8/25/2022: The pot is still percolating --per:
(There's either an opening commercial
or a delay when you land on the above links. The content is drawn out and
deliberate (scholarly and responsible) but it will draw you in anyway.
This is an excellent summary of the events of 9/11 --written around the challenge: "surely, someone would have talked by now --if 9/11 was an insider conspiracy". For just the audio, go here. To download that MP3 to your MP3 player or smart phone, let the audio start, click on pause ( || ) to stop it, then right click on the go button ( > ) and select "Save As" (which works on a lot of web pages with an MP3 player). (There's also a "Download the MP3" button, which might get blocked.)
6/29/2022: ** Surely --most everyone on the upper half of the bell curves, especially our leadership and opinion makers, knew --and early on, what the ugly score was on 9/11. They either shut that awareness out, or personally decided that neither half of the bell curves could handle it --that our social/political fabric would suffer an unmendable rend.
But speaking of rends, 9/11 led us into the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Gitmo, a discredited series of administrations, a thoroughly corrupted #2 political party, and then there's the frosting on our cake: Trump & Company.
* Could the truth about 9/11 have been worse? Disclosure
would, of course, be worse now --but would it be worse than what's yet
to come? --I honestly don't know.
4/6/2022: Same tune here (as per the below), 5th verse. Our "ship of state" will be lucky enough to survive (re: our developing brinkmanship with pariah Russia, the right wing's assault on democracy, climate change, population pressure on resources, etc.) --even without a new round of "revelations" --of what's been obvious all along --about the events of 9/11/2001. However, for those of us just now suspecting/twigging to the worst --and needing a reality/sanity check, there's plenty of that on and linked from this web page. Try this oldie: a Los Angeles Times interview of Professor David Ray Griffin by Mark Ehrman from 2005. (It's been my perception that Griffin often doesn't interview well, but this one went fine (and IMO, you can take what scholar Griffin has to say to the bank).
7/3/2022: Richard Gage, former CEO of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, tells us that their YouTube pages have been taken down 3 times. Here is one that's still up --an amateurish production out of Australia, but Gage speaks well. (Lost his train of thought at one point and there were only 5 views over the 3 days it had been up.) See here for an old interview with the Washington Journal show.
10/11/2021: I went out into Duckduckgo and Google land, looking for some budding awareness. I found David Spero --who's also been searching for honest brokers of the 9/11 evidence and witness --at:
9/19/2021: Perhaps 40% of the people and nearly everyone in the Republican Party have shown themselves to be immune --to reality, to the tragedy, and to the stain on our nation --left by the marching idiots of January 6th, during their attempted murderous coup. That makes me think there's little chance of popularly addressing events that occurred 20 years ago on 9/11. If we could, it would likely serve to fuel the flames of the imaginary Trump/GOP world. If our democratic republic survives the current perilous years (Afghanistan, Covid, global warming) --then, after the actors of 2001 have passed, a reality based account of 9/11 will gradually, quietly take its scholarly place in our nation's history.
** "It isn't the crime, it's the cover-up". As gut-wrenching as were the events of 9/11, the 20 years of near silence from academia is arguably a greater indictment of our American culture. Except for David Ray Griffin and a few precious others, today's scholars are laying low --and for cause. (That link is in grateful thanks to Dr. David Hughes and Peter B. Collins --who comes out of retirement on occasion to help identify the many wrongs and cover-ups of our society. More about this outing at: [link].
I'll leave this page up for what little comfort it might be to those of us who can see --what's so obvious in those old 9/11/2001 news clips (demolition, whatever might have been the means and perpetrators), but I'll otherwise be soft peddling 9/11 awareness. The truth of it is rather crazy-making, even for rational aware people, and we don't need any more crazies. Many good people, even some of my close, intelligent friends, are still not ready to consider the obvious. They simply won't and they can't --"go there". January 6th has been enough for them --for now.
* Other attempts to address the truth of it are being made. Try "Duck-Duck-Go" or "Bing" on "9/11 + demolition" (which seems to yield more returns than Googling at this writing). Limit your search to the past month or year.
* I think political lefties/progressives shy away from "9/11 Truth" because some old moss-back conservatives got there first (along with their other conspiracy theories about Jews and the "deep state"). Progressives hold their noses and back away.
* Progressive PODcaster Peter B. Collins' (now retired) made an honest and informed presentation. of his take on the events of 9/11.
* Some of the fire fighting authorities of New York were finally calling for a grand jury investigation of the 9/11 events, citing convincing evidence that explosives had been previously planted in the demolished buildings. This should have lead to a break-through (Link).
* Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth made presentations to Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa. Among those contacted was Bill de Blasio --the Mayor of New York. The good news: he gave the A&E representative (Jack Bucklin) good engagement and a warm reception --but: he claimed that it was the first he'd heard of AE911 Truth. (---Good ---gosh.)
* Here's a 2019 link to a fresh A&E remix of original 9/11/2001 news clips and commentary --much of it new to me. When I first saw similar clips (many of which had ended up as "out-takes" on the mainstream media's editing room floor), I thought for sure some of the footage was made-up stuff --but not now. Please do run these clips to ground (if you like) and verify that they're original news segments.
* Also in 2019: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
lodged a lawsuit against the FBI for their lack of due diligence in making
all the evidence surrounding the events of 9/11/2001 publicly available.
The 9/11 truth community was pleasantly surprised when the publication
"Courthouse News" picked up on this story and did a straight-up journalistic
job of reportage. However, the day after, this story was not just killed,
it was "disappeared" --without trace or explanation. Did CN's editor get
a threatening phone call?
In 2014: Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, was finally been able to address the issues of 9/11 at length on a mainstream media outlet: C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Go to:
In 2017: Bless him --David Ray Griffin brought out yet another book on the events and history surrounding 9/11/2001: "Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World". This is his 12th scholarly book and the first since his 2011 title: 9/11 - Ten Years Later. Aside from his cogent review of all the tragedies that 9/11 has since spawned, Griffin reminds us of clues which penetrate the embarrassingly transparent lies of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
* If the dam of silence breaks during living memory of 9/11, a large portion of the population is going to feel dreadfully alienated and crestfallen --for having been taken in for so many years --oblivious to the obvious (or in degrees of knowing silence/complicity). The value of this video link (and see below) isn't in Peter Ketcham's past employment at and collegial respect for NIST. Although that makes his 15 year slumber more understandable, it's in his blinking bewilderment at having been blind and deaf to the facts for so long. That's something others might relate to --sort of a lifeline to those who are still adrift on the Official Conspiracy Theory.
* Even investigative journalist Bill Moyers and an iconoclast like Christopher Hitchens have based their comments on the staple "facts" of the WTC towers' destruction having been solely due to Osama bin Laden's hijack crew. ("Building 7" is seldom brought up.)
* Thom Hartmann allowed a 9/11 truth call to his show on the morning of 12/23/2016, followed by an Official Conspiracy Theory backer, who debunked the "idiot" first caller. In-between, Hartmann pretty much cited a chapter and verse defense of the Official Conspiracy Theory, leaning heavily on the "blacksmith video" meme.
I can't imagine that Hartmann lives in a bubble on this issue. He's too intelligent and well informed to be duped and too principled to simply be bought off (IMHO). I try to imagine that his going with the flow on 9/11 (minus a few trimmings concerning Saudi complicity, Iraq and such) --has been a thought out compromise. Had he publicly sided with the obvious realities of the matter, Hartmann's voice would have surely been marginalized. I expect that, upon the eventual denouement of 9/11 (should we all live long enough), he'll come clean as to why he had to play ball with the establishment.
* There are exceptions, of course.
PODcaster Peter B. Collins (now retired) was not only realistic about the
events of 9/11, he's been a well read/informed and sensitive talk show
host with a great voice.
* We'll finally pass a point (2051?) at which historians
find the political environment safe enough to overtly question the Official
Conspiracy Theory. We're seeing admissions that Pearl Harbor appears to
have been anticipated. There are heresies in high places about the JFK
assassination and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. There must be hundreds
of "leading intellectuals" who privately know the truth (at least in their
bones) --and are not looking forward to the day when they have to
own up to their silence.
There's that simple and honest enough: "I don't want to go there" response to 9/11, and I can understand it --from a decent and sensitive person. Anything but the Official Conspiracy Theory (du jour) might be waaay outside of a person's comfort zone. However, if you do have the courage to open your eyes, to look, to see and to remember, I think the following video links --pretty much say it all:
This is the best (IMO) --or nearly the best version of "Loose Change/The Final Cut". (The rap music got moved to background the trailer credits).
A 5 minute summary of the events of 911 --from the Corbett Report (backup links).
Best WTC-7 short video.
Mr. Chandler's high school physics analysis.
Commentary by Gore Vidal.
And here's a video narrated by ex NIST employee Peter Ketcham, who broke ranks from his fellows:
Ketcham is in reference to an article that appeared in the previous (2016) issue of Europhysics News: "15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses", to which he responded with a letter-to-the-editor, to be found on page #43 of this issue. That letter was sandwiched between a NIST supportive letter from an engineer in Uruguay and an effective it-won't-happen-again unsigned apology from the editors of Europhysics News. In part: "It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC buildings. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views. In the future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other related publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles." (Sounds like bully dictated stenography to me.)
Interestingly, and from the above issue's lead editorial: "The publication of a controversial article on the 9/11 collapse of the World Trade Center buildings in our last issue of EPN has generated so much interest and so many downloads that the host server broke down for a short time. A first-time experience for our journal. Some reaction comments are published in the present issue. This shows how vivid this dramatic event remains in our collective memory but also how quickly the scientific community and the media can critically react in such a case. And this is a good thing."
Quickly? Eight years after the NIST study? Was that deliberate sarcasm?
After that paragraph, European Physical Society President Christophe Rossel launches right into: "This brings me to the important issue of science denial, ---", and proceeds to go on at length about climate change --but I feel that Rossel made another (plausibly unintentional) point as well.
* And then there's the announcement: "EPN Science Editor, Prof. Jo Hermans of Leiden University will leave this position on January 1st 2017".
* Another EPN announcement: "The European Physical Society is pleased to announce that Rüdiger Voss has been elected as the next EPS President-elect. He will take up office as the President of EPS in April 2017, when the term of the current President, Christophe Rossel comes to an end. R. Voss was elected during the Extraordinary Council meeting of the EPS held on 14 October 2016 at the EPS Secretariat in Mulhouse."
* As "15 Years--" lead author Prof. Steven Jones experienced, 9/11 Truth can be professionally costly. He was a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University.
* Follow this
link (or read this PDF) for yet more fall-out
from the EPN article "15 Years Later--".
* In his book: 9/11 - Ten Years Later (page 54), Dr. David Ray Griffin sums up the Official Conspiracy Theory in one long sentence (echoed by Corbett's 5 minute video):
"Inexperienced Muslim hijackers, armed only with knives
and box cutters, took control of four airliners, then outfoxed the world's
most sophisticated air defense system, then used two of these airliners
to bring three skyscrapers down (indeed, straight down, in virtual free
fall), and then, almost an hour later --when the US air defense system
would have been on highest alert-- flew a third one, undetected, from the
midwest back to Washington DC, where --thanks to heroic piloting by a man
who had never before flown an airliner and who was, according to the New
York Times, known as a "terrible pilot", incapable of safely flying
even a tiny plane-- this third airliner went through an extremely difficult
trajectory (even too difficult for themselves, said some experienced airline
pilots) in order to strike the first floor of the Pentagon --surely the
most well protected building on the planet-- without scraping the Pentagon
* You well know how much this matters.
Millions of people have been and are being maimed, displaced or killed in our (the USA's and NATO's) name. Previously unthinkable damage has been done to legal process, privacy and Constitutional rights --all justified by sanctimoniously intoning: "9/11".
It was clear to anyone following those events at the time that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It's also become clear that Sadaam's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was a contrived reason to invade. (Do I recall correctly --that the day after our allied forces installed Iraq's new government, contracts were let to divvy up their oil fields?)
So: who among us can admit (at least in hushed tones) that 9/11 looks like an ugly, false flag hoax?
Well for one: John Shuck:
That does not (of course) excuse the imperialism,
slaughter and venality of the "West" and its elite "interests" --which
have been driving events for the past 40 years --the past 20 in particular.
(Or maybe we should trace back to 1842, 1879 and the Brit's sorry experiences
** Yes: when we finally admit to what happened on 9/11, the fall-out will be costly --perhaps as costly as what we've been inflicting upon some distant nations. Not only will our confidence in the integrity of the United States be shaken, our confidence in our leadership class --plus the basic ideas which underpin the United States and democracy itself will be shaken to the core --since both the voting public and our natural leadership/elites ended up in such abject moral failure and turpitude.
The USA must either restrain its corporate/capitalist interests --or be collared by outside forces --our strengths, courage, confidence and credit having been spent. Let's hope we don't end up in a Nuremberg type trial, then fall under the dominion of distant hegemonies (thanks in part to "globalization").
Without restraints, corporate "interests" might drive us down to become a muddling along 3rd rate nation, but also with an entirely new take (at least within academia) on what should be, and what should have been, our nation's approach to governance --as well as to the franchise for participating in it. (The choice we ended up with for our 2016 presidential election --alone-- should be enough to redefine that political franchise, and especially as to equating money with protected speech.)
"Politics and business as usual" ain't getting it.