portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

rejecting so-called "conspiracy theories" has been begging the question

Albert, Corn, and Berlet have rejected Ruppert and his allies claims that Bush was behind 9/11 based on their rejection of Ruppert, et al's argument and evidence. Well, Albert et al have no support for their rejection of Ruppert's argument and evidence. They, therefore, only beg us to share their view of the world and whine a lot if we don't.
Michael Albert, David Corn, and Chip Berlet, among others, have rejected the claims of Michael Ruppert, Stan Goff, and Michel Chossudovsky, among others, that George Bush was behind 9/11. They base their rejection on two counts. One is that they reject their argument, the other is they reject their evidence. About the argument, David Corn has claimed,

"I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skullduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd." (When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad," March 01, 2002)

Corn goes on to argue that these claims are absurd because no one in the government is capable of such a deed, "Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation." (W 9/11 CTGB)

Chip Berlet argues, in "9/11 Conspiracism and the Left" that Ruppert et al's claims depend on mistaken thinking,

"What is at issue with the more speculative allegations is the question of prior knowledge, and the logical fallacy that the sequence of events implies some causation. The government failing to heed warnings, or Bush allies reaping windfall profits after 9/11, does not prove that there was a conscious plan for the government to ignore warnings of terrorism or, as some have claimed, to actually stage the attacks as part of a U.S. government covert operation."

Michael Albert along with Stephen R. Shalom, in "Conspiracies or Institutions: 9/11 and Beyond," tried to list a number of suggested explanations for the attacks on 9/11, including the idea that the Bush people had prior knowledge and let it happen, and the idea that it was run by the CIA, and other "rogue" elements of the U.S. and other governments. About that list of suggestions, Albert remarks,

"... None of the above strike us as remotely interesting much less plausible. Neither of us would ordinarily have ever spent even five minutes exploring the above claims, because they all fly in the face of our broad understanding of how the world works." (CoI: 9/11 aB)

In sum, then, the attack on Ruppert's argument is to say it is absurd, riddled with mistaken thinking, and implausible because it flies in the face of these critic's broad understanding of "how the world works." I find it hard to accept the claim that there is something wrong with any of the arguments that Ruppert and his allies have made. The simple way to put their point is to say that we depend on government or the President or our employers to protect us from our enemies both foreign and domestic, but with this bunch they are the ones making us suffer. In support of this claim Ruppert, and others, present evidence that shows that the government had prior knowledge, but let it happen, or because Al Queda is a government asset, the attacks are best understood as being done by the government to its own people. In either case, Bush was behind 9/11. Albert and the rest have no trouble understanding what Ruppert and his allies are claiming. If his argument was so riddled with mistaken thinking, I'd think they would have real questions about what sense Ruppert was making.

This attack on the argument stands next to their attack on the evidence gathered by Ruppert, et al, to support their argument. I have heard that Chomsky's general position on the claims made by Ruppert, et al, is that he doesn't think they have any evidence to support them. In general, it seems Albert, Corn, and Berlet reject Ruppert's evidence as trivial, or distracting. Berlet argues,

"Ruppert, however, makes sweeping claims that cannot be verified at a time when there is some much verifiable wrongdoing by the government and corporations that the outcome, no matter how unintentional, is that Ruppert's allegations serve to distract from serious progressive opposition to the status quo and sometimes even discredit it." (9/11 CatL)

The issue of whether Ruppert has already verified his claims by presenting the materials in his timelines, for example, is not addressed by Berlet. One can ask the question what Bush's actions were before 9/11 and be unable to verify any speculation about them if, for example, the President refuses to allow any investigation to occur. The fact that the Bush administration is not in the forefront of a thorough investigation would seem to support Ruppert et al's claims that Bush has much to hide.

Albert tells us, in C or I: 9/11 and B, that as a conspiracy theorist, Ruppert and his allies, are guilty of going about their investigations in the wrong ways. They have a "certain general methodological approach and set of priorities." So, the problem with this is,

"Conspiracy theorists begin their quest for understanding events by looking for groups acting secretly, either outside usual institutional norms in a rogue fashion, or, at the very least to manipulate public impressions, to cast guilt on other parties, and so on. Conspiracy theorists focus on conspirators' methods, motives, and effects. Personalities, personal timetable, secret meetings, and conspirators' joint actions claim priority attention. Institutional relations drop from view."

The problem with Ruppert's dealing with conspiracies and secret behavior, according to Albert, is not so much that the evidence of such behavior does not exist, but that even if one spent the time seeking evidence of such behavior, it would not lead to lasting social change. So, Albert argues,

"For social activists, it makes sense to develop institutional theories because they uncover lasting features with ubiquitous recurring implications. On the other hand, if an event arises from a unique conjuncture of particular people who seize extrasystemic opportunities, then even though institutions undoubtedly play some role, that role may not be generalizable and an institutional theory may be impossible to construct. For a district attorney, it is sufficient to identify individual wrong-doers, but for those seeking social change it is important to go beyond particular participants. Unique events, of course, could be hugely consequential - as in the attempt to assassinate Hitler - but exploring the details of such events rarely if ever facilitates understanding society or history."

Albert, here, seems to be arguing, not that Ruppert does not have any evidence that Bush was behind 9/11, but that the kind of claims he's pursuing and the evidence he's amassing will not lead to an institutional account of society or history and won't thereby lead to making lasting changes. Of course, we should remember that what sets Albert and Chomsky off from many on the left is their theoretical baggage on just this issue. Whereas the Marxists shot the Czar because they thought that was needed to change Russia, anarchists like Chomsky think that shooting the Czar was pointless unless there were also changes in the underlying institutions that gave the czar of Russia his power in the first place. If you don't change institutions, then, according to their argument, you get the same kind of hierarchical politics as when there were czars, only called by different names. This point about institutions has always been a strong issue for Chomshy, in my mind. However, the question having to do with Ruppert, et al, is whether it is appropriate to insist that we ignore Ruppert's evidence of wrong doing because we need to also change institutions. Albert has done nothing, by my reading, to challenge the claim that Ruppert, et al, are just putting together the kind of case a District Attorney might amass against individual wrong doers. According to Albert, he has no objection to such a project. So at this point, Albert has no objection to either Ruppert's argument or his evidence.

I am struck by the claim that Ruppert, et al, are "conspiracy theorists." Berlet's article is about such theorists on the left and the right. I have been skeptical of Albert, et al's claim that the argument about Bush being behind 9/11 was a matter of conspiracy thinking because it seemed such an obvious ad hominem argument. I was supposed to recall there are conspiracy theorists on the right that rave on about Jews and the U.S. being sold out by Liberals to U.N forces riding in on black helicopters.

I have rejected these ideas because they depend on false notions that an entire people can be stereotyped, and that Jews or Liberals could be in a position to sell out the country. In fact, I've gone the other way and thought it was republicans and conservatives who might be in a better position to sell out the country because they tend to own more of it.

However, I now think it's been a mistake to reject these claims in their entirety because they share with Ruppert, et al's claims that our protector, whether the government, social institutions, or the President, is responsible for or complicit with out suffering. The mistake here has been to allow the issue of our liberal/conservative differences and views of various religions and minorities dictate for us our position on the issue of whether our protector has been harming us.

I want to step back from rejecting the stories about black helicopters and Jewish perfidity. I want to say, hey, interesting claims, if true. And then I insist that the people making these claims support their arguments with evidence. Have them account for my objections. I want to do this because I will at the same time expect the same response about Ruppert, and his allies claims about Bush being behind 9/11.

The reason Ruppert sounds absurd to Albert, Corn, Berlet, and others, is that what he says may challenge their "broad understanding of the way the world works." Well, yes, their claims do challenge the way most people think the world works. But by not more effectively dealing with the evidence that Ruppert and his allies have put forward, Albert begs us to take his view of the world over Ruppert's. Albert and his crew offers us no real reason to think Bush was not behind 9/11, despite whatever preconceptions most of us have about what Bush should have been doing.

address: address: conspiracy theories both right and left have a point

Here it is in story form 12.Oct.2002 23:26

mark twain

Our FBI spotted the plot in plenty of time. The Few got the message and figured, if they were still in

simulators, it would be a while, like months. Dubya and co. were nervous. With nothing but Enrons

unraveling to think about, and congress ready to get their air time, what to do?

T.Roosevelt had the Maine right?, so what if it was an accident.

Hey what about Lyndon Johnson? Hell he only had a radar report in a storm. Halfway around world!

George you are hot now. 70% ya right. your spin works with wwf fans.

You seek guidance from the GOP bible. n for nixon..... no wonder he got shot down.

he was backin out of the only war we had going

Russians loved him, he went to china! evil press, protestors, grand jury .

Dubya learned early ; win... Dick had a war , a real one. No Marshal Law?

Stifle the press, crush dissent, and let more 90 day wonders learn the beauty of collateral what?

George thinks, a gas crisis wouldn't be enough. He needs something Big! On the last page

Of Nixons story is a news clip from chicago. an airliner blew up while landing, killing his friends wife

who was bringing cash and evidence to save her husband and friends. A Key person.

Who in the circle could pull something off like this. Talk to Pug Winokur they say.

Remember '96 playboy bill and free economy? crooks like us couldn't steal an honest buck.

Before that all the loot Pug stole from HUD he bought himself a law to get all the assets of everyone

convicted of a crime. All the property he got, made him the biggest slumlord in America.

How can he help me? Be careful boy, Pug is ruthless. That minority Commerce Secretary

Clinton appointed didn't want to get it. He was for helping little people. Dubya chuckles..

Pug had a ton of cash, and like all crooks want to be respectable. A cherry outfit, 4.0,

employees the pick of the litter , from the military's High Tech aviation program. They

fix every complex system, handle upgrades , and do hush hush stuff. Trouble was they were a

public company. Pugs friends changed that, he threw in his cash and belched.

Ron Brown , what happened to him? Pugs outfit works on 200 kinds of planes , critical stuff

like controls, guidance, auto pilot, communications . in '96 it was 98% military.

A business junket is put together by the guy filling in for Pug while he doing enron.

Ron brown, his whole staff, 2 offshore bankers who know too much, and a technician that

Pugs friend at Tyco mentioned. They are on the same plane used by Hillary and Chelsea

the week before to visit the holyland. While getting ready to leave for the Balkins , Pugs

standin Dan Bannister who is ignorant of the plan, recieves a call and excuses himself from the trip.

On approach the plane crashed , all killed except a stewardess. Att sub. system sold out to Tyco.

Billions flowed offshore. Pug had clintons attention.

Wow George says, will he help me? Ya but it'll be a beauty. There will be so much to think about

the masses won't know nothin. And anyone that does get it, will drowned in fervor and patriotism,

and belief in their leader. Who's doing that? W asks. your double

arabs are taking flying lessons blame them.

for the wtc we need 2 transponders auto pilot will track right too it

we over ride manual control. with system developed for faa, for emergency or hijack

we can mute any audio signal

the pentagon is different. the part under construction is it we'll remote from a Lear trailing

For drama, the fourth plane, say it's heading for the white house. heroic struggle, it augers in.

We'll shoot it down in cow country. anybody see's anything ,dont mean shit.

For mass murder its effective... collateral damage

too many people saw the lear jet at the pentagon. that'll fade

cow country plow , ' we saw it shot down', swamp gas , the debris was only spread 3 miles?

Amazingly fast work to I.D. the "hijackers" none were on the passenger manifests

why the antrax.? To put the fear of God into them pesky Democrats.

While they're gone , we'll put through the "Patriot" act..

Where did you get the anthrax? Pug has anthrax smallpox everything, lots of it

How come they couldn't trace it? pug has 5 places that fix mailbags and stuff.

There's an old link to a canadian re-mail outfit .lists a. andersen dyncorp. lockeed

How come fighters were not scrambled from Andrews?

Pug's guys run the radar, all communications, fix all the airplanes off switch...G giggles

since 9-11 his outfit has complete control of andrews

And got a fat contract to care for Airforce 1 & 2 and all the planes the senators and congressmen flyin

they will think twice before crossing you junior

Ok , what did he get out of clinton besides monica's phone number?

He wanted his own army.....you are kidding... constitution ok's it if you are projecting our power.

Pug the king of bottomfeeders has lead on a shipload of agent orange. It is hazardous waste.

He has the "goods" on someone that gets him into the EPA. he gets the shit for nothing

. Makes a bundle poisoning the countryside. The EPA pays him a bundle for cleaning up

hazardous waste, and he gets paid to study the effects on people.

What about coffee and chocolate? we're assured they fly within feet of their target,

Where pug is dumping his hazardous waste, is a fertile land with many subsistence farms

some of these people shoot at Pugs helecopters , so his pilots , ex-military, fly above harms way

and the mist drifts where it will. this toxin is believed to cause genetic damage , and serious health

effects. The us sponsored government cannot get its aid, over 1 billion per year. without allowing it.

Of course pug has to spend to keep the drug war charade going. more for Pug jailing people

what about the his own army? recruits the best right out of the service.

He also has an international police force. Out of country they enjoy diplomatic immunity.

His company, pure and good when he got there. They still are the best at what they do

I would admire this man, but his greed is revolting, his lack of humanity is reason for caution,

All major media fear him. when called before a commitee to answer some questions about his

roll at enron , finance chairman. He said he was kept in the dark by his accountant, and missled

by the daily employees. the guy quizing said ok Mr. Winokur.

look at the software he controls. follow the links and judge for yourself
the most damning one from a division called dynmeridian. hazardous chemical testing
I sent it out allover and their whole site is out.



more on herbert winokur jr. 13.Oct.2002 01:45


Harvard Watch's "Trading Truth: A Report on Harvard's Enron Entanglements"
by Catherine Austin Fitts, Solari

In the movie THE PATRIOT, farmer-turned-soldier Benjamin Martin, played by Mel Gibson, develops the battle plan that wins the day. Because it is widely believed that the militia can never hold the line, Martin promises that he and his men can. The British attack at the center, are outflanked and lose the battle because the militia does the impossible --- it holds the line.

When I read the Harvard Watch's report "Trading Truth: A Report on Harvard's Enron Entanglements" I was reminded of that scene. The young men and women of Harvard Watch are holding the line if Harvard's reputation and credibility are to have a future. They are holding the line because their "elders" charged with managing Harvard's conduct have abrogated their fiduciary duties to Harvard and the wider community that Harvard was created to serve.

Harvard Watch's report is a first step in illuminating the syndicate which has hijacked the Harvard Endowment and used it and Harvard's extraordinary academic and intellectual resources for profiteering of the most corrupt and base kind. We urge the Harvard community to adopt these recommendations immediately.

As Assistant Secretary of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner in the first Bush Administration, as an investment banker to one of Harvard's HUD property management/mortgage banking companies and then as lead financial advisor to the Federal Housing Administration, I watched a pattern of inside dealing between Harvard Endowment, Harvard's Kennedy School and Harvard affiliated appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Justice, the White House and Congress. The Harvard players continuously pushed for and profited from policies that were not in the interest of the American people and the communities that HUD federal investment and mortgage insurance were supposed to serve.

Some of the policies and tactics were particularly disturbing given the role that Harvard Corporation member Herbert ("Pug") S. Winokur and DynCorp played in contracting to HUD and DOJ on the War on Drugs. DynCorp enjoys extensive contracts with the enforcement and intelligence communities. The period of Mr. Winokur's leadership at DynCorp has been a period of explosive growth of prison populations and questionable enforcement practices driven by perverse incentive systems. This included asset forfeiture and other means of organizing enforcement to generate profits for government agencies, contractors and their informants without regard for the best interests of the citizens. Indeed, the more taxpayers pay for the War on Drugs the worse narcotics trafficking gets. Harvard must disclose its investment in Mr. Winokur's partnerships and the the conflicts of interest between Harvard Endowment's profits on the War on Drugs and growth in enforcement and, hence, prison populations, and the policies that Harvard affiliated government appointees, contractors and academics are taking in support of these policies.

The potential conflicts of interest I observed in connection with Harvard activities at HUD defied any notion of reasonable internal controls in government. Harvard was providing appointees to a government agency as well as contract and advisory services. At the same time, Harvard Endowment was investing in related companies receiving substantial monies and credit from that agency while other affiliated companies were doing the regulatory and enforcement work related to those very investments are manifest. These conflicts are particularly disturbing when year after year the agency was missing billions of dollars despite being run by a large number of Harvard graduates and the Harvard Endowment's profits were growing like gangbusters.

Recently, Anne Williamson has documented Harvard's role promoting insider trading and bid rigging as financial advisor in Russia as well as the Harvard Endowment's participation in the profits of these activities. A similar pattern of inside dealing between the Endowment, the school and the Harvard affiliated appointees in government emerges. Harvard makes money. Government loses money.

And now, we have questions regarding the same patterns between the Harvard Endowment, the Kennedy School and the Administration on Enron. We sit daily while the Department of Justice and the SEC allow Enron and their auditors to shred documents, transfer assets, maintain government contracts and enjoy all the time necessary to cover the cash trail. They have failed to take any of the steps on a timely basis that DOJ takes when they want to get the cash back or illuminate what really happened. Again, Mr. Winokur's DynCorp has significant responsibilities helping to run these very enforcement operations. As Congress and the White House did with Iran Contra's S&L scandal, these groups are protecting the cash winnings for the criminal syndicates by having long hearings on what to do next time. Of course, they know the only way to stop the next time from happening is to get the cash back today and throw the bums in jail.

Rather than doing that, it appears the chairman of the Enron finance committee who created the mess is instead assisting in the "investigations". According to Associated Press tonight, "Harvard spokesman Joe Wrinn released a statement saying the university has not had the opportunity to study the report in detail. ''Mr. Winokur is a valued member of the Harvard Corporation,'' the statement said. ''We understand that he is assisting Enron investigations under way. The university is reviewing the situation for any developments that have a genuine bearing on Harvard.''

One of Harvard's finest graduates, Sam Smith, Publisher of The Progressive Review, once wrote that corruption in Washington is not a conspiracy, rather it is a culture. Mr. Wrinn's comment underscores the arrogance that Harvard's financially successful profiteering breeds.

Harvard and its endowment enjoy a tax exempt status as an educational institution. I would challenge the Harvard community to ask the question whether Harvard has become an investment network and government contractor that uses its school to give intellectual air cover to its profiteering at the expense of the country and the world. If so, the time has come for the Harvard Endowment to contribute its fair share to paying our country's out-of-pocket expenses --- including for the messes at HUD, in Russia and now at Enron--- that Harvard helped create. Why should the taxpayers underwrite the costs of Harvard messes when indeed they are also paying the cost of the very absence of sound government and a sound financial system encouraged by Harvard's behavior?

I would like to thank the young men and women of Harvard Watch. Their courage and intelligence in producing and publishing this extraordinary report is to be commended. They have shown themselves to have the kind of integrity and professionalism that is needed if Harvard is to remain a leader for reasons other than what money can buy.

Harvard Watch is holding the line.

John and Abigail Adams would be proud.

no way 13.Oct.2002 09:07


while I declined to bother reading your peice i just KNOW that it is garbage. there are no conspiracies. I believe everything I hear unless what I hear suggests that what I believe isnt so. I don't need to be bothered with such empty speculation even if you can prove it. If members of the intellegence community came out and suggested a cover-up I wouldnt belive them either.

I like the way this sand is rubbing against my cheeks and face.

nothing new under the sun 16.Oct.2002 18:01


That which is crooked can not be made straight.Since time of the first World power Babylon, Medo-Persia,Egypt,Greece,Assyria,Rome,Britania and United states They all stand for world domination, goverments that are beastlike repressive.So everything will soon come to and end just like the previous world powers faded away from the scene of this world.