Thursday, Sept 11, 2014, was the 13th anniversary of the controlled demolitions – by obviously pre-planted high explosive and incendiary cutter charges – of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers 1, 2 and 7. From my and many other’s experiences over the past 13 years, I think that I can predict with a high degree of confidence that there will be no credible coverage by the corporate-controlled media on the known science that has totally disproved the Cheney/Bush administration’s conspiracy theory.
Last week’s Duty to Warn column castigated the afore-mentioned media for continuing the (fragile and provably false) deception by continually referring to what happened as simply “911 attacks”, thus deceiving their readers, viewers and listeners into accepting the notion that it was two planes crashing into two of the towers that allowed the US to risk starting World War III.
The truth of the matter, of course, was that insiders had to orchestrate a much more catastrophic event that involved the actual collapse of the skyscrapers. With simply two planes hitting two of the towers, two brief fireballs, and a few office fires that quickly burned out, the crime scene would have shown that the massive 110 story girders were intact, the buildings intact, and only hundreds of fatalities rather than 3000. In addition the flight recorders would have been recovered intact as well as whatever passengers, if any, had been on the planes (the planes were likely piloted by computer-controlled drones rather than the accused amateur hijackers who couldn’t even fly prop planes).
The evidence is so overwhelming that 9/11 was a false flag op that any legitimate court of law (are there any?) willing to take testimony from the experts would easily determine the falsity of the official version.
A brilliant 5 minute review of 9/11 by James Corbett (http://www.corbettreport.com/about/ and http://globalresearch.ca/) can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98, More thorough exposes of 9/11 canhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
“Why do otherwise good people refuse to look at (or believe) the evidence?”
What also needs to be examined is the following question:
“Why do otherwise good people refuse to look at the evidence?”
Or, in the situation that might be more likely to be the case, if these good people have actually spent the few hours necessary to adequately examine the evidence,
“why do they then refuse to acknowledge the existence of the evidence that totally disproves the official story that they have somehow come to believe?”
It is easy to understand the reasons why powerful governmental or corporate entities obfuscate certain facts. Their jobs, income, prestige, well-being and personal security (even their lives) may depend on doing what their puppet-masters and paymasters want them to do. Sometimes it doesn’t even take a direct order; they may know instinctively what to do.
The corporate-controlled media (starting with the publishers, editors and major shareholders) and their well-paid talking heads are in cahoots with the governmental agencies that insist on secrecy and the creation of plausible “sacred” myths (and therefore the intentional deception of the citizenry) if they think the national security (or the health of the stock market) is at stake.
The White House, the Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, military careerists, CIA, FBI , NSA (and the dozen of other national security agencies), the corporate-controlled politicians, legislators and various other thought leaders take certain “sacred” myths and the necessity for cover-ups of painful truths very seriously.
If a rare person of conscience (who was also in a position of power) chooses to resist the real powers-that-be, as was the case with JFK, MLK, RFK and Senator Paul Wellstone, there would be serious consequences.
Understanding the Motivations of the “Good German” Folks who say “I Wouldn’t Believe That Even if I Knew it Were True”?
But the psychology of why otherwise good people decide to maintain their silence in the face of unwelcome truths has many ramifications, which I will address more thoroughly in a future column. (A great series of articles by psychologist and 9/11 truth-seeker, Francis Shure, entitled “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?” can be read, starting at: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/821-why-do-good-people-become-silentor-worseabout-911-.html.)
For now, interested readers should consider researching the following psychological realities that will partially explain why the truth about 9/11 is such a taboo subject:
Cognitive Dissonance: the psychological discomfort one feels when faced with new information that contradicts deeply held beliefs that are now suddenly proved to be false,
Denial, “Obedience to “ (Stanley Milgram’s seminal book), “1984” and George Orwell’s concept of Doublethink (the capacity to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accept them both),
Groupthink (“running with the pack”),
Denial, Conformity, and the fear of challenging a “sacred myth” – and thus being ostracized by the bamboozled majority.
I include below extended excerpts from an important Global Research article written by Elizabeth Woodworth about the serious problem of the silence of most academics and scholars regarding the truth of 9/11. Historically, academics have been allowed – if not encouraged – to be independent, outspoken and courageous thinkers, but, being human and increasingly disempowered members of increasingly corporate-controlled American universities, they are subjected to the same psychological, social, economic and corporate influences as the rest of us.
Woodworth writes about a new documentary titled “9/11 in the Academic Community” which was a prize winner at the 2013 University of Toronto Film Festival. The film was produced and directed by Adnan Zuberi. The trailer can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzVKDdCa6s.
“9/11 Truth” and the Failure of the Academic Community to Explore the Events of September 11, 2001
By Elizabeth Woodworth – Co-Founder of the 911 Consensus Panel (http://www.consensus911.org/)
“Academics have been milquetoasts when it comes to the truth about what really happened on 9/11/01, this century’s first great day of infamy.” — Canadian academic historian Michiel Horn
As the academic year begins, and the 13th anniversary of 9/11 draws near, it seems timely to review this eye-opening documentary about the failure of academia to explore the evidence about the events of September 11.Indeed, there are literally dozens of peer-reviewed science articles challenging the American government narrative about 9/11 that academics simply do not talk about. These articles stand published in the science literature – for the most part unreported, unexamined, and unrefuted.
9/11 Academic Failure in the Context of Traditional Scientific Publishing
In view of the magnitude of the 9/11 tragedy, and the persistent public doubts about its cause, the scientific academy has been eerily silent. Although many studies questioning the official account have been published in peer-reviewed science and engineering journals, they have not generated debate in the literature, or reports in the media. This is virtually unprecedented, for new scientific research always stimulates a trail of discussion – be it through letters, rebuttals, or further studies.
Two examples of peer-reviewed articles that should have made sensational headlines and stimulated major academic discussion simply faded into obscurity:
- An article published in the Journal of Business was reported by econometrician Dr. Paul Zarembkaas showing a 99% statistical probability that high-volume insider trading occurred with American Airlines and United Airlines stocks in the days before 9/11;
- A nine-author article published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal (2009) reported that unreacted nanothermite, which can be tailored to behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive, was found in four independently collected samples of the World Trade Center dust. Nanothermite is a high-tech substance not found in nature, yet there has been no published research follow-up to this landmark article’s astonishing conclusions.
In short, the subject has been untouchable.
Glaring Anomalies in the Government Narrative That Should Have Aroused Academic Concern
This documentary interviews a group of ten current and former Canadian and American university professorsabout eye-opening contradictions in the official account.
Some of these include:
- Ground Zero was the biggest crime scene in US history, yet the telltale steel girders were quickly trucked away before forensic examination could take place.
- Originally there was to be no investigation, and only following intense political pressure from the families was an investigation mounted in 2003.
- Paradoxically, the 9/11 Commission Report (2004) stated that its purpose was “to provide the fullest possible account of the events,” but “not to assign individual blame.”
- Nonetheless the Report accused al Qaeda of responsibility, basing 25% of its supporting footnotes on torture testimony, and providing no spokespersons to represent the accused.
- The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow – a White House insider – framed the Report’s narrative in advance by providing an outline to the findings before the investigation had begun.
- The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) conclusions regarding the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7 were based on simplified models that defied Newtonian physics and were in conflict with direct observations.
- After seven years of study, NIST granted that free-fall acceleration had taken place in 47-story steel-framed WTC Building 7, which was not hit by an airplane – but could only cite office fires to explain this unprecedented event.
Cultural Pressures to Delegitimize Inquiry into 9/11
How could these extraordinary anomalies have been ignored and overlooked by the academic community? The term “conspiracy theory” was first introduced into common use by the CIA following the publication of the Warren Commission report on the assassination of JFK, when “a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved.” The document, released following a FOIA request in 1976, outlined the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government.” The term“conspiracy theory,” which had formerly held neutral connotations, began to acquire a derogatory sense that identified certain topics as off limits to inquiry or debate. It has even been referred to as a “weaponized term.”
One of the professors in the film referred to “the spiral of silence,” and another to “thought stoppers” – such as the charge of “conspiracy theory.” A third referred to 9/11 as “one government story that’s untouchable.” Another said that raising the subject in academic circles is somehow forbidden, unmentionable – that it sullies and profanes a person to bring it up. Sometimes persons who raise it are themselves attacked. Indeed a number of professors who persevered with research were vilified, harassed, and even dismissed for attempting work in this area.
The Fallout from 9/11
Although 9/11 itself has seldom been questioned within the academy, its implications and fallout have been permissible fields of study, and include:
- The perpetual, ubiquitous “global war on terror,” starting with the 2001 occupation of Afghanistan, and the loss of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives;
- The 2003 occupation of Iraq (believed by many soldiers to have been justified by 9/11), with the further loss of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives;
- The ongoing military involvement in Middle East countries such as Libya and Syria;
- The fear and mistrust of Muslims caused by the Saudi identities of the alleged hijackers – which has undermined any possibility of global harmony and unification;
- The suspension of US constitutional guarantees such as Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus(forbidding US army intervention in state and municipal affairs since 1878);
- The introduction of electronic surveillance in violation of the US Fourth Amendment (1789) – confirmed in 1967 as applying to electronic surveillance as a violation of “the reasonable expectation of privacy”;
- Inconvenience and congestion in air travel worldwide.
It is uncanny that in spite of these horrific impacts, the academic community has remained silent about the trigger event itself – barring a few courageous professors who have researched the glaring incongruities of 9/11 and the subsequent violations of international law. As mentioned above, these people have met with derision, discipline, and even dismissal.
In summary: 30-40% of the population suspects that 9/11 was a false flag operation, constituting a state crime against democracy. Rather than exploring the evidence that is visible in plain sight, most of the academy simply looked the other way. One can only hope that the academy will reverse its position and work to remove the long shadow it has helped to cast over 21st century human civilization.
A winner at the University of Toronto Film Festival, “9/11 in the Academic Community” has been widely hailed as essential viewing. Here are a few quotes from academicians:
“This documentary confronts the academy’s uncritical response to the defining event of our times.” — Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida State University Professor of Public Policy
“Canadian academic historian Michiel Horn has observed that as a rule, professors are milquetoasts. This film also documents exceptions to Horn’s rule: professors with guts enough to raise critical questions.” – Kenneth Westhues, Member, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
“Academic freedom protects scholars who report inconvenient truths from the uninformed, but, as Adnan Zuberi reminds us, academic freedom is also the responsibility of scholars to pursue the truth.” — Dr. Roger W. Bowen, General Secretary of the American Association of University Professors
“I find it troubling that so few men and women who work in our universities—and there are credible exceptions—have seriously engaged with the question of what actually happened on 9/11 and why.There are so many holes and limitations in the official version that it calls out for rigorous intellectual fact-finding and analysis.” — Alvin A. Lee, President Emeritus, McMaster University
This film reveals a new pathology that infests our society, in which it is taboo for even academics to pursue politically disturbing truths. Let us hope that the film will continue to open the way for more open discourse on 9/11, and the overwhelming body of research that contradicts the official narrative.
 A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll showed in 2006 that “more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” “Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy,” Thomas Hargrove, August 8, 2006 (http://www.aldeilis.net/english/nj/012.pdf.)
 A “9/11 Research Guide” from Florida International University lists only government reports, film and media, and fictional resources. http://libguides.fiu.edu/content.php?pid=242646&sid=2003753.
 The following articles are peer-reviewed journal papers that address issues surrounding the day of 9/11/2001 from a critical perspective. Academics are encouraged to take an interest in 9/11 research. (http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/.) See also: The 9/11 Consensus Panel, “Evidence-Based Literature Sources Opposing The Official Story of September 11” (http://www.consensus911.org/references-evidence-based/).
 Allen M. Poteshman, “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,”Journal of Business, 79 (2006): 1703-26. Two subsequent financial articles provided further evidence of insider trading, but these econometric investigations have not been challenged in any professional or governmental responses. (http://www.consensus911.org/point-g-2/).
 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2: 7-31 (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm).
 Dr. David MacGregor, Prof. Sociology, Univ. Western Ontario; Dr. Michael Truscello, Asst. Prof. English, Mt. Royal Univ., Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Prof. Emeritus Religious Studies, McMaster Univ., Dr. Richard Lee, Prof. Emeritus Anthropology, Univ. of Toronto; Dr. John McMurtry, Prof. Emeritus Phil. at Guelph Univ., Dr. Walter Pitman, Former President of Ryerson Univ. and Order of Canada; Dr. Omar M. Ramahi, Prof. Electrical and Computer Engineering, Univ. of Waterloo; Dr. Paul Zarembka, Prof. Economics, SUNY, Buffalo; Dr. Robert Korol, Prof. Emeritus Civil Engineering, McMaster Univ., Dr. Lynn Margulis (1938-2011) was a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts. More information at: (http://911inacademia.com/cast/).
 The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004, p. xvi (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf).
 CIA, “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report,” CIA Document #1035-960 (http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html).
 “’Conspiracy Theory,’ Foundations of a Weaponized Term,” James F. Tracy, Global Research, January 22, 2013 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/conspiracy-theory-foundations-of-a-weaponized-term/5319708?print=1).