Sun. dialog re> 9/11, Iraq, Mideast, the Neocons


Richard Moore

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:38:34 -0400
To: •••@••.•••
From: Jay Fenello
Subject: Re: Monday dialog re> Events of 9/11

Hi Richard,

Please don't let charges of anti-semitism or pressure to eliminate
Zionist references persuade you to do so. Zionism is an integral part of
the current world situation, and we'll never make any progress if we
can't discuss it.




I'm not shying away from any topics, but I do want to be sensitive to readers 
feelings as regards terminology. For Kaminski's stuff, I may need to append a 
disclaimer in some cases.


From: "Sharon Coxen" 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What did we learn about "conspiracy theories"?
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:56:38 -0700

right on Richard.  does the bottom line stop with whoever has the
biggest agenda.?  How far out of the box does it go and are  you willing
to think out of this box i.e.. agendas formed by alien societies? This a
question I ask myself daily,,,a good read is "Handbook for a New
Paradigm"  (free) at

from another seeking the big picture
Kind regards  


Dear Sharon,

I don't see a payoff for any alien society arising from Earth or how
it's managed. I'm sure there are some intriguing lines of investigation
in that regard, but I'd rather focus my attention on the perps we can
see and think about how we can dislodge them.


From: "Robert E. Reynolds"
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What did we learn about "conspiracy theories"?
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:30:46 -0400

Wolfowitz in arguing that 9-11 had an Iraqi origin made the point that
it was so well organized, planned, coordinated and so complex that only
a state could have been responsible.

By his argument than in the absence of proof of Iraqi involvement, then
on circumstantial evidence one could argue that the attack was carried
out by :

1. the CIA or ex CIA operatives in order to advance the PNAC agenda.

2. the Mossad in order to bind closer the Bush administration to the war
on terror and to use the US as a surrogate for other MiddleEast
adventures in Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

3. State employed fundamentalists such as the Pakistan security services
and the Saudi security services.

4. The Bush Administration hard liners and neocons working to provide
the Pearl Harbor called for by the PNAC plan.

5.  Some combination of the above.

There is some evidence to support all of those theories.

The establishment has created a meme involving the term "conspiracy
theory" that brings to mind "crazy people with crazy explanations", just
as they have made Liberal a dirty word.

But conspiracies do exist.  We pay the CIA a minimum of $30 billion a
year just to dream up and carry out conspiracies.  To scoff at
"conspiracy theories" is to deny that the overthrow of the Iranian,
Guatemalen, and Chilian govenments ever happened.

Conspiracy theory becomes a way for the establishment through the media
to discredit any investigation of "real conspiracies".  Its a neat

enjoy your commentary. 


Dear Robert,

Thanks for your comments. You listed some possible hypotheses. That's
the first step when you are trying to solve a crime. The next step is to
evaluate the hypotheses in light of the evidence. When you take into
account the air-defense shutdown, and if you cannot accept the jet-fuel
theory for the three towers, then we are led to the conclusion that the
White House was actively involved in the operation. When you take into
account their written hope for a new Pearl Harbor, and their follow-on
behavior, you've got a much stronger case than is needed to convict your
average criminal in a court of law. The equivalent would be a known
criminal who boasted he was going to rob a bank, whose car was seen
leaving the scene of the crime, and who then went around town spending
loads of cash.

Once you home in on the White House as the perp, then the other players
can only be playing a support role. Mossad would be a very likely choice
to assist in the operation, as that would reduce the number of US
intelligence people who would need to be "in the know".  And
considerable direct evidence has come to light that points to Mossad
participation. Pakistani Intelligence seems also to have been involved,
but that involvement seems to be limited to the recruitment and support
of the hijacker patsy's.


From: "Brian Hill"
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: More WTC evidence...
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:31:12 -0700

it doesn't take a weatherman to know two planes could not raze the
towers alone.


Dear Brian,

Indeed.  When I first saw the collapse on TV I saw right away that it
looked like a standard demolition. And then as the evidence has come in
it has all confirmed that impression, particularly the collapse of the
third tower.


From: Bill Blum
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:16:55 EDT
Subject: Re: More WTC evidence...
To: •••@••.•••


If bombs were being installed during this power down, it appears that
many, maybe hundreds, of people were in on the "secret".  That's no way
to run a conspiracy.



Dear Bill,

As Einstein said, "Keep things as simple as possible, but no simpler." 
An operation of that scale did require quite a few people to be
involved, some wittingly and some unwittingly. But just because the
operation was a challenging one does not mean we should dismiss the
evidence available to us. There's no other explanation that comes even
close to fitting all the facts. In your books you document many
conspiracies (wars and interventions) that involved even more people,
and which never saw the light of day on the mainstream media, at least
not until years later.

We need to take into account the highly-evolved security state, with its
many mechanisms of enforcing secrecy, beginning with the media and going
all the way down to controlling individual participants. And then there's also
the fact that the American public seems willing to swallow almost any story,
and actively resists looking at evidence of any kind of conspiracy. That 
considerably reduces the risk from any potential leaks.

best regards,

From: "Matthias Gockel"
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: More WTC evidence...
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Authenticated: #10600252
X-Flags: 0001


to say that in this article "we learn ... how they installed the
explosives in the three towers" is far-fetched.

Statements like this are easily used to discredit the important
questions that Thorn's article raises.

In another article, by yourself, you indicate the larger picture in
which we should place the occupation of Iraq. Do you think an Israeli
government would not realize the high risk that the US plans mean for
Israel? Would they not try to stay out of such a conflict? Or would they
willingly risk being (counter-)attacked by nuclear weapons? It IS a
small country, after all.

Any comments or insights would be appreciated.

Thanks and regards,


Dear Matthias,

I don't understand why you find my observation about planting the
explosives far-fetched. Explosives are the only explanation that fits
the facts of the three collapse events, and I've seen several other reports
besides that one about eyewitnesses (including Firemen) hearing multiple
explosions in the building on the day. In order to install the explosives
in such a secure building you would need to arrange something
very much like the reported power down, and you'd want to do it just
before the operation so that the charges wouldn't be discovered by
maintenance people. What's far fetched?

As regards the Israeli attitude toward US plans, I think the evidence is
more compelling than theory. Theoretically, one might expect Israel to
try to live in peace with its neighbors and with its own inhabitants.
But that's not how Israel has ever behaved, going all the way back to
the way the state of Israel was founded. They have quite clearly adopted
the strategy of depending on their formidable world-class military to
protect them from the consequences of their aggressive behavior. Like
Bush, they are thinking in terms of final solutions to long-standing 


Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:09:24 +0800
To: •••@••.•••
From: Betty Daly-King <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: More WTC evidence...


As well as many unanswered questions there are questions that are not
being asked.  Such as - USA has had technology, "global hawk",  since
the 1970s designed for taking back control by remote ground control any
planes that have been hi-jacked.

The idea that USAF would get planes in the air, presumably for a
dog-fight over New York City - is ridiculous. But why was the ground
control not used to reclaim those hi-jacked planes??  [If the technology
was not already being used to hijack and direct the planes into WTC by
USAF intelligence - or other agencies - that is.]



Dear Betty,

Global Hawk has been there all along, but there hasn't before been much
reason to use it. For planes which are merely off course, the
practice of scrambling interceptors has sufficed. The interceptors wag
their wings, get the pilots attention, and are able to get the planes
back on course. In the case of hijackings, of which there are very few
domestically, the airline pilots are usually the ones who do the flying
(with a gun at their head, so to speak) and they are usually instructed
to fly to some airport. Little need for Global Hawk in that case either.

With 9/11, there was very good reason to make use of Global Hawk. It
would have been folly to trust the operation to amateur pilots, and the
military pilots you'd want to use would not be enthusiastic about a
suicide mission. I agree with you that the failure to use Global Hawk to
prevent the incident cries out for answers. But there are many equally
important questions that aren't being asked. That's what you expect when
a cover-up is going on.

As regards use of the interceptors in this case, there wouldn't have
been any question of a dog fight - airliners don't have weapons systems
on board. And if the airliners needed to be shot down, that could have
been done long before they were over Manhattan. There was plenty of lead
time, had there not been a stand down.


From: "Chris Shaw"
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: RE: What is Washington's Middle East strategy? Is it working?
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:26:20 -0700

Your analysis could well be right.

Lately, I've found myself sliding into the notion that the neocons
simply reached too far too fast and thereby screwed up; the thing that
makes me nervous is what you note, namely that some of the mainstream
press is saying the same thing.  The reason, however, I'm still
optimistic that it is indeed the unraveling of the empire is this: I've
been traveling a lot in the US, listen to people talk, and can't really
find much support for this war no matter what.  I even have a  relative
now in Iraq with the Army and she is anti-war.  All of this could
change, of course, but I'm not sure that the generations who remember
Vietnam will be so easily swayed.

Christopher A. Shaw, Ph.D
Associate Professor
Research Pavilion
Vancouver, British Columbia


Dear Chris,

Your observations about lack of public support are probably correct. But
what does that matter? The Vietnam War went on for many years after most
of the public had turned against it and the streets were filled with
frequent protests. And if the public does start getting out of hand, the
Patriot Act is there to silence them or lock them up.

The takeover by the neocons, by means of 9/11, can be compared to the
crossing of the Rubicon by Julius Caesar. Far from marking the collapse
of empire, that marked the beginning of empire. It was centuries later
that the collapse occurred.

I do agree that the excesses of the neocons could provide the impetus for 
change from below, but will not come automatically or easily.


From: David Creighton
To: •••@••.•••
CC: Armand Cote <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What is Washington's Middle East strategy? Is it working?

We agree with most of your analysis Richard, but the way things are
going in these "democracies"--where political mouthpieces must face
periodic "reelection"--they may be displaced by "more moderate"
spokespeople. Politics--and war--are not simple sciences whose outcomes
are always certain. Does this mean that Blair-Bush-Martin will need
further 'Pearl Harbor events' to keep their electorates in line? I
think some serious betting on such eventualities is in order, n'est-ce

Keep up the great work (and read/listen to more of Eckhart Tolle: "The
Flowering of Human Consciousness" and "Even the Sun Must Die"

David Creighton


Dear David,

I'm sure there will be more Pearl Harbor events. There were already the
anthrax attacks, traced to a US Government laboratory, and there are all
the silly terrorist alerts that are called to keep people on edge. For my
money, the train explosions in Spain were a neocon operation designed
(with considerable success) to align EU leadership with the War on


Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:20:32 +0200
From: Bob Ocegueda 
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What is Washington's Middle East strategy? Is it working?

Hi Richard,

    rkm> Let's take a look at developments in Iraq, within the context of
      overall US strategy. I want to do this because I've been disappointed in
      most of the analysis I've seen. Most are distracted by the trees and
      miss the forest. What I mean by "trees" are all the perceived setbacks:
      the high casualties being experienced by Coalition forces, the
      widespread uprising of the Iraqi people, the failure to find (...)

I think you are right.  The chaos being manufactured presently is what
they call "revolutionary times".

In the late 1930s, David Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in
normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the
opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not
carried out - a whole world is lost."

However, it is possible that the Bush administration may be substituted
by a Kerry one, which I realize is not much different in the overall
goals, but is there a group with in that faction of the elite that can
be as sharply identified as the Neocons?



Dear Bob,

The Neocons are not the elite. They are a group of policy advocates who
operate politically within the think-tank / national-security community.
They were selected for power because they were able to articulate an
agenda that appealed, for the time being, to the dominant elite
community.  Whether Kerry or Bush next gets to be President depends
entirely on the timing of elite planning. If they want to push
aggressively on with their conquests,  they'll leave Bush in. If they
want to pause a few years, consolidate, and get Star Wars debugged, then
they might give Kerry a spell at the helm. Maybe bring Cheney in after
that to resume the offensive. Kerry's election would go a long ways
toward defusing dissent.  And he could repudiate Bush's policies and
promise the moon, while all the while "doing what needs to be done" in
Iraq and elsewhere. Don't forget that more Iraqis died under Clinton
(from the long sanctions) than have been killed in the current (much
shorter) conflict. I'd say the Neocons are identifiable, and they are
expendable. As long as their agenda, and its timing, match higher
agendas, then they are useful.

My guess however is that Kerry will not be the next President. It will
be either Bush or one of the Neocons. The reason I don't just say Bush
is that one scenario is for him to be assassinated in a "terrorist"
incident that rallies everyone to the flag and ensures a right-wing
victory for whoever they put forward as Bush's political heir. They'd
rid themselves of the village idiot and ensure their continued power at
the same time.

I believe a Rubicon has been crossed, and there will be no going back to
the other shore. 9/11 was an opening of the flood gates, the pulling out
of all stops, the final "No more Mister Nice Guy".  The War on Terror is
not something you can put on hold for four years. It's a campaign that
has been engaged and which is expensive, and it must be pursued
aggressively. While the media focuses on Iraq, there are volcanoes
bubbling all over the globe. Anti-American sentiment is growing
throughout the Arab world as the realities of the American "liberation"
come out in all their graphic detail.  Instability is likely to emerge
as public sentiment rises against puppet regimes. Tensions are high
between Israel and the Arab world even without that additional
instability. Pakistan and Afghanistan are seething, and China and Russia
have established bases to stalemate the bases Washington has built near
their borders.  There are guerilla wars in Latin America and also rising
regional resistance to globalization at a mainstream political level.
The world is a powder keg. And while US forces may seem overstretched in
Iraq, the US still has a huge fleet of nuclear submarines and arrays of
strategic missiles with which it can respond to any major threat or
opportunity. I don't see a slow down in the offing.

Thank you for the Ben-Gurion quote. It captures poetically a very
important insight. Indeed, nearly every revolution historically has
"lost a whole world" of opportunity. The American Revolution had a very
strong and locally-rooted democratic spirit, but the revolution was
subverted by the wealthy commercial interests who were more interested
in imperial expansion than in democracy. A world was lost. In the
Russian Revolution, the subverters were the Bolsheviks, and in Eastern
Europe it was the German-funded political parties. Cuba seems to have
done the best in this regard, in terms of realizing as much as possible
under very difficult circumstances.

When we imagine revolution, and think about building a new world, the
critical point to ponder is the moment of victory. Who or what is in
charge at that moment? How are they going to establish order and how
will decisions be made? For those are the seeds of the new system. From
there the oak tree grows. If we want a democratic new world, then the
movement that enables that world must itself be democratic. And
democracy can only exist and persist when it is community based - face
to face between people who know one another. If we don't want to "lose a
world", then we need to create that world in the process of enabling
it's survival.

all the best,

From: Tony O'Reiley
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: 'Interesting times'.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:41:45 +0100

Hi Richard, 

just read the piece. 


Worrying of course, but brilliant.

And yesterday's too is brilliant.

Must take them both home and read again (and again). The important thing
is 'what will we do?'

It's either do something or just sit back and wait for Armageddon.

Take care....



Greetings Tony, how's the bank holiday treating you down in Cork? 

Yes, the perennial question, "What do we do?". You and I have talked
about that a lot. Somehow getting people in a community to come together
in dialog. It's easy enough to get the usual suspects, the activists, to
a gathering, but that doesn't lead us toward transformation.
Transformation is not so much about the 'what' as it is the 'who'. It's
having everyone involved that allows it to be a transformation. What can
motivate people generally to take the time and devote the energy to a
kind of dialog which is foreign to the dominant consumer-media-
entertainment-hyper society?  Particularly in Ireland, "Who can be
bothered"?  The masses are deluged with multiple opiates.

* We can try an experiment... who out there in subscriber land would show
up if we had a dialog event somewhere on the East Coast (USA)? It'd
probably cost a few hundred to cover costs at a retreat center. There
would need to be non-refundable deposits for obvious reasons. We aren't
a real community, but we're quite a cross-section and people seem to be
articulate and well-informed - and / or open to learning. Could be

all the best,

From: Susie Jenkin
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: RE: "Interesting times"  question
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:38:53 -1000

Dear Richard,

    rkm> In a desperate search for new expansion realms, Africa is being
      subjected to genocidal interventionist programs, and we can expect a
      final colonization episode (Europeans fleeing their immanent ice age?)
      as the African natives are cleared out, like the aboriginal inhabitants
      of North America and Australia before them.

Would you go into this in more detail?  (Not the ice age stuff).

Would be interested in hearing your views.


Dear Susie,

Nice to hear from you. Africa never really escaped from colonialism.
Looting and exploitation continued after the old colonial empires were
broken up. Covert interventions, coups, and civil wars have been imposed
on them from the outside in order to gain control of this and that
resource. With the advent of IMF structural-adjustment diktats,
economies have been destroyed along with social cohesion and hope. The
CIA trains death squad terrorists and everyone sells weapons to all sides.
Old tribal rivalries are easy to stir up in such times, and the
"international community" is busy elsewhere as genocide, famine, and
disease continue apace. And there's AIDS. By itself enough to decimate
the population. It's origins are in question. We do know that for the
ten years prior to the outbreak of the novel affliction, there was an
ongoing secret research project to develop an organism that would
disable the human immune system. And we know that AIDS broke out all of
a sudden in communities soon after they participated in Federal
inoculation programs.

you asked,


If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
( or try out our low-traffic, moderated email 
list by sending a message to:

Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland
    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
      Reichstag fire."  
      - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:
Informative links: