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.

Friday, June 24, 2011


Envisioning How We Win
by James Hufferd
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
          Our common objective must be the outing and exposure  to the normal workings of the law of those who were responsible for the crimes of 9/11/01, the object of our concern for a decade and the most egregious concentrated negative acts in America at least since the Civil War. On that much, I believe that we in the 911 Truth movement can readily agree. In my last article/column, I demonstrated that there remains considerable disagreement among 911 Truthers (a proud designation for us in my view) as to just who might be ultimately responsible. But, we do have several key pieces of the puzzle in hand – thanks to a great deal of outstanding forensic work and research by specialized fellow Truthers , to the point that we can say, along with David Ray Griffin, “Give me $40 million (the price tag of the Lewinsky investigation) and subpoena power, and in a month, I can tell you for sure who did 9/11 and how they did it.”
     So, why do the government at all levels and the media not want the truth to emerge, via the standard means? Why the air-tight, endless cover-up and denial of every conceivable explanation, except the fairy tale they sold to us, that it was Osama and the 19 Muslims/Arabs who planned and pulled off the whole, complex thing? Why not admit all the evidence and eye-witnesses who have surfaced since the first day, when their attribution was made  – including those deliberately blocked from exposure and testifying – and let forensic experts, prosecutors, and ordinary juries sort it out, just as would be permitted and encouraged with any run-of-the-mill convenience  store robbery, gangland slaying, or funds embezzlement? Why do the designated minions and tribunes of justice in America so oppose the Constitutionally-guaranteed workings of justice in this one case in particular?  (Of course, it’s not the first time for this sort of pronounced unorthodox funny stuff on the part of officialdom and the power establishment: There was JFK and OKC – both cut and dry in their telling – and  there were all the other classic-pattern assassinations, going all the way back to Garfield, McKinley,  and the quickly hush-hushed FDR attempt of 1932,  each involving a lone conspicuously foreign-born or extremist foreign-sympathizing perpetrator, when the forensics didn’t corroborate the story sold to the public.) And so, the question remains: Why the same iron-clad cover-up and shaky up-front story and denial of evidence – always?
     The cover-up is designed and maintained to protect from legal jeopardy prominent or obscure members of the establishment or officialdom, to be sure – just as we have said all along. But also, to obscure the steadily emerging circumstance that the “news” reported is generally not really news anymore, but a colossal planned, scripted, and managed 24/7/365 reality show filled with innuendos and patent lies, partial-falsehoods, and events recounted in lurid detail that never really happened, reported as such to sway and condition the public to demand or accept what a small super-council “shadow government” wants to have happen or do. And the consequences, as we directly experience daily, are increasingly dire for the public, both domestic and world-wide. If they permitted the truth of 9/11 to emerge now, it is feared (not without reason), public confidence in the reality of information we are fed would end, and social anarchy and public schizophrenia would follow.
     But, would they? Given the irrational things many people believe, without any credible evidence , I would expect a third or more to still cling to the official version of 9/11  for decades – come what may.  But I would expect many of the others to hail the triumph of justice – however belated – and strive to pick up the pieces and insist on reforms. And that’s just what we want!  Another thing to consider is that a growing segment of the public already know, or strongly suspect, that we are being fed a steady diet of falsehoods and lies, so that the truth about 9/11 – already suspected by many who are not letting on at least yet – would not come as a very great surprise.
     A third compelling reason why the whole establishment is working together to suppress 9/11 truth could be to shield Israel, the first or second home of so many in the U.S. government and establishment, from repudiation and reprisal, should the evidence, once vetted, point to a major Israeli role in the defining crimes of our corrupt era. Let us hope that such blaming, if it were to turn out that way, would turn to our own leaders, as those responsible for permitting foreign ops on our soil, first.
     But the fact that we are making progress by keeping our contention that the “official version” is malignant boloney out there is manifest. No one else is pushing that message these days, so its increasing presence and resonance must be our doing. Let’s keep it up until a critical threshold of credibility is reached and the cracks in the wall of stories sold the public become clearly visible to all.  (“What a tangled web we weave . . . “) Truth is, indeed, the most powerful of weapons, and we will win out ultimately.
     So, let’s don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Paul Craig Roberts - Orwellian Redefinition of Conspiracy Theory

9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of “Conspiracy Theory”- 21. Jun, 2011 in 9/11, Commentary/Analysis, Media, Middle east, News/Politics, U.S. Foreign Policy, World - 1 Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the 9/11 official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing Paul Craig RobertsWhile we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps. For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse.In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Lee Harvey Oswald was not President John F. Kennedy’s assassin, the voluminous research, government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as “conspiracy theory.”In other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities. The purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media’s (including many Internet sites’) response to the large number of professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001 inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics, chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United States, NORAD’s capabilities, air traffic control, airport security, and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as “conspiracy theorists.” This, despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free-fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.The story that the government and the media have told us amounts to a gigantic conspiracy; really a script for a James Bond film. Yet, anyone who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is defined into irrelevance by the obedient media.Anyone who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone who believes the 100 or more first-responders who testify that they not only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by propaganda is dismissed as a kook.In America today, and increasingly throughout the Western world, actual facts and true explanations have been relegated to the realm of kookiness. Only people who believe lies are socially approved and accepted as patriotic citizens. Indeed, a writer or newscaster is not even permitted to report the findings of 9/11 skeptics. In other words, simply to report Professor Harrit’s findings now means that you endorse them or agree with them. Everyone in the US print and TV media knows that he/she will be instantly fired if they report Harrit’s findings, even with a laugh. Thus, although Harrit has reported his findings on European television and has lectured widely on his findings in Canadian universities, the fact that he and the international scientific research team that he led found unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust and have offered samples to other scientists to examine has to my knowledge never been reported in the American media.Even Internet sites on which I am among the readers’ favorites will not allow me to report on Harrit’s findings.As I reported earlier, I myself had experience with a Huffington Post reporter who was keen to interview a Reagan presidential appointee who was in disagreement with the Republican wars in the Middle East. After he published the interview that I provided at his request, he was terrified to learn that I had reported findings of 9/11 investigators. To protect his career, he quickly inserted on the online interview that my views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions could be dismissed as I had reported unacceptable findings about 9/11.The unwillingness or inability to entertain any view of 9/11 different from the official view dooms to impotence many Internet sites that are opposed to the wars and to the rise of the domestic US police state. These sites, for whatever the reasons, accept the government’s explanation of 9/11; yet, they try to oppose the ”war on terror” and the police state which are the consequences of accepting the government’s explanation. Trying to oppose the consequences of an event whose explanation you accept is an impossible task.If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks, then a “war on terror” and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.A country whose population has been trained to accept the government’s word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in its future. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS has had careers in scholarship and academia, public service, and journalism. He served as Congressional staff and as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He can be reached at:

Saturday, June 11, 2011


WHO DID 9/11?
12 Positions on Trutherism v. the Official Storyline
by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
     We 911 Truthers are fond of saying that there are only two realistic possibilities as to who planned and carried out 9/11: So, in effect, you are either with us, or you are with the [real] terrorists. Lately, some have come to the forefront claiming a third alternative, that Israel or the Mossad, did it. But, how much have we really thought through the various possibilities either presented by the evidence, or that the evidence as we know it to date has failed to clarify? Without wracking my brains unduly, I have come up, in a little more than an hour, with a dozen categorical possibilities or variants thereof, which I will identify as positions real people do or could hold regarding responsibility for the crimes of September 11. I will comment a bit on each, then turn the list over to you to see what you think. Which one will be found correct?
Basic Position I – Official Version: Osama & 19 (al Qaeda) Muslims Did It.
     Variant A “Mastermind” Theory: Osama & the boys outsmarted everyone, thought of everything
     Variant B – U.S. Govt. incompetence/stupidity failed at every turn and enabled it to happen.
     Variant C - U.S. Govt. could stop it, but let it happen on purpose (LIHOP), for reasons.
     The known evidence says no to each of these sub-positions in multiple profound ways. The counter-evidence is too strong, while supportive evidence is lacking. Advocates remain almost uniformlly unfamiliar with the known physical evidence and rarely argue in specific terms.
Basic Position II – U.S./International Security State Made It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP)
     Variant A - Financial-Industrial Sector/U.S. Military Special Forces Operation
     Variant B - An International ‘Shadow Government’ Mandated & Contracted Hit
     Variant C - Linked Security Services Op (U.S., Israeli, Pak, UK, Saudi)
     Variant D - U.S. Security Piggybacked Onto & Effectuated A Terror Asset-Presented Op
     Variant E -  N Y Port Authority Job Amid Scheduled Exercises, etc./Beneficial Cover-Up Story
     Now we’re getting somewhere! Known evidence indicates any of these overlapping alternatives is possible, though Variant E stretches credulity just a bit.

Basic Position III – Israel/Jews Did It
     Variant A - It Was A Mossad False-Flag Operation, With U.S. Executive Branch Complicity
     Variant B - The U.S. Security State Commissioned Mossad To Carry It Out
     Variant C - U.S.-Israeli Dual Citizen Infiltrators Authorize & Carry It Out, w. U.S. Govt. Blessing
     States act in their own interest, and Israel, like the U.S., has a history of false-flag ops. Though some proponents of this position seem anti-Semitic, if known evidence leads here, following of same to embrace either Variant A or Variant B would not require generalized rejection of a nationality.
Basic Position IV – Indeterminate Stakeout: “I’m Not Convinced”
     This is the “safe” position, embraced most often for sociological (or pathological), not evidential reasons Normally, no amount of evidence will shake the partaker from being non-committal or lacking concern.  This person normally feels either totally powerless, overwhelmed, or stable compared to "fanatics” who do commit to a position and its responsibilities. Most such will participate cognitively only at the individual level (if there) and refuse to process or judge nuanced information from communal levels.
Final Considerations
     Many Truthers choose to deal with forensic (physical) evidence exclusively. As I’ve stated before, I accept that as a perfectly legitimate choice, which serves the 911 Truth Movement well by providing us many specialists (scientists and advocates for science) to lead and advise us in those primary areas. Forensic inquiry can lead us to evidentiary proofs regarding how the criminal operations of 9/11Were carried out and even rule out suspects who are known to have lacked the technical means to carry out the operations indicated. At the same time, much evidence exists in the form of testimony and circumstances that lies beyond the category of forensic findings and data, and may indicate directly who was involved and the nature of their involvement. This, too, is evidence. This, too, is legitimate and necessary to concluding the full content of the story and indicating who was (and is )responsible for authorizing and designing the central crime of our unfortunate criminal age, thus bringing that age of rip-offs and deceptions to a resounding close. And more is to be gained by pooling our search and evidence. Were agents of the Israeli state responsible? Circumstantial evidence increasingly seems to indicate they may have been. But, if such is ultimately found beyond a doubt to have been the case, it won’t be “the Jews” who did it, but a security agency and its henchmen. (Some variants of Position II also still seem eminently defensible). And, of course, those inside the U.S. state and establishment who enabled others and collaborated and approved of what they did – if it turns out to have been the Israelis or other approved outsiders – still would bear the primary responsibility. Because, I don’t believe you can be charged with treason against a country and a people not your own. And yet – to coin a phrase – let’s agree to let the chips fall where they may. And with malice toward none; justice alone is enough.
Jlh / 6/11/11

Friday, June 10, 2011

Ken Jenkins Interview on Kevin Barrett Show about Citizens 911 Initiative

[The following is a communication from Ken Freeland relating to an upcoming interview. -ed]

Greetings all,

Radio host Kevin Barrett is out of the country for a week, and I responded to his invitation to guest host his show with a proposal to interview Senator Mike Gravel about the Citizens’911 Commission initiative.  Unfortunately, Senator Gravel had a subsequent change of plans, as he will need to be up in Alaska paving the way for the initiative in that key state.  So instead, I will be interviewing Ken Jenkins, a nationally noted 911 activist and filmmaker in his own right (see attached piece he authored),  and co-generator (perhaps progenitor, we’ll see!) of the Citizens 911 Commission initiative, the effort to establish a nationally supported, INDEPENDENT (of government), legally empowered Citizen’s 911 Commission.  We’ll  explicate the argument for the Initiative (the whys) and the steps that will be taken to accomplish it (the hows), as well as touching on the themes in his attached piece…why 911 Truth remains such a hard sell for so many.   Hopefully the show will inspire many listeners to support the project!
This show is intended to benefit especially 911 truth activists, so I hope that as many of you as possible will not only listen in, but dial up and join the conversation when we open the phones (if all goes well technically, and I am confident that the engineers will bring it all off without a hitch).

Kevin’s show, Truth Jihad Radio, is broadcast on a few smaller analog radio stations, but for the most part is heard live at the American Freedom Radio website:  Just click on the link that says “listen live.”  For those of you unable to join us, the show will be archived at the same site.  For those of you who can join us, the show will be live broadcast:

Ken Freeland interviews Ken Jenkins of the Citizens 911 Commission initiative, on Truth Jihad Radio on American Freedom Radio,Monday 13 June

2:00-4:00 pm EST
1:00-2:00 pm CST
12:00 noon – 1:00 pm Mountain Time
11:00 am – 12:00 noon PST
10:00 am – 11:00 am Alaska Time

Call-in instructions will be given on the show.  Again, given the vital importance of this subject to the 911 Truth movement, I hope as many of you will listen in, and call in, as possible!

Ken Freeland