Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Boxcutters visas should have been denied, copies of some

Boxcutters visas should have been denied, copies of some

Joel Mowbray on 9/11 Visa Applications on National Review Online

amazing evidence we never saw on TV or in major newspapers...

whats sickening is, where are the woodwards and bernsteins ... when you think of it now, what they uncovered was really what?--some paranoid, hunch shouldered prez who broke into a hotel to see how badly he was gonna win his re-election?

and now the worst thing ever hoisted on our lands and we ostrich every single time :+clueless
Michael Springman Interview

Michael Springman Interview

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Transcript of CBC (Canada) Interview with Michael Springman, [/FONT][FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Former State Department Official In The US Visa Bureau, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: How many people would you estimate that got into the United States that shouldn't have through this back door? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: Well, in my case I would say as many as 100. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: And when you questioned them, what would they say were their reasons for expecting to get a visa with such slight credentials? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: There was one instance of two Pakistanis who came to me, and they wanted to got to an American auto parts trade show. They couldn't name the show, and they couldn't name the city in which it was going to be held. And then the case officer came over and called me on the phone, and said, "Give them a visa". I said "No, it doesn't wash". "Well, we need it, I'm sorry." Then he went to the head of the consular section and got me overruled, and they got their visas. But when I complained to the powers in the consulate, and the people in Riyadh, I was told to keep quiet, that there was reasons for doing this, that it wasn't a case of my poor judgment, it was this and it was that. This simply fueled my suspicions that something untoward was going on. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: Was there ever any pattern to these applicants that you could see? To their situations, their skills, their nationalities? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: They seemed to basically people with no real skills. Their nationalities for the most part were Pakistani, Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese. They were young, in their 20s and their 30s say, and they seemed to have no ties to any place in particular. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: Where did Afghanistan seem to fit into this whole pattern? Because it seems they were going to the US to collect or be rewarded for some past deed, or to be trained for another. Where did Afghanistan fit in? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: Afghanistan was the end user of their facilities. My sources told me that they were coming to the United States for training as terrorists, and they would be sent back to Afghanistan. But then the countries that had originally had supplied them certainly didn't want them back. These were people that had been given skills in overthrowing governments, destroying armored columns and things like this, and the various governments in the region frankly didn't want them back, because they thought they might apply these skills at home. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: So if your theory is true, you can demonstrate a relationship between the CIA and Osama bin Laden dating back as far as 1987. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: That's right. And as you recall, they believe that this fellow Sheikh Abdel Rahman over in New York that was tied to the first Trade Center bombing, had gotten his visa from a CIA case officer in the Sudan. And that 15 or so of the people who came from Saudi Arabia to participate in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon had gotten their visas through the American consular general at Jeddah. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: Well what does that suggest? That this pipeline was never rolled up, that it is still operating? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: Exactly. I had thought it had been, because I had raised sufficient hell that I thought they had done it. I had complained to the embassy in Riyadh, I had complained to the diplomatic security in Washington, I had complained to the General Accounting Office, I had complained to the State Department Inspector General's office, and I had complained to the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the State Department. Apparently the reverberations from this where heard all over the State Department. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: And if what you say may be true, many of the terrorists who allegedly flew those planes into those targets got their US visas through the CIA and your US consulate in Jeddah. That suggests an relationship ongoing as recently as September [2001]. What was the CIA presumably recruiting these people for, as recently as September 11th? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: That I don't know. That's one of the things that I tried to find out through a series of Freedom of Information Act requests starting 10 years ago. And at the time, the State Department and the CIA stonewalled my requests; they are still doing so. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: If the CIA had a relationship with the people responsible for September 11, are you suggesting that they are in some way complicit? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: Even through omission or failure to act. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: Do you have any evidence, any paperwork from all of these years that might go towards supporting all of this? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: Regrettably not. I had something at some point. My predecessor in Jeddah had begun a file of people with peculiar attributes who got had got visas. I kept it up, I added to it. I learned later on after I had left, that this file had been mysteriously been shredded. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: But you complained, and you complained and you complained, but what eventually happened to you? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: My appointment in the State Department was terminated, and I was never given a coherent statement why. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: You will above all will appreciate that conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen these days with regard to September 11th, what makes yours different or any more credible than the others? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: I have floated around the international affairs community for the past 20 years. I was in the middle of this in Jeddah; I knew people in the foreign service, I knew people out of it, I knew people in the CIA. I had at one time great respect for the CIA, but this operation in Jeddah was so peculiar, so strange, and it went against anything I had ever seen or heard in my 20 years in government, that I thought that what these people were telling me about CIA involvement with Osama, and with Afghanistan had to be true because nothing else would fit. By the attempts to cover me up and shut me down, this convinced me more and more that this was not a pipe-dream, this was not a machination, this was not a conspiracy theory. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: But when you take the events of 1987, when visas were being issued to people unqualified for them, and suggest that happened again to the same people responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington: that's a quantum leap. How do you justify that? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: For all I know, and for all we know, this might not have been the intended consequence. It could have been a mistake, it could have been a misjudgment. Or for all that we know, it could have been an effort to get the US directly involved in some fashion. I mean it's only a few thousand dead, and what's this against the greater gain in the Middle East. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]CBC: But you're quite sure that Mohammed Atta and others had their visas issued in Jeddah? [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Helvetica]Springman: This is what I was told by reading an article in the Los Angeles Times. [/FONT]
NORAD in nutshell

NORAD in nutshell

<!-- Begin #main -->
Thursday, March 27, 2008

<!-- Begin .post -->The 9/11 Stand Down in 2 Minutes

NORAD, responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S., has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes less than 15 minutes

They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000 and and 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.
Yet, on September 11th, they failed to do their job 4 times in a single day:
You might think that the military couldn't find the hijacked planes because the hijackers turned off the transponders. However, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

As a former senior air force colonel said: Norad's stand down on 9/11 was so blatant that Norad has been forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version has been exposed as false. When someone repeatedly changes his testimony after being caught in lies, how believable is he? The falsity of Norad's explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

In addition, Dick Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon -- one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world -- and yet ordered that the airplane not be intercepted (confirmed here). Given that Cheney was in charge of all of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks on 9/11 -- apparently including Norad (see this Department of State announcement, this CNN article, and this essay) -- Cheney's orders regarding flight 77 seem to be part and parcel of the Norad stand down.

<!-- End .post --><!-- Begin #comments -->2 Comments:

<DL id=comments-block><DT class=comment-poster id=c4940653520983535707>
A. Magnus Publius said... <DD class=comment-body>If Americans cherished in any way the heritage their forefathers they would have long ago pursued justice for the victims of 9/11 among their own leaders.

Remember how Admiral Kimmel was court martialled after Pearl Harbor despite the fact that the Roosevelt White House knew the attack was coming a week prior but neglected to inform his command.

Notice how General Richard Meyers - in command of NORAD on 9/11 wasn't court martialled but was actually promoted to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If that doesn't raise some serious red flags in a patriot's mind, nothing will.
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

mr dime, since those aren't real planes, what happened to the real planes? and the real people?
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

roscoe, my good man, that was already asked and i replied, plus there is a link talking in depth about the very subject on a radio archive, listen and learn some facts ... This is def. a MJs tactic of having me chase my tail ... why dont you reply to some of the many other things ... have a great sunday :houra

ps I'm taking it you believe planes and buildings 100% behave in this manner and that debris should not have been found at Shanksville and the Pentagon? i mean, titanium engines do melt, right? :+clueless
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

:bank: Flight 77 Debris

Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

Aftermath: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn ? proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

? Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ?
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Wow, cutting and pasting from the internet. If it's on the internet it must be true. How many articles can be pulled rebutting everything you cut and pasted? You truthers are kooks.
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

thats great, roscoe, believe what you need to feel safe, same with you texan ...

its scary to really open your mind and actually delve , the ugly truth you might find is terrifying, but staying in the dark to me is much worse ...

im not here to change peoples minds that refuse to investigate on their own ... fwiw, roscoe, that piece of "evidence" has been offered like a white elephant gift by official story mavens, its about as relevant as the PM drivel ... do you know that the only engine they found at the pentagon didnt even belong to a 757? how does one explain that ...

have you even checked into the flight paths that gov. released? they dont add up, no scorch marks on the grass, 5 light poles knocked down, 2 planes never even left the airport that day according to the NTSB; call them, jeff hill just did and they admitted they did not take off ...

anyhow, theres a lot of info out there, and even contradictory due to cointelpro (but thats another kettle of trout), and if you choose to say its all been debunked thats your perogative, but make sure you at least look into what you insist has been ruled out.

have a good day
dimedr :)
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

فارسي عربي 中文 Fran?ais Espa?ol T?rk?e Today: Thursday April 10, 2008
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Nations to establish independent new world order - Ahmadinejad

Tehran, April 4, IRNA javascript:history.back();
Stressing that era for the US Government to consider itself the owner of the entire world is over, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here, "Resorting to countless capabilities, world nations would establish an independent new world order, if hegemonic powers would keep on exerting pressure over them." President Ahmadinejad made the comment in an interview with Japan's Kyodo news agency, adding, "Today is beginning of an era for the domineering of the world nations who will soon impose their will, like many governments that are fed up with the status quo of the unjust international relations and willing to alter them, and this is an event that would definitely take place."

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran pointed out that the oppressive powers of the world had assumed they could isolate the Iranian nation, but the reverse has happened today, since Iran enjoys excellent and friendly ties with most world nations based on mutual respect.

President Ahmadinejad further reiterated, "On the contrary, the US government is suffering from having achieved the worst international status today. They had assumed if they would sit at the UN Security Council and decide over a matter it would be done for sure, while they had better realize if such decisions remain unheeded it means that they need to harmonize with world nations."

He added, "It is to their own benefit to do so, since otherwise they would be fully isolated in the long run."

Ahmadinejad added, "Today no nation, including the Japanese nation, likes the politicians of the oppressive powers, such as the US president, and I can assure you that even the Americans do not like their own president."

IRI HAS APPROPRIATE SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENT WORLD PROBLEMS President Ahmadinejad said that Iran is a big power standing by the side of the world nations today, stressing, "The Islamic Republic of Iran has appropriate solutions based on justice and respecting the nobility of human beings and nations for the current world problems."

He announced Tehran's readiness for sharing viewpoints aimed at solving acute world problems, stressing, "Global security and economy, discrimination, occupation, massacre of world nations and broad violation of human rights in Western countries are important issues that can be put to discussion."

The IRI President pointed out that keeping in mind that the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) last report on Iran proved that the entire ambiguities on Iran's nuclear program have been resolved, negotiation over the matter is absolutely meaningless today.

He added, "We are interested in holding dialogues over issues of mutual interest, within certain frameworks and at effective level so that results could be achieved of the invested time, energy and money, and of course we have good proposals for holding such dialogue, too." Ahmadinejad referred to the point that the Islamic Republic of Iran has mastered the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes today, adding, "In order to hold a new round of talks, the level of negotiations, their framework, and their subject needs to be defined in advance, in accordance with the new conditions."



What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Thursday, April 10, 2008

<!-- Begin .post -->If We Don't Learn Our History, We're Doomed to Repeat It

Everyone has heard the saying "if we don't learn our history, we're doomed to repeat it".

Let's see if history can teach us anything about 9/11:
  • <ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?>I</ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?><ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?><ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?>t is widely accepted that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland </ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?></ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?>
  • <ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?><ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?>It has now been persuasively argued ? as shown, for example, in this History Channel video ? that Nazis set fire to their own government building and blamed that fire on others (if you have trouble playing the clip, it is because the website hosting the clip requires you to download the clip before playing it). The fire was the event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties </ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?></ALIGN=?JUSTIFY?>
  • Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings
  • Famous leaders have stated again and again that false flag terror is the name of the game:

  • U.S. President James Madison said: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

  • Adolph Hitler said: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".

  • Nazi leader Hermann Goering said:
    "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country".​
  • Josef Stalin said:
    "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened"
Given the above-described history offalse flag terror, it is beyond dispute that we must carefully scrutinize what really happened on 9/11, and that we cannot take the government's word for it.
George Washington's Blog: If We Don't Learn Our History, We're Doomed to Repeat It
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

love it, scrimmage, posted much of that, one at a time, at other site and the neocon/langleys would chime in and say it was made up or i wasnt a patriot or say it had nothing to do with 9/11 ... isnt that right, roscoe?

another of my faves that seldom gets mentioned is the panama dececption, tho not technically a "false flag" it was all but as the USA went in and murdered hundreds of innocent civilians to fine tune their impending gulf war toys ... there was a highly awarded doc of same name ... not permitted (on the hush) to be played on america TV the last 14 years or so ... it only won an Oscar for best doc, so i guess it was garbage ... bush 41 orchestrated a lot of what happened in that country prior to and during the slaughtering of helpless children and women (one gruesome scene shows an entire family transformed into little more than oatmeal, melted--by high-tech lasers?--inside their car in a poor part of town; up the road a couple miles the nice part of town was left untouched) ... again, of course, the sheep and neocons never mention this event nor try to defend it ... murder, plain and simple

roscoe? comments?

just found the film online, a must watch for anyone who seeks the truth ...

The Panama Deception (1992)

?The Panama Deception?: The Untold Story of the December 1989 U.S. Invasion of Panama

This Oscar winning documentary uncovers the hidden reasons for the attack. The film examines how the Bush-Cheney-Powell team used Panama to prepare for the future Iraq invasions.

On December 19, 1989, U.S. troops invaded Panama with the stated purpose of ousting the man the media loved to hate, General Manuel Noriega.

Noriega was once a close ally to Washington and was once on the CIA payroll. After 1986, Noriega?s relationship with Washington took a turn for the worse. The Irancontra scandal forced three of his closest U.S. ties to leave the government. U.S. foreign policy quickly shifted against and Noriega went from friend to foe.

During the attack, the U.S. unleashed a force of 24,000 troops equipped with highly sophisticated weaponry and aircraft against a country with an army smaller than the New York City Police Department.

But the mainstream media failed to uncover the hidden reasons for this internationally condemned attack.

?The Panama Deception? provides analysis of U.S. relations with Panama and a devastating critique of the mainstream media and its complicity with the official government line.

Produced and directed by Barbara Trent, ?The Panama Deception? was banned in Panama but it won an Oscar here in 1992 for Best Documentary as well as numerous other awards.
Last edited:
help me think thru this guys

help me think thru this guys

ok, gang, we are all familar with
the comical "5 frames" at the pentagon ...

not as many of you might be hip
with atta's pic at the airport; not even right airport--its portland,
maine's--but what the hey, why let details spoil the neocons'

but as i thought this thru late tonight,
i started chuckling ... i mean, with all this high tech surveillance,
which is supposed to catch perps at the 7/Eleven or Chase
Manhattan or airports, this is what 9/11 comes down to: no clear
pics of the bad guys ... so i started thinking, always a bad thing
i know, hehe

but here is atta in 2001
(sorry its so big, but thats how it came) and above
him is an 1880 daugerotype ... which one is clearer???

Last edited:
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Blaming some conspiracy within our government for the horrific attacks of September 11 mars the memories of all those lost on that day. There were errors and missteps in our government's response, to be sure, but the performance of our public servants was on the whole heroic, not destructive. For their service--for their lives--we are indebted, and we are obliged to pay our debts to those who sacrificed. To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11 insults the police officers and firefighters who raced into the burning towers; the men and women who left for dangerous, distant lands to fight our enemies; and those who have fought in all the wars of our history.
Any explanation for the tragedy of September 11 must start and end with the facts. The evidence, the data, the facts must be gathered, compiled, analyzed, and then--only then--can conclusions be drawn as to what happened. That is precisely what the various investigators have done, and in so doing they have performed a great service to our nation. And yet still the conspiracy theorists peddle their wares.
They ignore the methods of science, the protocols of investigation, and the dictates of logic. The conspiracy theorists chase any bit of information, no matter how flimsy, and use it to fit their preordained conclusions. They ascribe to the government, or to some secretive group, powers wholly out of proportion to what the evidence suggests. And they ignore the facts that are present in plain sight.
We cannot let these tales go unanswered. The 9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It traffics in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans.
The conspiracy theories are a distraction from the proper lessons of 9/11, from what is truly important to this country. And so it is imperative to confront them with the facts. The authors of this book, through their extensive reporting, disprove these tales of conspiracy. They show that, without exception, the stories are based on misconceptions, distortions, and outright lies. The CIA was not involved in 9/11. Our military did not bring about the destruction of the World Trade Center. Bombs or missiles did not fell the towers. A white jet aircraft did not shoot down Flight 93.
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

the only conspiracy, the only preposterous story that unfolded on 9/11 (several USA military trained boxcutters fly jets they have never trained on into targets veteran pilots said they themselves wouldnt have be able to hit, and these 19 boxcutters boarded without benefit of a airline ticket), lies within the neocons and factions of a psycopathic government ... to not delve deeply into their plot would be a disgrace to all those who were murdered that day ....

please show examples where the official lies hold up and not talk in sweeping/preaching generalities about how investigating and research mars the fallen (using your own thoughts at times wouldnt hurt either)... I know damn well if one of my loved ones was killed i would look into until my own dying days ....

nothing adds up about that day, and that is why so many open minded citizens are seeing the truth in growing numbers day after day ... once you wake up, you aint going back to their lies
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Blaming some conspiracy within our government for the horrific attacks of September 11 mars the memories of all those lost on that day.
This is always one of my favorite arguments. PLEASE explain to me how trying to find the truth of that day and what REALLY happened mars the memory of those who were killed. I guess all those family members of people who died are marring their memory? You are aware of THAT LARGE GROUP AREN'T YOU? The families who are suing. Get your head out of the sand.



What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Blaming some conspiracy within our government for the horrific attacks of September 11 mars the memories of all those lost on that day. There were errors and missteps in our government's response, to be sure, but the performance of our public servants was on the whole heroic, not destructive. For their service--for their lives--we are indebted, and we are obliged to pay our debts to those who sacrificed. To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11 insults the police officers and firefighters who raced into the burning towers; the men and women who left for dangerous, distant lands to fight our enemies; and those who have fought in all the wars of our history.
Any explanation for the tragedy of September 11 must start and end with the facts. The evidence, the data, the facts must be gathered, compiled, analyzed, and then--only then--can conclusions be drawn as to what happened. That is precisely what the various investigators have done, and in so doing they have performed a great service to our nation. And yet still the conspiracy theorists peddle their wares.
They ignore the methods of science, the protocols of investigation, and the dictates of logic. The conspiracy theorists chase any bit of information, no matter how flimsy, and use it to fit their preordained conclusions. They ascribe to the government, or to some secretive group, powers wholly out of proportion to what the evidence suggests. And they ignore the facts that are present in plain sight.
We cannot let these tales go unanswered. The 9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It traffics in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans.

You neglected to cite the source of these words since it could be thought by a reader that they are your own original material.
Your post is in fact from the forward by John McCain to a Popular Mechanics
book titled "Debunking the 9/11 Myths"[pictured above with the David Ray Griffin authored response to it,in which he expertly dismantles Popular Mechanics arguements ].
Quoting some vague,patriotic boilerplate from John McCain doesn't bolster the arguement in favor of those believing in the the governments "official" story much at all.

Here's the link to the source of your post Roscoe,which you failed to provide:
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Introduction to PM Expanded Investigation - Popular Mechanics

Here's some thoughts on John McCain and the Popular Mechanics book from this commentary:

Refuting the lie, a response to Popular Mechanics: debunking 9/11 myths
By Craig Schlanger
Online Journal Contributing Writer

However, for the ultimate grand slam, Popular Mechanics (and by association Hearst Publishing) chose to enlist the literary talent of America?s ?maverick? Senator John McCain for the book?s forward.

Senator McCain tows an extremely Orwellian line, reminding readers that Americans were attacked for their freedoms on 9/11 and that the evidence of al Qaeda?s central role in the attacks is ?overwhelming.? (p. xii) The senator explains that over the years many Americans have had trouble accepting such historical occurrences as the ?surprise? attack on Pearl Harbor or the murder of a president by a lone gunman in a book depository.

Certainly Senator McCain knows better, and I would imagine he has access to the same declassified documents that I do, which prove both claims to be incorrect. But before plucking the reader from the rabbit hole, McCain goes for the grand slam by claiming that anyone who questions the official 9/11 narrative is directly insulting all who tragically perished on that day, as well as ?those who have fought in all the wars in our history.? (p. xiv) The suggestion here clearly is that any questioning of the government?s official line is treasonous....

....It?s important to note from the start that this book is not meant to debunk anything. Its? main purpose is to craft a mindset where anyone who questions the official 9/11 story likely spends their weekends at Roswell. This is a psychological attack on those who dare question their government?s account of a most tragic day in our history; it?s a return fire in an ongoing information war. The purpose is not to answer pressing questions. Instead, the writers choose the path of assassinating the character of anyone who dares ask such questions. Additionally, the book plants a seed in the mind of the reader that all 9/11 Truth seekers agree on every ?myth? discussed. To reinforce this, the editors focus on major strawman arguments that I will discuss briefly.

source of above,and to read the rest
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

its amusing, scrimmage and agent, as you guys both know, these OSS always accuse researchers of cutting and pasting but they cant debate anything in their own words, mostly bc they havent spent the time looking into facts and formulating cogent thoughts on the topic ... its always the same vitriolic pablum spewed to cover the neocons' lies ...

i guess after all this time is i wonder how long they will go on cloaking the truth from joe public (i mean could they ever admit to possibly being duped even if more damning evidence was shown: i.e., the pentagon cameras revealed no 757?) ... bc, in affect, they do the murderer's bidding by carrying the toxic torch of their master's incongruous mythology ...

i am fascinated by the mindset such as Roscoe's (and they insist we are the insane :) )... either he is Langley, or he has never questioned authority in his life ... the former tats him a villian, and the later condemns him something Woolite could spruce up ...

either way he is caught in a quicksand of deceit ...

ps i think mccain would turn iraq and the middle east into a 100 years war if given the opp.:doh1
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-173>[174]</SUP>
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication


one question, a simple one, maybe you could answer yourself ...

why would the most powerful man in the world continue reading a 2nd grade book upside down for 20 minutes after it was revealed his country, he was sworn to protect, was being attacked? every single protocol called for him to be whisked out of that room and prepare to make plans to defend his people ... why would he endanger himself and children? i mean he flew in a jet for nearly half a day ducking danger soon after? just a couple thoughts on the topic would be nice :)
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

The story...

Bush didn't leave the school he was visiting in Florida until around 30 minutes after the second plane crash. Why didn't the security service evacuate him? Does this mean they knew he was in no danger?

Our take...

We're constantly told that no, 9/11 wouldn't have required a lot of people to pull off, compartmentalisation and the "need to know" would have limited those with inside knowledge. And yet claims such as this keep adding more people to the list. Because plainly, you couldn't simply have one or two security service personnel knowing he wouldn't be attacked: it would have to be all, to avoid confusion and people speaking out. And enough of the hierarchy for them not to be disciplined about it later.

If this were true, then the conspirators have now got another large group of people who, if any of them were to go public, could blow the whole story. Because it doesn't matter what else they know, simply saying that they knew Bush was safe would be a serious leak. And the gain to the conspirators of letting these people know is what, exactly? How does giving the security service advance knowledge of the attack, then letting them behave in what's claimed to be an unrealistic way, help the conspiracy at all?

Yes, that's okay, we know, people are just "asking questions". So let's suggest an answer. Where were the security service to take him? How did they know that the attackers might not be relying on Bush being moved? Perhaps there was a truck bomb waiting for Bush to be moved to the airport. Maybe there was an ambush planned there. What if Air Force One was the target? The Security Service staff at the school with Bush did not have an overview of what was going on, and as Bush was in an area that was secure on the ground, at least, then surely it's reasonable to take time to consider where Bush should go next. And take guidance from someone who was in the loop, back at the White House.

Those who suggest this wouldn't be reasonable at all point to Cheney as one possible example:
Meanwhile, Secret Service agents burst into Vice President Cheney?s White House office. They carried him under his arms?nearly lifting him off the ground?and propelled him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel toward an underground bunker. Accounts of when this happened vary greatly, from 9:06 [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01] to after 9:30. [CBS, 9/11/02, Washington Post, 1/27/02] Cheney?s own account is vague and contradictory. [Meet the Press, 9/16/01] The one eyewitness account, by White House photographer David Bohrer, said it happened just after 9:00. [ABC, 9/14/02 (B)] It?s easy to see why the White House would have wanted this event placed at a later time (after Bush?s initial statement to the nation rather than after the second crash) to avoid the obvious question: if Cheney was immediately evacuated, why wasn?t Bush?
However, this isn't a good comparison at all. Cheney was in the White House, and was moved to another part of, uh, the White House. There's no way this could expose him to risk, which isn't something you could say about moving Bush.

Of course the problem with discussing this, is most of those involved have no real idea what they're talking about. I'm a Brit: even if you like what I do on this site, why should you trust my guesses about US security service procedure? And much the same applies for those on the other side of the argument. Unless they have an in-depth knowledge of situations like this, why should you take their opinions as fact?

So let's forget our opinions, then, and look at an account of how this was seen on that day. It's the one Richard Clarke gave us in his book Against All Enemies, and while brief, it's still interesting:
The television screen in the upper left was running CNN on mute. Noticing the President coming on, Lisa turned on the volume and the crisis conference halted to listen. "...into the World Trade Centre in an apparent attack on our country."

During the pause, I noticed that Brian Stafford, Director of the Secret Service, was now in the room. He pulled me aside. "We gotta get him out of there to somplace safe... and secret. I've stashed FLOTUS". FLOTUS was White House speak for Mrs Bush, First Lady of the United States, now in a heavily guarded, unmarked building in Washington...

"Can you work with Brian", I told [Franklin] Miller. "Figure out where to move the President? He can't come back here until we know what the shit is happening."..."

Page 6
Against All Enemies
Richard A Clarke
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication


once i picked myself off the floor and wiped my eyes, i am still waiting for you to answer something in your own words ... why cant you do that? are you capable of thinking for yourself? oh thats right, you are not bc you believe everything the neocons have stuffed down your gullet since you were born ...

secondly, why would they subject the kids to danger, that isnt addressed ... i work with kids and their saftety always supercedes everything ...

see, your article doesnt face this basic question and now you are handcuffed bc someone else isnt thinking for you ... maybe you can research and cut and paste another acceptable thought from someone else's mind
the steve obrien file

the steve obrien file

Pentagon Tries to Explain the C-130<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
?To be called a liar and a part of a government conspiracy kind of affected me too, because it just scares you a little bit that there might be some kooky people out there that might want to do harm to you or your family because they feel you?re part of some government conspiracy?<o:p></o:p>
? Steve O?Brien ? MN Public Radio 5/31/04
Steve O?Brien claimed he was flying the C-130 on 9/11
Was the Pentagon truthful with us?
No. Only after they were starting to look like more of a liar than usual, did they back down and admit to the presence of the C-130 over the Pentagon. This was probably from the adamant insistence of eyewitnesses that wouldn?t succumb to the government debriefings. It took them over a month to announce the retraction on Oct 17, 2001. And of course, there was a good story to accompany the report. Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman, made the following statement: <o:p></o:p>
A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington at an unusual angle? Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane ?to let us know where it?s going,? McClellan said. The C-130 pilot ?followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,? he said. ?He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball.?<SUP>199</SUP> [Emphasis added]<o:p></o:p>
Was Steve O?Brien truthful with us?

After Lt. Col. Steve O?Brien, was exposed, he and the government attempted to downplay and spin the incident ? they even made him one of their witnesses! The Pentagon?s story was that the C-130 cargo plane had been piloted by, Lt. Col. Steve O?Brien of the Minnesota Air National Guard. He and his crew just left Andrews Air Force Base (13 miles from the Pentagon), and were heading back to Minneapolis-St. Paul after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. Here are some excepts from his statement:<o:p></o:p>
?When we took off [About 9:30 a.m.], we headed north and west ? I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o?clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That?s awful close, so I was surprised he wasn?t calling out to us. ? O?Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. ?They told us to turn and follow that aircraft ? ?The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge? Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon. ?I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn?t a good idea to be flying through that plume. He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land.<SUP>209</SUP>
Are we to believe that after two (soon to be three) terrorist attacks spanning from an hour earlier, a Lt. Colonel wouldn?t have the foggiest idea what was going on? What about a flight briefing before a pilot takes off? What about the FAA grounding issued 5 minutes before his taking off? What about the warnings from the Dulles air traffic controllers? And, how was he flying in the middle of the historical FAA order? They were landing almost 5,000 aircraft on the North American continent. Isn?t it remarkable that only he didn?t know what was going on? Perhaps, the lie that he was to tell depended on showing he was ignorant. One of the elements of this belated tale, like Donald ?Tim? Timmerman?s report, was to reinforce the still weak link between the Pentagon?s debris-less crash site and Flight 77. <o:p></o:p>
But the mystery perseveres?
The journey continues to Pennsylvania!<o:p></o:p>
Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O?Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field. ?I hoped it was just a tire fire or something, but when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he?d just lost a guy off the scope?<SUP>209</SUP> <o:p></o:p>
Imagine, his C-130 was at the location of two attacks ? the Pentagon and Shanksville! <o:p></o:p>
Did the ?October surprise? lead to another surprise?

Yet, Steve O?Brien put it best, ??and there was another surprise ?? the story turned up on the Internet as part of a conspiracy theory maintaining that no plane hit the Pentagon.? Yes, and there was very good reason for that, thanks to the unbelievable statements like his ? which only were fabricated because the government was caught with its ?pants pulled down?.
The reality was ? eyewitnesses tracked his plane flying directly above a low-flying airliner and guiding it to the Pentagon. It was seen circling above the Pentagon before the airliner allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. Also at Shanksville, the C-130 was there circling before the shoot down occurred. So unless everyone else is a liar? And what he was really doing there can only be left up to the imagination?<SUP><o:p></o:p></SUP>
the iraqi murder numbers

the iraqi murder numbers

British-Iraqi survey confirms one million deaths as a result of US invasion

By David Walsh
1 February 2008

[SIZE=-1]Use this version to print[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] | Send this link by email | Email the author[/SIZE]
Even as the Bush administration, virtually unchallenged by the Democrats or any significant voices in the media, claims ?success? in Iraq and makes clear its intention to establish permanent bases there, further polling data has emerged that underscores the dimension of the US war crimes in that country.

The British polling agency ORB (Opinion Research Business) issued survey results January 28 that confirm its earlier estimate that more than one million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the American-led invasion and occupation. The British agency carried out the work in association with its Iraqi research partner, the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies (IIACSS).

In September 2007 ORB made public its finding that an estimated 1.2 million violent deaths had taken place in Iraq since March 2003. The agency commented at the time that US-occupied Iraq had ?a murder rate that now exceeds the Rwanda genocide from 1994 (800,000 murdered),? with another one million wounded and millions more driven from their homes into exile, either internal or foreign.

The American media, true to form, essentially took no notice of the report, despite ORB?s indisputable pedigree?the firm has conducted polls for Britain?s Conservative Party and the BBC. The Democratic Party presidential candidates also ignored it. Neither the White House nor the Pentagon felt obliged to comment on the research.

The ORB findings vindicated the study published in the Lancet, the British medical journal, in October 2006, which put the Iraqi death toll then at approximately 655,000.

As a co-author of the Lancet study, Les Roberts, wrote in an email to MediaLens in response to the ORB survey?s publication in September, ?The poll is 14 months later with deaths escalating over time. That alone accounts for most of the difference [between the October 2006 Lancet paper and the ORB poll].? Roberts noted that the Lancet and ORB studies ?seem very much to align.?

In its January 28 press release, ORB commented that ?further survey work? had confirmed its earlier estimate of more than 1 million Iraqi deaths ?as a result of the conflict which started in 2003.?

The agency referred to presumably critical or skeptical ?responses? to its earlier work, which was based on surveys undertaken primarily in urban settings, and explained, ?We have conducted almost 600 additional interviews in rural communities. By and large the results are in line with the ?urban results? and we now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been of the order of 1,033,000. If one takes into account the margin of error associated with survey data of this nature then the estimated range is between 946,000 and 1,120,000.?
The results were culled from face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of 2,414 Iraqi adults aged 18 and over (with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent). Those surveyed were asked: ?How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e., as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof??
Among those answering the question, some 20.2 percent reported at least one death in their household as a result of the US invasion and occupation. Within those households, the average number of deaths was 1.26 people. The last complete Iraq census in 1997 reported a total of 4,050,597 households. The polling firm thus came up with the figure of approximately one million deaths since March 2003.

The ORB-IIACSS team found that more than 40 percent of Baghdad households had lost a family member, higher than in any other area of Iraq. Among those willing to declare their doctrine (about 50 percent of the respondents preferred to describe themselves simply as Muslims), Sunni households were more likely to have known a victim or victims of the conflict (33 percent); the corresponding figure among Shias was 16 percent.


EOG Dedicated
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

fuk face broke the banks broke the borders and broke the country with his war ,the crawford texas butcher aka f u c k face.
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Why the Hell Do People Believe 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

<!-- begin digg --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> digg_url = ''; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><IFRAME src="" frameBorder=0 width=52 scrolling=no height=80></IFRAME>
<!-- end digg -->What the hell is wrong with people? An occasional Esquire investigation into conspiracy theory-loving loonies.

By Bill Bradley</BY> [more from this author]
<!--end article_header--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=471><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD><!-- RSS Feeds for different Channels --><TD>
</TD><!-- End RSS Feeds for different Channels --><TD>
<!-- buzz --><STYLE>* html #es_buzz {margin: 0px 0px 22px 1px;} #yahooBuzzBadge-form span{background: url(/cm/esquire/imagesv01/virals/yahoo-buzz-logo.gif) no-repeat!important;width:129px!important; height: 26px!important;}#yahooBuzzBadge-form {float: left; margin: -2px 0 0 -65px; padding: 0 0 10px 10px; width:129px!important;} @media screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio:0){#yahooBuzzBadge-form {margin: 0 0 10px -10px;}} </STYLE><SCRIPT src="" badgetype="logo" showbranding="false" ____yb="1">esquire145:</SCRIPT>
<!-- buzz -->

<!--end viral_container-->
Felix Sockwell

<!--end image_container-->
Flaw: People believe in totally ludicrous conspiracy theories.
Explanation by Robert A. Goldberg, author of Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America
If you ever read any conspiracy theories, they?re these police-blotter kinds of things. Conspiracy theories take circumstantial evidence and make it hard data -- to give clarity to ambiguity in a time of crisis. Rumor, hearsay, gaps in logic and evidence are used under the premise of conspiracy to prove what the theorists already believed.
Americans buy into them because they assign responsibility. They allow us to point the finger at specific individuals and explain why they did something, how they did something, and, in that secret knowledge, they are arming believers with the ability to respond and mobilize. Conspiracy theories are ultimately about finding purpose and meaning.
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication


since you ducked my last question, how bout this ...

if two people conspire to hold up an 7/Eleven is that a conspiracy? are they nuts or does it just not happen in your eyes because more than one person decided to do something?

you amuse me thinking the USA never comspired to commit murder in a foreign land; now all theyve done is bring it home and realize the sheep could not handle the truth and that wool will lie for them, so they adore your type.
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication


From JFK to 9/11: Why People Believe in Conspiracies
by Dennis Prager

Posted: 06/12/2007

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=120 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=lefttoolbox>
</TD><TD class=righttoolbox>Print This</TD></TR><TR><TD class=lefttoolbox>
</TD><TD class=righttoolbox>Forward</TD></TR><TR><TD class=lefttoolbox>
</TD><TD class=righttoolbox>Feedback</TD></TR><TR><TD class=lefttoolbox>
</TD><TD class=righttoolbox>Digg This!</TD></TR><TR><TD class=lefttoolbox>
</TD><TD class=righttoolbox>Subscribe</TD></TR><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-FAMILY: verdana" align=middle colSpan=2>Sponsored By:</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle colSpan=2>
<NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><!-- vc active -->
<!-- end article header -->Vincent Bugliosi's remarkable 20-year work on who killed John F. Kennedy has just been published. Containing about a million and a half words and thousands of footnotes, "Reclaiming History" is probably the most detailed examination of one moment in time ever written. It reconfirms that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing the American president.

As one who never doubted the original U.S. government report that Oswald acted alone, I am deeply grateful to Bugliosi for the service he has rendered our country. But I also regret that he had to.

Why did he have to? Because it was necessary to definitively refute all those who believe, despite bipartisan government reports and excellent books such as Gerald Posner's "Case Closed," that there was some conspiracy to kill President Kennedy and that Oswald was not the only shooter.
<HR SIZE=1>​
Sponsored Links:
  • <!-- VC active --><SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!--// ValueParametersValueHost = "hs0004493";ValueLoaded = false;ValueID = "pagebuster";ValueVersion = "1.2";ValueBannerType = "std";var ValueWidths_Heights = new Array("5x5");ValueNoText = 1;ValueBannerSizeOrder = "listed";//--></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=Javascript src=""></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!--if (ValueLoaded) ValueShowAd();if (ValueLoaded) ValueShowAd();if (ValueLoaded) ValueShowAd();if (ValueLoaded) ValueShowAd();if (ValueLoaded) ValueShowAd();//--></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=""></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=""></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=""></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=""></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=""></SCRIPT><LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: 12pt; PADDING-TOP: 5px">Huge Profits from ETFs in 5 Easy Steps <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: 12pt; PADDING-TOP: 5px">Barack Obama Exposed! A Human Events Special Report <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: 12pt; PADDING-TOP: 5px">Get Ann Coulter's Outrageous New Book...Yours FREE!
  • BRIC Investor Report: Brazil, Russia, India & China stocks
    <!-- vc active -->

<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 300px; HEIGHT: 250px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="" frameBorder=0 scrolling=no allowTransparency>
</IFRAME><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><!-- END: Powered By: -->


There is not a shred of evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy, but that is entirely irrelevant to those who choose to believe that there was one. The lack of evidence only reinforces their belief that a conspiracy has been hidden.

One would think that someone would have come forward in the last 44 years to tell the world about the conspiracy. He or she would become a major figure in history, not to mention the likelihood of becoming very wealthy. But somehow, despite the fact that the government can rarely hide for months even what it wishes to hide, both Democratic and Republican administrations acting in cooperation with each other have hidden these facts.

As Bugliosi pointed out to me, it would in fact have had to be a double conspiracy -- first, the plot to assassinate, and then the plot by a much larger group, including many honorable people involved in the investigation, to cover up the original conspiracy.

Likewise, given the vast amount of planning and implementation -- and the large number of people -- that would have been involved in arranging the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center towers and part of the Pentagon, not one person has come forward -- not one American or foreigner, not one leftist or rightist -- to reveal a U.S. government plot to murder thousands of Americans and bring down two of the tallest buildings in the world.

Why, then, do people believe in these and other conspiracies? (Of course, there are known conspiracies -- Osama bin Laden and others conspired in the 9/11 plot -- but there are no successful hidden conspiracies. I cannot think of one in my lifetime.) There are at least six major reasons:

1. Many people find it impossible to believe that a few utterly unimpressive individuals can do so much damage. Lee Harvey Oswald, a man who can best be described as simply a loser, could change history all by himself? It doesn't seem to make sense.

2. Many people want to blame those they loathe for as much of what they do not like as possible. Just about everyone who believes in hidden conspiracies attributes those conspiracies to those they hate. People who hate President George W. Bush blame him and his administration for 9/11. Egyptians who hate Israel have blamed AIDS on Israeli prostitutes. Indeed, attributing to Jews hidden conspiracies -- the "world Jewish conspiracy," the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- is the oldest and most common belief in a hidden conspiracy.

3. One should never underestimate the power of boredom -- and the subsequent yearning for excitement -- to affect people's thinking and behavior. Belief in a hidden conspiracy is far more exciting than accepting prosaic truths. Figuring out the "mystery" of who killed JFK is a much bigger thrill than accepting that one jerk was responsible. Deciphering who was "really" responsible for 9/11 is a lot more interesting than accepting that 19 Arabs with box cutters did it.

4. People who feel powerless over their own lives are far more likely to believe that some invisible force controls their fate than people who believe that they are the masters of their lives.

5. There is, apparently, a great yearning among many people to believe that there is hidden knowledge and that they have access to it. It makes them feel special, perhaps even superior to the rest of us who do not have access to this hidden knowledge.

6. In Western societies, it appears that secular people are more likely to believe in hidden conspiracies than the more religious. It may be that the religious already believe in an invisible power that governs the universe -- God -- and therefore seem to have much less of a psychological or emotional need to believe in invisible powers on earth.

Whichever reason or reasons apply, the bottom line about those who believe in hidden conspiracies is this: They choose to believe in them. Their psyche, their emotions, and/or their political agenda bring them to their belief in a hidden conspiracy. Never the facts.

<HR>Mr. Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness is a Serious
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

hey marine, hows it going :) maybe you can whine to jack and he can do something

glad to see you are once again doing the old ad hominem and cant address any of the on topic concepts
Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

watch this experiment, guys. :)

hey, roscoe, did osama bin laden orchestrate 9/11?

he wont even answer yes or no.