Individuals willing to be contacted for information and/or leading groups of activists striving for truth around the crimes of 9-11-2001. To request your name be added to this list, or to change or remove your information, please utilize the Contact form linked at the righthand column.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016


Saudi Press Just Accused US Govt of Blowing Up World Trade Centers as Pretext to Perpetual War TOPICS:Jay SyrmopoulosSaudi ArabiaSeptember 11th. . May 24, 2016 By Jay Syrmopoulos In response to the U.S. Senate’s unanimous vote to allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue Saudi Arabia in federal court, a report published in the London-based Al-Hayat daily, by Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari, claims that the U.S. masterminded the terror attacks as a means of creating a nebulous “enemy” in order garner public support for a global war on terror. The report by al-Shammari, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), claims that long-standing American policy is “built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities,” which the U.S. has now turned toward the Saudi regime after being successfully employed against first the Taliban and al-Qaeda, then Saddam Hussein and his secular Baathist controlled Iraq. Al-Shammari claims the recent U.S. threats to “expose” documents implicating the Saudi government are simply the continuation of a U.S. policy, which he refers to as “victory by means of archive.” He highlights that during the initial invasion of Iraq, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was left alive and in power to be used as “a bargaining chip,” but upon deciding that he was “no longer an ace up their sleeve” Washington moved to topple his government and install a U.S.-backed ruling party. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are now the “ace up the sleeve” of the U.S. government, according to al-Shammari. “September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings… Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed ‘victory by means of archives.” The impetus behind the attacks, writes al-Shammari, was to create “an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes” and that would provide justification for any “dirty operation” in any nation. According to al-Shammari’s report in Al-Hayat: “On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows: 1. The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia. 2. Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic… 3. The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country’s budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.” The Saudi press has been in a frenzy since the unanimous Senate vote to allow for the House of Saud to be held liable in U.S. federal court for the 9/11 attacks, with the U.S. being accused of being in alliance with Iran – to press warnings that passage of the “Satanic” bill would “open the gates of hell,” as reported by Breitbart. Al-Shammari makes extremely clear that he views the problem as the U.S. imperial machine itself, stating, “the nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy.” The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans’] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself. While it seems fighting Islamic terrorism is great for increasing fear and State propaganda meant to elicit compliant civilian populations that passively accept loss of liberty for promises of greater security, the military-industrial complex needs a bigger enemy to justify their $600 billion dollar-a-year budgets, thus beginning the transition to labeling Russia/China as “aggressive Russia/China,” in an effort to begin to pivot away from one bogeyman to other, more profitable, ones. Jay Syrmopoulos writes for, where this article first appeared. .


by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization


From the standpoint of its people, this country (the U.S.A.) is shredded, the social contract is missing. But the controllers – the considerable industry of image-manipulators, false-flag operators, narrative-spinners, trolls, and illusionists employed by the investing and ruling élite to preoccupy and misdirect us, while the élite literally fleece us by siphoning away our income and recourse, seems on the verge of losing its control over us completely through its long-tested and certified means.

The cynical view is that ordinary politics doesn’t matter at all, is just a ruse. But, it should matter. Its theft from the citizenry, step by step, is well-documented, and that it was designed as a system resistant to concentrated power is manifest. The opposite is the situation today.

But people are belatedly figuring that out. In fact, Republicans especially, perhaps America’s most spun-to sub-population, have had it. In droves, they’re not looking or listening anymore. They’ve in effect turned around with arms folded and eyes closed, determined not to listen to any more crapola or suggestions from on high (though yet not realizing that much is already internalized in their thinking). And declared Democrats and Independents, by and large, are barely a step behind them.

Trump’s and Sanders’s candidacies – seemingly naively telling people they had the power to sidestep the controllers’ manipulation of their lives, were tolerated by the honchos (at least this time) because they were unanticipated. The controllers/ fleecers of the public had cut too close to the bone in fleecing large, already threadbare parts of the country, where people just weren’t having it anymore. And this much rebellion, their control relinquished or, with the Democrats, uncovered and condemned, is what they got.

Now, the would-be participants – voters – get nothing definite, only uncertainty, with Trump, surely the most unpredictable candidate ever. But, is that any worse than Hillary, the Council on Foreign Relations cultist and neocon, who is ready to practically sing the controllers’ presidential script and heighten and expand all their baked-in dirty dealing at home and abroad with a grandmotherly smile? You decide. At least, Trump, as president, though they’re reining him in as I write this, may actually stumble onto fragments of the truth and, if he beholds them, or thinks he does, remark and shed light on them. Whereas Hillary, well-practiced, would know better than to deviate or tell.

And if the results of either “in power” scare people badly enough, they just might seek and demand the underlying truth, about 9/11 and so very much else, most likely starting by casting aside the strict taboo against suggesting that the U.S. (or, in some cases, U.S.-sponsored forces) had deliberately done the putrid and monstrous deeds itself customarily blamed to powerful effect on U.S.-designated enemies. Or that the U.S. itself might have created and sponsored the infuriating terror groups evidence shows it has raised up and designated as enemies to justify more wars and repression. Suspicions are swirling around out there as never before, and we can help to inform them.

And once people are onto the game, at least enough to suspect and question, they’re not going to be civil and docile as before until their questionings and suspicions are satisfied. Our part is to continue to spread the truth as we know it.

“People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to.” – Malcolm Muggerage. Now, may they not believe them because they don’t want to.

JH: 5/24/16

Daniel Sheehan interview: The Clearest Context for 9/11 and JFK

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Review - ANOTHER FRENCH FALSE FLAG?, by Kevin Barrett, et al

A Review (sort of) of Kevin Barrett, et al, ANOTHER FRENCH FALSE FLAG? BLOODY TRACKS FROM PARIS TO S.B.
(Lone Rock, WI: Sifting and Winnowing Books, 2016, 335 pages).

by James Hufferd, Ph.D., Coordinator,
911 Truth Grassroots Organization


The book above named is a marvelous anthology of 28 all-star thinkers’ reflections (notably, Paul Craig Roberts, Mujahid Kamran, A.K. Dewdney, Barry Martinez, Nick Kollerstrom, Henry Makow, Stephen Lendman, etc., etc.) on the notorious terrorist attacks in Paris and other places over the past two years, their authorship, inspiration, and meaning, for the most part concluding that the attacks were staged and prosecuted by the powers that be, not by organizations or networks of Muslim terrorists. All but two of the essays argue that position. The reason this writing is dubbed a “sort of” review is that I have not attempted to characterize separately each of the 28 essays, since to do so adequately would require 28 reviews.

Instead, I have eschewed such an exhaustive review, in favor of an evaluation of what I consider the book’s core exchange, the outstandingly-productive debate between the main proposition’s two detractors, Gilad Atzmon and Eric Walberg, and the lead protagonist of the central thesis, Dr. Kevin Barrett, the work’s deft organizer, in a triad of chapters placed near the end of the book.

Atzmon and Walberg essentially argue, completely without recourse to details of the evidence of the false-flag nature and role of the various related terrorist operations, as laid out in the opening twenty-three signature essays, that a false-flag op in any particular case of terrorism, whether postulating Mossad involvement or not, would be too complex and involve too many players and coordination too intricate involving diverse factions, to be plausible as an explanation.

The obvious primary answer to this has to be that whatever lay behind the phenomena of the attacks would have to be complex, so complexity doesn’t at all preclude false-flag authorship or sponsorship. And since the different manifestations (Paris1, Paris2, San Bernardino, and afterward Brussels) are indisputably all linked in a series, what is really rife for exploration is a landscape of causation, not singular events. Rather, a set-up in place of whatever sort is fairly obviously involved, productive of a whole landscape constituted of a sequence of linked events materializing one upon another upon another… day-in, day-out as is deemed necessary. And, as far as states doing this, rather than autonomous terror organizations, or postulated “networks”: if the visible portion and workings of modern super-states are labyrinthian by nature, then why not their corresponding portions intended to be covert? We know that such exist. And if secretive modern states with the means and capability did not in fact operate to manipulate events and outcomes routinely in what they see as their favor, they would most assuredly be missing a golden opportunity.

The opening twenty-three essays in this most-impressive cavalcade effectively compile and apply evidence that the Paris2 attacks were in fact internally generated by agencies of the U.S. and allied states. They indicate convincingly that the prime motive of the attacks was to scare and convince soft European allies of the U.S., both their officials and their populations, in order to strongly reinforce in action their will and allegiance to fulfilling U.S. Mideast and beyond war aims. Also involved in the likely calculation would be aligned aggressive policies aimed at Russia, Central Asia, etc. This book, in the vanguard of documents heralding a more-recent era in western thinking concerning shock events in general is, if for that reason alone, highly recommended.

As for Atzmon and Walberg, the duo who criticize the foregoing essays and essayists for the “implausibility” of their false-flag attribution of the attacks without engaging any of the evidence set forth, their shortcoming in misreading (or reading through antiquated lenses) the character of the attacks can best be attributed to their (evidently willful) lack of familiarity with the new landscape of causation common to the various linked manifestations, albeit of necessity sketchily described.

This same sort of off-throwing “lack of familiarity” with background conditions was responsible for our “primitive” ancestors’ attribution of violent storms to giants battling, or of the pronounced vertical crenellations on the gigantic volcanic plug rising from the northern Great Plains now known as Devil’s Tower to a hypothesized outraged giant bear. In both cases – if they had but known and recognized the true background elements…

Kevin Barrett, in his essay, takes this, perhaps the single, defining argument of the chaotic era we are now entering one truly Herculean step further. He suggests that what is being birthed in this book is, in fact, a vital new paradigm of western understanding, vying to displace the old. In other words, he contends that the evidence-based arguments of those we can perhaps celebrate as “The First Twenty-Three”, which comprise the bulk of this landmark book, in concert proclaiming, rather uniquely in print, that the blanket causation of the sort of events described was what we have called for a while now MIHOP – that the states deliberately and visibly claiming shared victimhood have themselves, true to their evolved, demonstrably amoral, partly-hidden nature, MADE IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE.

I more than think he’s onto something, especially prospectively. Indeed, it would be hard to even imagine a current non-fiction book more worthy of everyone’s serious attention than this one. Happy Reading (and sharing) to all!

JH: 5/12/16

Thursday, May 5, 2016


by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization


I don’t believe that fear of by now a declining few even top operatives’ only remotely possible legal jeopardy is what continues to keep our government’s (and those of U.S. allies) and our media’s determined stonewall stance in resistance to any serious discussion or criticism of their patently absurd 9/11 narrative in place. Because all of such, scripted actors or functionaries, would be clearly expendable in any case. The panicked resistance of some on the inside against releasing even the text of the reportedly very tentative 28 redacted pages seems to stem instead from their fears of where a permitted discussion kindled by even that matter, only obliquely-related to the actual inspiration and perpetration of the acts, might go from there – from a presumed mere pittance of Saudi funding of household and moving expenses, to who else may have played whatever part in the admitted conspiracy. That is their fear, of persistent curiosity getting out of hand.

No, I don’t believe that fear of indictment or prosecution – by, after all, a tightly controlled court system – is the reason for the persistent stonewalling. Because visible or finger-able public operatives, even the topmost ones, are always expendable for the true powers in the salons and boardrooms who must have had to pass off on, if they did not actually organize, such a momentous several-part operation. And the identity of the latter was, my intuition tells me, most likely completely unknown even to the former.

Instead, with only a bare plurality of the public remaining by now unaware that virtually no aspect of our daily events is anything at all like it appears, like it is presented to appear to the public, with meaning resembling what we are told, still, the curtain of deception, with only the shadows showing through, as a sort of pacifier or filter masking the true horror that is happening, is all that they have at their disposal to keep the natives in line.

If that deception is clearly breached by, say, a full revelation of what really happened on 9/11/01, performed by whom, at whose bequest, and why, then the élite’s magnet controlling the psychological iron filings of the public’s malleable perception of the world, from day to day, would lose its power to mold and shape and move. And, with what could that tool be replaced? The only option (unthinkable and likely suicidal for the controlling élite) would be to hand the power to control events and decide issues back to the public or to opportunistic politicians, if they could unite skillfully enough to hold it. In the U.S., the Republican primary electorate at least, if not the Democratic-leaning, seems broadly to have caught on to the manipulative pantomime of their, in effect, self-imposed elders, and resoundingly rejected it – although not at least yet singling out the 9/11 myth or JFK fairy tale for particular scorn. Donald J. Trump and Bernie Sanders are simply politicians who have picked up on this pre-existing, building phenomenon of much of the public’s restiveness and, for now at least, harnessed it. And Trump may even have been encouraged and coddled in this, his wild birther accusations of some years ago not having been ignored (as yours or mine would have been), but trumpeted and given a gigantic bullhorn by the media, so that a sizable enough part of the public became aware of him in advance.

The guru of some, Tom Friedman has said that a(n) (fabricated) major terrorist attack in the U.S. could elect this brash builder from Queens/Manhattan (providing, in effect, his “new Pearl Harbor”). Richard Haas, at least near the apex/sweet spot of the Council on Foreign Relations, met with Trump, presumably to launch coordination, last week. Meaning that the game may not, in fact, be up at all. (And Hillary is already, notoriously, down with such.)

But the scent of growing public sentiment, resentment, will not go back in the bottle.

JH: 5/05/16

Friday, April 29, 2016

SCADs - Depending on the Perspective

by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization


For us, who have drunk the mother’s milk of the democratic, fair, free and open society, belonging to and operated by and maintained for the greater good of everybody, controlled by dispositions of the voters and responsive to public opinion, from the womb to old age, as the saying goes, the apparent instances of high officials breaking that supposedly sacred bond have come to be known of late as SCADs – specific and identifiable crimes against democracy by or under the aegis of the state. And the number and scope of such has grown much larger in our perceptions apace with our awareness generally, now encompassing not only 9/11 and the Kennedy assassinations and stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections, but an additional myriad of events big and small, serving to fray, deliberately or not, the public trust and will almost daily. Or, I would submit, constantly.

Because, from the perspective of the inside operators of government actions, reinforced by other cooperating elements of “the establishment”, such as the media, the professions and corporate America, democracy – the will and benefit of the whole society, the voice of the majority of us – is no objective or object of reverence at all. In fact, they operate all-powerfully for their benefit alone, to achieve their objectives, not ours. And they act more-or-less rationally, subject to their own set of peculiar myths, regardless of what we may think about anything.

Meanwhile, those few hardy, or foolhardy, souls on the inside who truly try to represent our best interests and views are regarded by their fellows as oddballs, out of step with the prevailing direction and little cognizant of what’s really going on. The prevailing direction of things, meanwhile, rolls along, largely oblivious to what we may desire, even if overwhelmingly. And while the successive acts that constitute the flow may be regarded as immoral or heartless, in so far as they are understood in the lower ranks of inside operators, they are generally viewed more as amoral and, on balance, worthy of their support regardless, because they are necessary to achieving larger goals within the effective mechanism of society.

And what we call “lies” told to us by our leaders are regarded on the inside as simply effective shorthand versions of events, such as parents might give their children to avoid difficult subjects – like the stork version to explain the arrival of wrinkled new brother Jonathan – both necessary and unquestionably forgivable. As such, hardly regarded on the inside as “crimes”.

Meanwhile, the subject of the “guilt” of those few truly effective and powerful higher up is avoided because the lower echelons have seen what happens to those among them who seriously question, and so don’t go there.

Most, if not all, of us who have not been initiated (or born) into the ruling class, meanwhile, have had it drilled into our heads for as long as we’ve had heads, that ours (literally, ours!) was a representative democracy and “we, the people” were its constituents, who owned the country. And the constituted leaders we thought we freely elected to represent our views and interests were sufficiently free of undue influence to effectively do that. And that their decisions were what steered the country on its determined path. None of which, meanwhile, was true.

The actual pattern of thinking behind and sequence of perceived and planned events pursued by the true drivers of our national career we can only surmise as “through a glass darkly”, just as we who are not doctors of physiology can only vaguely know the inner workings and transformations of ours and others’ bodies.

For instance, the unelected CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, made up of the topmost leaders of industry and government and the scions of the great families exclusively – the main real (and acknowledged!) constituency of Hillary Clinton, etc., largely decide matters of war and peace that have long been rammed down our collective throats by manipulating fear, anger, and lies. Trade deals too, although the local interest groups scorched by them have risen up to counter the corporate barons’ demands lately.

But still, with regard to the awful acts of psychopaths – what we deign to call SCADs, -- 9/11 and the like – murder and inciting terrorism against citizens are still crimes and need to be prosecuted as such. Our survival as a coherent society absolutely depends on it. So, let us keep seeking and demanding redress. Because, there is a compact to be applied on that account. And that’s no myth.

JH: 4/29/16

Thursday, April 14, 2016


Review of Paul Craig Roberts, The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony (Atlanta: Clarity Press), 2015, xii + 402 pages.

By James Hufferd, Ph.D., Coordinator
911 Truth Grassroots Organization


This is an important book by a major thinker and truth-teller, a star political economist who was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and onetime Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Notably, it was not published by a prominent publisher, and it was probably not professionally reviewed as, indeed, none or virtually none of the best fundamentally critical books by truth-tellers of the immediately past generation have been.

I seriously doubt that the title was of Dr. Roberts’s choosing, since, as he points out, its subject is not a “threat” of anything, but rather an ever-present, well-established reality already, an engine of worldwide fear and chaos in the here and now.

I must preface my remarks concerning the book’s substance, a sizable collection consisting of 105 of this prolific author’s published articles from the February, 2014 to July, 2015 period, by stating that I always check first for inclusion in books purporting to explicate current U.S. global deployment for possible attribution of the key role played by the Federal Reserve system of monetary supply and control. Because, I believe the role of the Fed to be that of purposefully leaving the United States in a situation of ever-deepening debt, enhancing the global bankers’ domination and opening the door to war financiers to propose persuasively to make up the vast shortfall in a way that enriches them alone, purely at the regular taxpayers’ expense. (As an aside, I believe that such largely explains the enormous income inequality that is now lamented.) But all I find on that score in this book is Roberts’s recognition that the Fed has been manipulated for the arguably nefarious purpose of rigging the bond and bullion markets to protect the dollar. In other words, in my opinion, Roberts either misses or chooses to ignore the main incentive in fact potentiating the U.S. ruling élite’s addiction to war.

Hence, the “neoconservatives” highlighted and blamed, as roguish and reckless as they may be, are just the set of militaristic opportunists and adventurists who have taken advantage of the desperate manufactured need for a perennial economic boost in order to keep the financial ship afloat. (The violently-resisted alternative being the abolishment of the Federal Reserve arrangement that has kept the plutocrats, a pathologically feared cabal, fat and satisfied. When JFK attempted as much, he did not survive the gambit).

Nevertheless, Dr. Roberts’s book admirably documents the unbelievably durable obsession with U.S. imperial domination expressed by the policy, now vying again for supremacy, of determined global warmongering, a policy that, even in the notoriously “dangerous” world of the present, requires a falsified and self-fulfilling official narrative of a world on fire with terrorism for its attempted justification.

The seemingly arbitrary timeframe highlighted in this book focusses attention very largely on the long dust-up between the U.S. and Russia over the Crimea and the disposition of Ukraine. Points well-documented include the role of the US. as provocateur, first by mounting and abetting the so-called “color revolutions” in former Soviet republics – including, ultimately, Ukraine itself – intended to pry them loose for western domination, to Moscow’s diminishment, and the unsupportable series of official statements and claims made U.S. officials over aspects of Russia’s activities and intents.

The main value of this sequential collection of mostly like-themed articles, with a thoughtful review of the effects of the 9/11 false-flag thrown in, other than as a historical record, is that the direction, objectives, and modus operandi of the leading edge of U.S. foreign policy are displayed in stark relief as an analytic witness. Thus, the world-menacing duplicity and lack of straightforward candor of the U.S. in its global positioning and recent role is placed squarely on the table.

The Neoconservative Threat to World Order, despite its failure to adequately explain the causal root of the syndrome it rightly laments, in my opinion, is an important book for understanding the contemporary world and, as such, is highly recommended reading. It follows Roberts’s equally-impressive earlier collection, entitled How America Was Lost (2014).
JH: 4/14/16