers and boxcutters, etc. He revisits the Carl Cameron story, a favorite of Mike what's his name over at whatreallyhappened, and mentions the usual suspects - Israeli lobby, Israeli suspects, but Raimondo fails to mention the word Mossad in today's piece.

My first thought that day, when the plane hit the tower, was "only the CIA could do this ... an inside job." However, within a few weeks I was questioning who might the "inside" be? Yes, a foreign intel such as Mossad seemed more than feasible, believable, and that certainly seemed to be what the tinfoil crowd was pushing. But - then I gotta wonder, who are the folks behind the tinfoilers and what is their agenda in making sure the Israeli theory gets attention far and wide forever?

Raimondo says : "... those nineteen hijackers simply could not have pulled it off without outside assistance of some sort, by which I mean to say help from a foreign power acting covertly in this country."

Yes, I buy that much. Although that "foreign power" may be first generation or new citizens. Or it could be a group of homegrown disgruntled Americans who had a price that was met by foreign power.

But I have yet to see sufficient evidence which definitely links 9/11 to Israel. It could just as well have been the old KGB, Iran's MOIS, or some Middle Eastern group of billionaires living in Europe, buying influence and politicians and slowly but surely collapsing the US as we know it. Maybe it's an as yet unknown acronym from Latin America, who have joined subversive forces to bring down the Empire - Brazil, Chile, Argentine are skilled at covert activity. The international list of suspects as to insiders who done it may include folks you've never heard of, or would never guess. Hell, it may even be our old friends the foppish Brits and French - in the palaces of power you can never be 100% sure of allegiance.

Another issue for Raimondo, and many other "truthers" on the Israeli connection page, is the complexity of the attack, and how so much was missed or not caught, as if this proves whatever theory a particular "truther" is offering. Raimondo: "... Israeli agents on American soil had tracked the hijackers, as they moved amongst us, and, in addition, had launched what appeared to be a wide-ranging and quite aggressive intelligence-collection operation directed at US government offices across the country."

Attempts at intel collection from government offices is a far cry from an overt act of war (911).

I once bought into the Israeli connection, if for no other reason than it was easy to believe on the surface. Having grown weary of conspiracy all my life, it was easier to drink the current Kool-Aid. Finally, tearing myself away from gardening and grandkids, I forced myself to look closer, and most of the tinfoil is really tinfoil.

The Cameron files are here, - conveniently, not scrubbed or lost down the memory hole to eternity. The Israeli art students, mall salesmen, and high-five guys in a van by the river were broadcast within weeks of 9/11 - the Jews did it spin was a red flag that Reynolds wrap was on the roll.

In Cameron/Fox sensational reporting there is a lot of "...may well be .... ... could be used... if this, possibly that ... Israelis spying on Arabs in the US might have known in advance ... no direct evidence Israeli spies knew but suggests how could they not have known - how then could the US not have known? Isn't the FBI and a dozen other acronyms doing any surveillance?

May be, could be, what if, shoulda, coulda, woulda is not evidence. Cameron's report suggests to me more the activity of organized crime than Israeli connections to 911. It suggests Israel spying on Arab Americans, so who are Arab Americans spying on?

All agencies spy on all other agencies - friends and foes. Sad truth folks - a lot of this is explained by the simple fact that people do not do their jobs. From FBI agent slackers, to airport security, local cops not paying attention, lazy overpaid bureaucrats, incompetent desk jockeys, grownups pretending to be important while staring at bellybutton lint - the Peter Principle honed to perfection, American career masters of halfass-ism. But trust me, the rest of the world's agents are no different.

I have sat in a foreign country which was on the US shitlist and viewed classified documents, actually translating them until it dawned on me these people should not have this material and when asked how they obtained it, I was told "... we have friends in America." Those "friends" were not Jewish, not Middle Eastern. I now wonder if those "friends" are the same folks behind our pop-cult tinfoil, self-proclaimed saviors and truthsayers who have been debauching our minds for years, covertly of course.

One of the many many little details that caused me to question the "truthers" was the pretzel incident with Bush. Someone beat the crap out of the US president, and the public, both left and right shills, accepted the choked on a pretzel cover-up. I have to keep asking - who and why - those marks are not from fainting and rolling off the couch. It took place in January of 2003, just after invading Afghanistan and just before invading Iraq.

I wondered then and now if Bush balked at war on Iraq and someone let him know he was not in charge. I don't believe the asskicker was AIPAC or Jews - it was most likely a faction of the good old boys, as in Carl Oglesby's the yankee and cowboy war, whose agendas for the US encompasses all that has taken place in the last 40+ years, although I believe now the yankees and cowboys may have morphed into sold-out powers nearly unrecognizable from their originals. I know, makes me sound as tinfoil as the next guy.

Supposedly, one theory behind the Israeli link, is the attack would give Israel the war they wanted on the Middle East. For profit? For ideology? To risk having their little sliver of land blown to kingdom come? To destroy the US economically and politically? Why would Israel seek to bring about the fall of the US - who would replace the US as their best friend and benefactor? Heavy tinfoilers have a slue of theories on the whys and wherefores - the lightly tinfoiled crowd toss out fuzzy hints on the why/wherefore and you can draw your own conclusions - both crowds feed those folks who look for a goat to stake to the post.

I could just as easily form a theory that 9/11 was an act committed by Aryan/Arab intelligence and nation states with or without inside help, and inside help would not necessarily mean the foreign power in the US is Israeli - after all, according to the conspiracy crowds - the world hates us, as do a good many of our own angry homegrown political pedagogues in high places, and their followers.

It and they - could be anyone, although I have my druthers and others.


Julie said...

Actually, all the truthers I know seem to believe that it was our own home-grown secret and not-so-secret government behind the 9/11 attacks. I'm trying to remember what the weird Oklahoma connection was. Nick Berg's computer there having been used by one of the hijackers or something? You remember Nick Berg? Or was it Burg? Berg, I think. Anyway, there's tons of other stuff.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not a mihop-er, myself, but I do read their theories. I have to say that I think some of the woo may come from LaRouche. I DO think the 9/11 commission was a coverup of something. Most commissions are, of course, but I knew as soon as I saw that Lee Hamilton was appointed co-chair that a coverup of something was in progress.

Kate-A said...

Hi Julie

I too have read the theories of LIHOP or MIHOP and initially thought there was something to it - but now.... I don't think our own government would have to stage attacks - they ram everything down our throats, including war. I also think our government is not really "our" government anymore.

I remember the Berg computer email incident. Supposedly Berg on a bus gave his email and password information to an acquaintance of 9/11 accomplice Moussaoui - I never figured out why anyone wouldn't be able to set up their own generic email account - I have half-dozen addys.

I agree about Hamilton and the commission and as you say, most commissions are covering up something - although I believe the "something" to coverup is nothing more than CYA for politicians, to hide their corruption, ignorance, and incompetence - not necessarily government collusion in major events.

I think the true "insiders" do not allow politicians to be privvy on major staged events - they just send down details on how to deal with the aftermath; sent through so many channels that political figures think they came up with their own response. Sort of the way Obama's healthcare plan is not his plan - it was written by faceless, nameless staffers who are given direction by cabinet members and other advisors - who are manipulated by the "experts" who are manipulated by the true "insiders". Which is why government is a mess - no one thinks about anything anymore - they just throw a 1000 pages together from as many sources and know it can be interpreted any which way they want later on, especially since most pols will be there for life.

And sometimes I even think lone nuts do kill Kennedys. I look at all the energy wasted over decades on "solving" JFK and feel if the "insiders" did it - they certainly know how to make the peasants chase their tails to the grave, accomplishing nothing (unless you made a living off books and film about it). The same will be done with 9/11, as with JFK, RFK, MLK, MX, etc. until the day when it holds no more interest for people than Abe Lincoln and John Booth conspiracies.

Conspiracy is our bread and circuses.

Julie said...

Well, I have to say that, for me, the one big clue on the Kennedy assassinations was the Warren Commission, and who was appointed to it. You know, like the guy Kennedy had fired. That's a bad, bad sign, right from the get-go.

Can you tell that I have a thing for commissions? Never, ever, ever, ever, ever appoint politicians to investigate anything.

Julie said...

Assassination, singular, on that particular one.

Julie said...

"...I don't think our own government would have to stage attacks - they ram everything down our throats, including war...."

See, I'm not sure that was true prior to 9/11. I really do think they didn't know that we would accept so readily having anything rammed down our throats--or up our asses. The attack primed us mentally to accept it, even to enjoy it. Now, of course, they know that we'll bend over as far as we can to get f***ed. I'm thinking about the babies-being-thrown-out-of-incubators story fabricated by that lobby group--Hill, Knowlton (?), something like that. But see, they have to give us an excuse first to get us to like it. We don't swallow our medicne if it isn't coated with a pretty excuse first. But they knew that this war was going much further than the first Persian Gulf war. So they could have assumed it would take a doozy. If they planned something like that, that is. I lean towards thinking it was incompetence, myself, followed by opportunism.

Kate-A said...

Yep, incompetence and opportunism.

Even prior, we needed little excuse, most citizens aren't paying attention, or don't care, etc. We needed little to no reason to invade Grenada, Panama, first Iraq war, or Clinton into Kosovo. Afghan invaded on the lame excuse of capturing OBL.

I'm not even sure stories like the incubator babies are for us - such b.s. may be for those few members of congress who are reluctant to commit troops and money. They know it's b.s. b/c of the DC rumormill but they want an excuse for their constituents.

The government does what it wants to do, occasionally making it appear what they do is what we want - which is why we should keep government small with term limits - instead government keeps getting bigger and bigger with familial dynasties running the show.

I think it was Allen Dulles that JFK fired, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. His death was the opportunity to give us the VN war. I'm not convinced JFK would not have given us VN - he's been iconized by too many for too long. I don't want to see the same results in the Middle East. Now that we're there, we need to succeed, we need a different outcome than VN.

When I think of the 'left' these days I think of HL Mencke's phrase about those with the urge to save humanity - it's really a false-face for the urge to rule it.

Content © 2005-2020 by Kate/A.