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.

Sunday, July 14, 2013


WHAT’S SO UNACCEPTABLE ABOUT WHAT WE REALLY WANT? by James Hufferd, Ph.D. Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization * Can you imagine President Obama appointing a surprisingly-acceptable commission to go over all the substantive objections to the way 9/11 was handled in order to recommend, or not recommend, a whole fresh and objective re-investigation? I can. (Or, could). Regardless of his personal beliefs about the advisability of such a re-investigation (or simply, investigation), to so rule on the question would enhance his legacy for fairness – would actually place him in something of a category above and beyond his predecessors as an archon of justice and restorer of our tarnished (read trashed) justice system. While never an uncompromised supporter of Obama, neither am I a hater or believer in every innuendo or dismal supposition. I’ve never though him a sort of Manchurian candidate, but a skilled politician of middling morality who was cut a deal when unexpectedly successful by higher powers, dictating decisions in certain aspects of his mandate in exchange for his life and position – a pact accepted at the outset, reluctantly or not, by most presidents in our recent history. It remains to be seen whether he can walk the fine line all the way through, or will end up like JFK. Although, I don’t believe any president has ever been definitively terminated in his second term, Nixon was in a way. (Homework: say “definitively terminated” six times!) When Obama was freshly elected, back in 2009, some of you may remember that I wrote him a letter representing as best I could a cogent summary of the case for 9/11 Truth, and got over one-tenth of all who were on the 911 Truth Grassroots Organizers list to co-sign before mailing it to the White House. I did so because no one else thought it worthwhile to originate such direct communication. (I could see them saying later, “They never even asked us.”) And, surprisingly in retrospect, I received an answer, by telephone, via a lady in the White House Scheduling Office. I was told, simply, that “President Obama doesn’t have time to meet with you”. I then, acting on the advice of this communicant, re-sent the original communication, requesting a response to the substantive points it contained; but received none. Politically, to have re-opened (or simply opened) the process to a full investigation, or to have released it neutrally with a robust guarantee of witness protection to the regular organs of due process in the immediately-affected jurisdictions, would have been a clear winner with a public containing a large segment of doubters in the government’s recitation of events. After all, no part of our own life as a nation has suffered more of a loss from 9/11 than our presumed Constitutional guarantee of universal due process – in a way emblemic of the whole purpose of 9/11 Truth, because such would afford a means of redressing, or at least significantly addressing, all of our other losses through action of the people and organs of the people’s governance. So then, why was the matter not seen that way by Obama and the controllers of the system, if to do so would on its face have made them look so good? For the same reason that highly-placed people such as Wesley Clark, Bernie Sanders, Seymour Hersh (or substitute your candidates, if any, for probity and relative virtue if you reject mine – whom I’m not entirely certain of myself) refuse to raise a peep about 9/11. That is, because they belong to a sometimes fractious brotherhood that they themselves consider essential to the strength of the nation and so uphold, even if they don’t personally like everything it does. They’re not willing to take the risk of seeing that dark, core brotherhood ripped to shreds at the hands of a truly independent judiciary. And if a significant number of them were to step out of line, what we would have would be civil war among the powers-that-be, no doubt launching unparalleled WMD. And there’s no guarantee where something like that might lead. No, the closest we’re likely to get in the present dispensation to 9/11 Truth backers in the establishment are brave souls like Col. Bob Bowman and Peter Dale Scott. Because, for the consensus of the dark brotherhood of the leadership cabal, the last thing they want is the kind of government of, by, and for the people all of us were raised to revere – even if it was nothing but a sort of induced national wet dream to make us proud. (Don’t give up on it, but don’t die to protect what isn’t. Live to make it real!) Though a lower-level (read “ignored”) international investigation into 9/11 might be possible, as I’ve concluded many times before, our best, perhaps our only hope of triumphing is to spread the truth of the compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence until it pervades the public consciousness, displacing the increasingly-apparent bad joke of the Official Conspiracy Theory still widely voiced. And that we can continue, with ever renewed resolve, to accomplish. JH: 7/14/13

Wednesday, July 3, 2013


HUMAN NATURE, RATIONALITY, AND 9/11 ^^^ by James Hufferd, Ph.D. Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization *** To the extent that societies aren’t holding together, they’re falling apart. And if the so-called centripetal forces that bind societies, countries, and civilizations into a cohesive, manageable unit become weaker and less-binding, the centrifugal forces that simultaneously operate to force internal splits, ruptures, divisions, and ultimately fragmentation or disintegration will win the eternal tug-of-war – as happens eventually in all empires, including fairly recently in Yugoslavia and the U.S.S.R., which continually threatens India, and on at least one occasion cast into doubt the permanent cohesion of Canada and of the United States. In our current age of collective managerial consciousness, great care is taken to impose and define the basis of unity within materially-advanced societies. Social psychologist Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate notes that state- and privately-subsidized North American social research academia over many decades has ruthlessly enforced the mental paradigm of the completely programmable mind, in effect giving the master manipulators a green light to design from scratch for whole populations the sort of uniformly content-filled universal mind that will submissively favor and forward controlling objectives and agendas, and thus produce broad communities of outlook sufficient to hold their societies together and direct them as the permanent control establishment demands. We, on the other hand, who perversely think, and thus inevitably dispute the wisdom or benefit of their chosen direction, are viewed as deviants, or as a bit of removable static irritatingly complicating implementation. (The Soviets regarded their deviants as mentally disoriented or disturbed and isolated them for re-education. Likewise, perhaps, are intented the persistently-reported FEMA camps.) The mantra of the “blank slate” proponents, in effect, is “blank equals equal”. Meaning, we are all equals in important respects, because we all start out naked and equally empty-headed. By contrast, I suspect that what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he penned his famous assertion that “all” are “created equal” may have been that, by nature, there existed no divisions of humanity according to bloodline, as was an artificially maintained condition enormously affecting conditions in Britain and across Europe. And the “no-brainers” haven’t forgotten. We all recognize that other species, though displaying some differences between the behavior tendencies of individual members, display predictable species-wide regularities or traits – such as with rabbits tending to be timid and non-confrontational, horses susceptible to being spooked, and lions carnivorous and predictively aggressive. And because we’re calibrated in a certain way by our equally-distinctive DNA, physical make-up, and constraints, we humans tend to display our own broadly-shared, in-born nature, too – though also subject to individual differences. Our characteristic lack of big, sharp teeth and claws, our furless and upright vulnerability to the elements and animal (and plant) neighbors tend to make us characteristically a little more timid and cautious and a lot more cunning in order to compensate. And the fact that our existences demand daily a lot of mental activity to meet our needs by exploiting and out-competing neighbors who are often elusive or stronger or faster or better-armed by nature places stresses on us that are best resolved by borrowing devices and strategies long-since ingeniously devised by others. How many gun-owners would there be, for example, if each one had to invent and manufacture his or her own weapon? Off-the-shelf standard models and techniques serve us a lot better as a species, because we aren’t motivated or clever enough as individuals to continually improvise well enough to meet our enormous need to compensate for our physical shortcomings to compete and insure our survival. The same thing holds true of what we make of and how we respond to our cosmic and social environment(s). Precious few of us are truly free-thinkers, for example, when it comes to religious notions or politics. Here, too, it’s mostly off-the-shelf options that we adopt, to avoid having to even try to make sense of things for ourselves. It’s rather a question of what outfit’s or what set of ready-made ideas, concepts, or stories do we assent to and substitute for actually thinking and formulating for ourselves? For we are, of dire necessity, a severely collective species. (That’s why Bill Gates doesn’t drive a Gates. Yet, we 9/11 Truthers tend to blame others for not applying tried and true scientific principles to what we are accustomed to set apart and recognize as evidence, in order to test and see through the government/corporate-circulated myth designed to explain the origins and nature of the 9/11 crimes, something it never occurred to them to try to solve on their own. We usually don’t stop to reflect that most people don’t automatically stop to “think” about things we may recognize as important, but simply, unreflectively, adopt the standard, going version of what happened and what it portends – just as we all do concerning lots of other matters – if not religion and politics, then medicine and mechanics and a hundred other things we’ll never think about closely for ourselves. The only way we dedicated 9/11 Truthers can gain ground with a public that’s not accustomed to actually doing any active thinking about any public matters whatsoever, even concerning something we uniquely know needs to be correctly comprehended by our society as a whole in order to survive meaningfully and in freedom, is by continuing to poke big (expletive) holes in the demonstrably-preposterous myths spun expressly to serve as the society’s general understanding of 9/11. We’ve got to work hard and smart to convince enough people across the civilization that the conventional wisdom at least in this case is a real crock and a horrendous crime in itself. No one is going to do it for us! And I know that such can be done because it’s been done regarding other matters before (like the Warren Commission, whose findings are, pathetically, still touted obliviously today by gaggles of TV talking heads). We don’t necessarily have to convince the bulk of the population to think, especially scientifically, concerning the vital issue of what really happened on 9/11. We simply have to convince them that our general explanation is both far superior and (like it or not) true because, unlike the Official Conspiracy Theory, it fits the facts, plain and simple. The strategy of some of our own elites in the Movement of trying in particular to convince intelligent elites of the evidence of 9/11 inside crime and cover-up can only work in so far as those elites – often noted as our society’s thinkers and walking and talking repositories of knowledge – are then presumably recruited to stand as models to be emulated in their new conviction by millions of others who are not elites. It’s worth a try! But the rather conspicuous pitfall in such an otherwise-reasonable top-down strategy is that, while the luminaries being targeted might arguably be smart enough to find their way out of a paper bag, they are the most heavily and effectively incentivized people in the world not to acknowledge, and actually to ridicule, the rather easily-apprehended truth. And, so far, they have steadfastly refused to profess to seeing the light. So, to imagine for even a nanosecond that they, of all people, need to be apprised of the reality of sinister inside forces responsible is plain silly in 90%+ of cases! And presenting these targeted elites a chrome-plated, deluxe version of the plain evidence and physical facts isn’t likely to help very much. Instead, the targeted recalcitrants need to know that the public is no longer with them in their egoistic Know-nothing-ist stance. And, that, my friends, is our solemn duty to all we love and hold dear to bring about! JH / 7/03/13