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 14, 2013


Lost in a Fog by James Hufferd, Ph.D. Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization * Here’s one overwhelming, and for us daunting, reason the media’s and officialdom’s portrayal of us 9/11 Truthers as delusional flakes and babbling nut-cases often finds nodding and even scornful resonance in and with the general public: a lack of common reference. 9/11 has been very selectively, following strict instructions I’m sure, referenced by folks in these same oxygen-deprived quarters – amongst our mass society’s giant talking-head gods on Olympus. For nearly a dozen years, 9/11 along with follow-up reminders has been presented (used) as a battering ram, a cudgel, a pseudo-patriotic rallying point, and an excuse for daylight robbery of the public and closing down the controls over and latitude of citizens a little tighter and a little tighter. Never do the cyber-age gods define 9/11 or dissect it or refer to any of its details. Never have, never will unless somehow forced. As a result, in the overwhelming public mind, the whole of 9/11 today is represented by one simple cartoonish mental image, most worthy of Beep! Beep! The Road Runner: that of an airplane flying straight into a high-rise building (and its nose peeking just a bit out the other side). Over and over and over and over, it’s the same. A variety of angles, but still the same. Nothing more ever – it speaks for itself. And probably over 99% of the U.S. public, despite our best efforts to date, has never, at least since 9/11/01 itself, or maybe a day or two after, seen any other arguably genuine images of the 9/11 crimes themselves except that one and the one-day inane leaked frame of the Pentagon. And then, suddenly, out of the blue, along there comes a brave 9/11 Truther, one of us, and asks Joe or Jane Citizen if he or she is aware that controlled demolition, not airplanes, actually is responsible for the collapse of those buildings in New York? Or if he (she) is aware that neither kerosene nor office-material fires can be hot enough to melt steel? Or that those buildings fell at virtual free-fall velocity neatly into their own footprint? Or even that Building 7 wasn’t even hit but fell anyway? It’s like someone you know (or not) approaching you on the street and asking you out of the blue if you know that Johnny Jukes, suspected of murder in Tishmingo, or Baghdad, AZ, has been busted for cocaine 12 times in 2 years? Or his wife had an affair with the alleged victim? Or, what’s your take on the Hindenburg verdict? And, you wonder why people pick up on the media’s and two administrations’ suggestion that we 9/11 Truthers more than might be “crazy”? The man on the street already knows what happened on 9/11 – he’s seen it with his own eyes at least a hundred times, thank you just the same! Now, if you ask if she (he) thinks the government/media could be covering something up about what happened on 9/11, you’ll get an answer like “probably” or “it wouldn’t surprise me” a high percentage of the time. Or, also if you ask the same question about Roswell, Area 51, Cyclamates, the Fed, or possibly bed springs or meal worms in Big Macs. I’ve been astounded by the course of an online debate I’ve been carrying on for two days with a guy who derided my responses to him as “Truther tricks” and “Truther shell games”, in comments on an review of David Ray Griffin’s Cognitive Infiltration. He said that all of the contextual circumstances convinced him that Osama bin-Laden had devised and commanded the 9/11 attacks by the hijackers to bring down the buildings, just as commonly portrayed. I responded that he needed to start with the easily-available forensic evidence of the crime, which, if examined, would prove that OBL and the 19 could not possibly have brought about the physical results of 9/11 using scalpels and airplanes, and it followed that they couldn’t have accomplished that result, period. When I provided a litany of the physical evidence proving that some form of energetic demolition, and not fires or planes, would have to have been employed to destroy in the way they were the three WTC buildings, he interpreted it as a “rant”. Then, mindful that the burden of proof rests always on the affirmative, I challenged him to provide me even a single shred of evidence that clearly supported the truth of the Official Conspiracy Theory. He declined, because I’d “never accept it”, and suggested that his standard of evidence was obviously higher than mine. He swore that he had already reviewed all of the “Truther evidence”, and kept referring to the Middle East situation as tending to bear out that the designated culprits had, indeed, been guilty of the atrocity. It finally occurred to me, from his seeming refusal to deal with or coherently comment on any item in my summaries of logical reasoning from evidence, and his failure to cite any contrary evidence, that he didn’t know what the term itself “forensic evidence” meant. (In the end, he responded, “oh, do you mean the way the buildings fell or something?”) Geesh! What does it take? It takes a shared basic point of reference, for one thing – something that’s been systematically obliterated for this particular pivotal piece of the nation’s heritage in order to reshape it into the most-powerful weapon of mass destruction in existence. We have our work more than cut out for us here, too, in devising a way to locate and tap into an instant shared recognition of some kind of our common property, the basics of what happened to us. Our awareness of this massive hurdle to be overcome and our thoughtful attention to it is needed urgently if we are to move forward as effective whistleblowers. JH: 6/14/13